Luo Yonghao's Criticism of "Mr. Wildman": A Social Experiment on "Voice Power" and "Rationality"
Hello everyone, I'm your financial journalist. Today, we're not going to talk about something as simple as whether ice cream tastes good or not, but rather about a profound discussion sparked by a Weibo post from Luo Yonghao, which revolves around traffic, brands, public opinion, and the rationality of ordinary people.
The core argument in this article is quite sharp: Luo Yonghao certainly has the right to say that something tastes bad, but he is not an "ordinary consumer"; every word he says carries significant weight due to his influence. Whether this incident turns into a valuable form of supervision or a indiscriminate form of online violence depends not on Luo Yonghao or Mr. Wildman, but on us, who are just watching from the sidelines.
Below, I will break down this long article into five parts to explain the intricacies behind it in plain language.
---
1. Identity Displacement: Why Can't Luo Yonghao's Criticisms Be Treated as Ordinary Ones?
Many people think, "I paid for it, so I have the right to say it tastes bad—what makes Luo Yonghao special?"
Indeed, legally speaking, Luo Yonghao is just a customer who has the right to express his opinion. However, the article points out a crucial difference: the identity of a "consumer" in Luo Yonghao's case is combined with the role of a communication channel.
- The scope of an ordinary person's criticism is limited: If you think ice cream tastes bad at the airport and complain to a friend, the friend might just shrug their shoulders, and the issue is quickly forgotten.
- The scope of Luo Yonghao's criticism is nationwide: His post is picked up by dozens of media outlets, becomes a trending topic, and the brand has to immediately meet to decide how to respond.
Core Logic:
This isn't something Luo Yonghao does on purpose; it's determined by the structure of attention. It has been repeatedly proven that whenever he speaks, the media follows. So, the same statement—"tastes bad"—when made by an ordinary person, is just an expression of emotion, but when made by him, it becomes a public event.
Since the consequences (brand damage, public opinion backlash) fall on the brand, he can't simply use the excuse, "I'm just an ordinary consumer" to absolve himself of responsibility. It's like someone with a loudspeaker; even if they just hum, everyone around has to cover their ears. You can't say, "I just hummed, I didn't mean to disturb you."
2. Rights and Value: Should We Tell Him to Shut Up Because of His Influence?
Just because Luo Yonghao has a large following, does that mean we should make him stop speaking? The article provides a strong counterargument: We can't deprive people of the right to speak just because it's troublesome.
Here, two things need to be distinguished:
1. Do they have the right to speak? Yes, that's a matter of freedom of speech.
2. Should they use their words wisely? Yes, that's a matter of morality and professional ethics.
The article uses a clever analogy: Luo Yonghao is like a kind of civilian "peacekeeper."
- A peacekeeper doesn't have the power to enforce the law, but they have credibility, and their presence determs wrongdoing.
- Luo Yonghao doesn't have the power to punish, but he has the ability to bring issues to light.
Why is this ability important?
Think about the previous incident with Xibei's prepared meals. Prepared meals have existed for a long time, and people privately complained about them, but no one took it seriously. It wasn't until Luo Yonghao brought it to the forefront that the industry began to address the issues.
Core Logic:
If society only relies on ordinary people to complain privately without channels to amplify those complaints, many industry issues will remain unsolved. Luo Yonghao is willing to take the risk of being criticized or sued to speak out, and this cost of supervision is significant. Silencing all influential individuals is the laziest and most harmful approach. We need this "noise" to drive industry improvement.
3. Where Are the Boundaries? "Subjective Feelings" and "Objective Accusations" Cannot Be Confused
This is the most interesting and practical part of the article. Luo Yonghao's comments mixed two different things:
1. Subjective evaluations (safe zone):
- "Very average," "Tastes bad," "Tastes worse than Zhong Xuegao."
- These are personal taste judgments that cannot be proven wrong. If you think it tastes bad, that's your opinion, and lawyers would agree that this doesn't constitute a violation of rights.
2. Objective questions (danger zone):
- "How did it become so popular?"
- Note that this is not a genuine question but a conclusion framed as one. The underlying message is, "It shouldn't have become popular; there must be something fishy/marketing gimmicks/at luck behind it."
Core Logic:
Saying ice cream tastes bad is evaluating a specific product (the consumer experience).
Asking "how it became popular" is evaluating the company's business strategies (which requires evidence).
Business judgments need evidence. Mr. Wildman has been in the industry for over a decade, with more than 1,400 stores and products priced in the 30s. Its popularity has market logic (such as value for money, distribution channels, etc.). When Luo Yonghao uses a casual question to imply that the company lacks integrity, he crosses the line.
Advice for Influencers:
The greater your influence, the higher the standard for accuracy. You can say, "I don't like it" (subjective), but if you want to question the company's business model (objective), you need to provide evidence and be prepared for different outcomes. Otherwise, your question will be taken as a verdict by the public.
4. The Ultimate Variable: Are We Rational People?
The article concludes with a poignant and fundamental question: Who decides the outcome of all this? The answer is us, the onlookers.
Here's a harsh choice:
- Scenario A: We are rational.
When we see Luo Yonghao saying something tastes bad, we think, "Oh, he doesn't like it." Then we try it ourselves. If we also find it bad, Luo Yonghao saves us some money; if we like it, the post is useless to us.
- Result: Luo Yonghao acts as a supervisor, and the information remains just information.
- Scenario B: We are irrational (following blindly).
When we see Luo Yonghao saying something tastes bad, we immediately conclude, "If even Luo Yonghao says so, there must be a problem; it must be a scam/marketing gimmick." Once the brand responds, we call them "evasive" or "washing their dirty laundry."
- Result: Luo Yonghao becomes a tool, and the information becomes a weapon. The brand doesn't even get a chance to defend themselves because public opinion is irrational.
The truth behind netizens' pleas for silence:
When netizens advise brands not to respond, they admit that our rationality is lacking. We can't distinguish between facts and emotions and only recognize the label "Luo Yonghao."
Core Logic:
A society's tolerance for certain statements is directly proportional to its average level of rationality.
- If everyone verifies the information themselves, influencers act as peacekeepers.
- If everyone waits for others to make decisions for them, influencers become tyrants of traffic, and they themselves can be driven by this irrational crowd.
5. Conclusion: Next Time You See Something Tasted Bad, Please Try It Yourself
Back to the initial question: Does Luo Yonghao's criticism count as a normal consumer evaluation?
The answer is: It's a consumer evaluation, but not a normal consumption behavior.
- To Luo Yonghao: Your rights are valid, and so is your influence. You must be responsible for the accuracy of your statements and not mislabel your subjective feelings as objective accusations.
- To Mr. Wildman: Don't pity yourself. With over 1,400 stores, you're no longer a small vendor. Handling public opinion well is a basic skill for a brand. Netizens who advise you not to respond are actually underestimating you, as if you should just shrink back in the face of public opinion.
- To us (ordinary people): This is the most important point.
Next time you see an influential person saying something tastes bad or has issues, do this:
- Remember their comment and then try the product yourself or look into it.
- If you find they're wrong, the post is worthless to you.
- If you find they're right, the post saves you some money.
- Both outcomes are acceptable.
- The only bad outcome is if you never try the product, but from then on, you form a preconceived opinion about it every time you pass by the store.
Supervisors are such because their words can withstand independent verification. In an era of information overload, maintaining the habit of verifying information ourselves is our last line of defense against the influence of mass media and the loss of independent thinking.