Why Did Mr. Wildman’s “Silence” Lead to an Increase in Followers Despite Luo Yonghao’s Criticism of Its Ice Cream as “Tasteless”?
Hello everyone, I’m your financial journalist. Today, we’re not talking about candlestick charts or macroeconomic policies; instead, let’s discuss a rather interesting topic that’s been trending recently: Luo Yonghao criticized Mr. Wildman’s ice cream as being tasteless, but the brand didn’t say a word, and instead, netizens started flooding the comments with requests for the brand to remain silent. In the end, the brand’s followers even increased.
At first glance, this seems counterintuitive. In the past, when a big influencer criticized a brand, the brand would quickly issue a statement, provide test reports, or even send legal notices. So why did this “cold approach” turn out to be a victory?
As an economist, I see this as reflecting a new strategy that Chinese consumer brands are adopting to deal with crises. Let’s break down this news into five key points to explain in plain language.
1. Why was “silence” the smartest choice? – Because “tastelessness” can’t be proven in court
First, we need to understand what Luo Yonghao actually said. He said, “It’s quite average, even tasteless; much worse than Zhong Xuegao’s.”
Note that he didn’t claim that Mr. Wildman used expired ingredients or that the hygiene standards were not met; he didn’t make any factual accusations that could be refuted by laboratory data. His comments were purely subjective.
It’s like someone saying your food is too salty, and you can’t reply, “According to national standards, this level of saltiness is legal,” because there are no national standards for what’s “tasty” or “tasteless.”
- If the brand responded: “Our ice cream is actually delicious; it’s your taste that’s the problem.” – This would put the brand on the same level as the consumer in a argument, which seems unprofessional and only makes them look more guilty.
- If the brand provided reports: “Look, our sugar and fat content are within the limits.” – This is a “self-justification trap.” Consumers want the product to be tasty, not just compliant with regulations, so such a response misses the point.
Therefore, Mr. Wildman’s silence was a tactical decision. Since they can’t win in the subjective realm of taste, they chose not to engage in the argument. Lawyers also say that subjective evaluations don’t constitute a violation of rights, so there’s no need for the brand to prove their innocence over a matter of taste.
2. Why did netizens collectively defend the brand? – They’re tired of PR battles
The most interesting aspect is that tens of thousands of people posted on Mr. Wildman’s official Weibo account, asking, “Don’t respond, don’t respond, don’t respond” (a reference from the novel *The Three-Body Problem*), meaning don’t reveal any information.
This shows that the public is tired of the “influencer vs. brand” battles. In the past, people enjoyed watching the intense reactions; now, they dislike the artificial PR responses. When the brand chose a calm, non-confrontational approach, netizens found it interesting and even saw it as a sign of confidence: “Even Luo Yonghao criticized them, and they didn’t respond—maybe they know what they’re doing, or maybe they don’t care about such a small issue.”
This “cold approach” creates a sense of mystery and resilience in the emotional online environment, which is valuable. Netizens helped boost the brand’s popularity by showing that it remained composed despite the criticism, suggesting the brand has substance.
3. Did Mr. Wildman really do nothing? – It actually took three very strategic actions
The article says Mr. Wildman adopted a “cold approach,” but that doesn’t mean they did nothing. They made three restrained yet precise moves:
1. Standard customer service response: “The issue will be recorded and reported to the management.”
- Interpretation: “I heard you, but I won’t argue with you now; we’ll handle it internally.” This avoids denial or admission and simply shifts the issue to the company’s processes.
2. Stress on “made fresh on the same day” in stores:
- Interpretation: This was the only positive statement during the crisis. They didn’t defend the taste but emphasized freshness. Why? Because while taste is subjective, lack of freshness is an objective issue. By focusing on safety and freshness, they protected a strong point without engaging in a debate.
3. Employee response: ‘I don’t know who Luo Yonghao is’: Many might see this as funny, but I see it as a sign of professionalism. The employee’s job is to sell ice cream; their KPIs are sales and service, not to know famous influencers. This attitude of treating all customers equally shows respect for regular consumers. It shows that the brand doesn’t lower its standards just because of one critic’s opinion.
4. The lesson from Xibei: Why did a confrontational approach cost so much?
The article mentions Xibei, which closed 102 stores in the first quarter and lost over 600 million yuan due to a controversy over pre-made dishes. This teaches brands that in emotional public opinion, factual correctness often loses to emotional perceptions.
- Xibei’s mistake: They tried to use facts (we don’t use pre-made dishes) to counter emotions (I think you’re lying), but consumers want respect, not facts.
- Mr. Wildman’s approach: They realized that tastelessness is a subjective issue, so they didn’t try to refute it with facts but instead used silence and quality service to address the issue.
However, Xibei’s experience also shows that silence only works for subjective issues; it won’t solve problems related to objective facts. If Mr. Wildman were found to have used expired ingredients or poor hygiene, silence would be detrimental.
5. Silence is a tactic, not a shield: What are Mr. Wildman’s real vulnerabilities?
This is the crucial point. Mr. Wildman won this round, but is the brand really safe? Not yet.
The article points out three major vulnerabilities that, if addressed, could be fatal:
1. Price and value for money: Ice cream priced at 28-38 yuan per scoop faces competition based on cost-effectiveness. Silence won’t solve the problem of being expensive.
2. Franchise trust crisis: Over 80% of its stores are franchises, with milk powder pre-made in a central factory and then freshly made on-site. Consumers have found frozen milk powder with a six-month shelf life. If the “fresh on the same day” claim is contradicted by this, the brand’s silence would look like a admission of guilt.
3. Regulatory and compliance risks: The company has a small staff and few insured employees, but many stores. This structure poses significant compliance risks in stricter regulatory environments.
Conclusion:
- In taste disputes: Silence is a tactical move because it’s subjective and can lead to arguments.
- In price, franchise, and compliance issues: Silence implies guilt, as these are objective, verifiable, and critical to a brand’s survival.
Lessons for everyone:
- For brands: Don’t assume that silence is always the solution. Determine whether the criticism is about your attitude/taste (which can be handled calmly) or your core values/compliance (which requires a strong response).
- For consumers: Don’t rush to side with a brand when an influencer criticizes it. See if the brand responds with arrogance or restraint. If it’s the latter, be patient; after all, tastelessness is just a matter of taste.
- For investors/observers: Watch Mr. Wildman’s next moves. If they continue to ignore issues like price, franchise management, and compliance, their temporary popularity might be their last highlight.
In summary, silence can avoid immediate criticism, but it can’t hide problems like high prices or compliance issues. Mr. Wildman won this round with strategy, but they still have a long way to go in terms of overall management.