The core wisdom of brand crisis PR lies in:
When competing with consumers for right and wrong, even if they win the legal principles, they will lose their hearts; when competing with the public for definition, even if they win the debate, they will lose their trust.
Xibe's strong response to Luo Yonghao is like a modern version of "Don Quixote vs. Windmill". It seems brave and fearless, but in fact it is a strategic and tactical mistake, which has turned a resolvable public opinion storm into a costly brand trust crisis.
01.
Strategic misconduct:
My mistakenly regards the law as a public relations and mistakenly regards the public opinion field as a court
Xibei's biggest failure in this crisis response is that it completely confuses the essential difference between legal response and public relations response.
Legal thinking pursues accurate facts, clear definitions, and clear rights and responsibilities.
However, Public relations thinking deals with not the facts themselves, but the public's perception and emotions of the facts.
The court judgment requires conclusive evidence, but the "judgment" in the public opinion field is based on perceptual cognition and emotional resonance.
When consumers hold a plate of dishes that are expensive but tasteless but are the same as standard products in the central kitchen, they care about their own experience and wallets, rather than the academic definition of pre-made dishes by the State Administration for Market Regulation.
Sibe's fatal mistake is that it tries to convince thousands of ordinary diners with taste buds and consumption experiences with a government regulatory document. This practice of using professional definition to combat public cognition is like using an English dictionary to explain vocabulary to a group of Chinese-only people.is not only ineffective, but also highlights an elite arrogance and alienation.
What's even more unwise is that Xibei chose to directly sue a public figure who is famous for being "serious" and "eloquent". This move seems tough, but in fact it is tantamount to pouring gasoline into a fire of public opinion that is about to be extinguished.
Luo Yonghao's reward counterattack and live broadcast evidence instantly dragged Xibei into a deeper quagmire of evidence, exposing more kitchen details and supply chain information to the public's view - this is exactly the same as the PR motto: Don't fight ink war with someone who can buy a lot of ink.
02.
Cognitive gap:
The definition of arrogance and the disappearing empathy
The second fatal injury that Xibei responded was that he completely ignored the core transformation of the current Chinese consumer market: From functional consumption to emotional consumption, from brand authority to consumer sovereignty.
Jia Guolong acted like a "scientific and engineering man" who insisted on the truth, obsessed with correcting the public's "misuse" of the word "pre-made dishes". But he forgot that The essence of language is convention, not dictionary provisions.
In the public perception, "pre-made dishes" have long become a highly inclusive concept symbol, representing all non-site-made, industrialized, and standardized meal ingredients.
This battle of definition exposed Xibei's amazing ignorance of consumer psychology: What consumers really dislike is not the pre-made dishes themselves, but the sense of being deceived and deprived of the right to choose.
When consumers pay the price of "handmade" but taste the taste of "standardized prefabricated", this value gap is the root of anger.
History has proved repeatedly,The chance of winning is slim when a brand is in a definition. Just as people are still used to refer to any brand of tissues as "Jielu", and any carbonated beverage as "Cola".
The smart brand knows how to adapt rather than challenge public perception, but Xibei chose a path of confrontation with almost no chance of winning.
This cognitive arrogance eventually turns into an emotional barrier.
Xibei's response lacks understanding of consumer concerns and reflection on the possible lack of communication in his own way. The whole article is filled with a sense of superiority of "I am professional, you don't understand".
This attitude is particularly dangerous in today's consumer environment - consumers have never been as eager to be respected, heard, and treated sincerely as they are today.
03.
Lost in value:
The fundamental contradiction between high-end pricing and industrial production
The deep root of the Sibe crisis lies in the value gap between its brand commitment and actual delivery.
Xibei positions itself as a high-end catering brand, and its pricing strategy is based on traditional catering values such as "authentic", "handmade", and "craftsmanship". Consumers pay more than 60 yuan a bowl of mutton soup and more than 90 yuan a portion of beef bones. What they expect is not industrial standardized products, but a catering experience with "pot" and "human touch".
However, the internal logic of large-scale chain operations requires standardization, deskilling, and efficientness - all of which are fundamentally inconsistent with the value proposition of traditional catering.
Xibei's response completely exposed this contradiction: on the one hand, it emphasizes "on-site production" and "non-pre-packaging", and on the other hand, it has to admit the use of "pre-processed ingredients" and "standardized processes". This expression that is both necessary and necessary is more like wording skills than sincere communication to consumers.
The crisis of true wisdom should be faced with this fundamental contradiction!
Sibe could have taken this opportunity to redefine the value connotation of high-end catering - the high-end does not depend on whether to cut vegetables from scratch, but on the quality of ingredients, craftsmanship standards, taste stability and overall experience. It could have led a public discussion about the value of modern dining rather than falling into a stingy scruple of the term “pre-made dishes.”
04.
Path reconstruction:
What can Xibei do? (Discussion)
If Xibei can temporarily put down his legal weapons and defining obsession and adopt another response path, the result may be completely different:
Step 1:
Embryonic first, acknowledge the rationality of consumer concerns
Step 2:
Transparent rather than tough defense
Step 3:
Reaffirming value, focusing on quality rather than craftsmanship
Step 4:
Open interaction, change defense to open
This response not only respects consumers' right to know, but also avoids falling into disputes over terminology; maintains brand dignity and demonstrates an open attitude; not only explains its own craftsmanship, but also reaffirms its value proposition.
The essence of public relations
It is management cognition rather than fact
The case of Xibei suing Luo Yonghao may become a classic negative textbook in the history of Chinese brand crisis public relations.
Because, what PR deals with is never the facts themselves, but people's perceptions and feelings about facts.
Don't use legal thinking to solve public relations problems, it is like cutting bread with a scalpel, which is sharp but inappropriate; don't compete with consumers for right or wrong, even if you win the debate, you will lose the market.
Today's consumers live in an era of highly transparent information, and they desire sincerity, respect and transparency.
The highest level of brand crisis public relations is not to prove that one is right, but to prove that one is trustworthy; it is not to win a debate, but to win more people's hearts.
Xibei may eventually win a legal dispute with Luo Yonghao, but it has paid a heavy price for brand trust in the broader court of public opinion.
After all:In the face of crisis, arrogance is more fatal than mistakes, and sincerity is more important than right!
