Summary of Key Points
As a leading custom furniture company with annual revenues of 22.7 billion yuan, Opai Home has now encountered a series of setbacks, including a continuous decline in performance (revenue decreased by 8.94% in 2025, and net profit nearly halved in the first quarter of 2026), the closure of numerous stores (a decrease of 339 stores in one quarter), and large-scale layoffs (more than 6,000 employees laid off over two years, a 25% reduction). However, founder Yao Liangsong has taken home a total of 8.7 billion yuan in dividends since the company went public, of which 5.7 billion yuan (66.19%) went to him alone; in 2025, he received 993 million yuan, accounting for 66% of the annual dividends. Meanwhile, dealers in various regions have disappeared, leaving consumers who have paid in full unable to receive their products. The company's public relations efforts have been characterized by a three-step approach of denial, disconnection, and whitewashing to avoid the issue. A harsh statement from an internal letter that reads “those without value should be dismissed” has sparked controversy, revealing that the boss is prioritizing his own safety at the expense of employees and customers.
I. Performance Decline: Is the Ship About to Sink? First, Push Employees Overboard
Opai's “ship” is indeed sinking: revenue dropped from a peak of 22.7 billion yuan in 2025 to 17.2 billion yuan, with both revenue and net profit declining for two consecutive years. The first quarter of 2026 was even worse, with revenue falling by 23% and net profit halving. To “save the ship,” the company laid off one-quarter of its employees (over 6,000 people) over the past two years, with production and administrative positions being the hardest hit.
Layoff compensation has also been reduced: while the standard compensation is one month’s salary for each year of service, Opai only offers 0.8–0.85 times that amount. If employees refuse the compensation, they are forced to wait in reserve status, receiving only their basic salary, with the company cutting off shuttle services, dormitory accommodations, and meal subsidies—effectively forcing them to leave. Using the term “asking to leave” instead of “layoff” merely gives a veneer of respectability to this harsh treatment.
II. The Boss’s Pockets: 5.7 Billion Yuan for Personal Safety, while Employees Get Reduced Compensation
On one hand, employees are being asked to leave; on the other hand, the boss is pocketing substantial dividends:
- Since going public, Opai has distributed a total of 8.7 billion yuan in dividends, with Yao Liangsong holding 66.19% of the shares and taking home 5.7 billion yuan.
- In 2025, the company distributed 1.5 billion yuan in dividends (75% of the net profit for that year), with Yao Liangsong receiving 993 million yuan alone.
This money has gone into his personal account, regardless of whether the company’s market value shrinks by four-fifths or whether employee compensation is reduced. In simple terms: when the company makes a profit, the boss gets the biggest share; when it faces difficulties, employees bear the losses.
III. Consumers Suffer: Disappearing Dealers, Lost Payments
Opai’s crisis affects not only its employees but also consumers: dealers in Hefei, Liaocheng, and other areas have suddenly disappeared, leaving stores closed and phone lines unreachable. Many consumers who paid in full (ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of yuan) are waiting for their custom furniture but never receive it.
Opai’s headquarters and dealers have a contractual relationship rather than a direct franchise agreement, which may legally exempt them from responsibility, but morally, they cannot escape their consequences. Consumers paid for the Opai brand, only to lose both their money and their products. This is even more disheartening than layoffs, as employees at least receive some compensation, while consumers suffer total losses.
IV. Public Relations Tactics: Denial, Disconnection, and Whitewashing, Ignoring Employees and Consumers
After the public outcry, Opai’s PR response was a classic example of avoiding the issue:
1. Denial: They claimed that the leaked internal letter images contained spelling mistakes and were of unknown origin, without denying the layoffs themselves.
2. Disconnection: They described the internal letter as an “internal document” whose details would be revealed in the annual report, delaying responsibility by shifting blame to a “data leak.”
3. Whitewashing: They hastily held a shareholders’ meeting and changed the purpose of the share repurchase from “stock incentive” to “share cancellation and reduction,” making the remaining shares more valuable, ostensibly to boost investor confidence—but this has nothing to do with employees or consumers.
Throughout the entire process, there was not a single apology for employees or consumers; their concerns were completely ignored in favor of maintaining the stock price.
V. The Harsh Internal Letter: Measuring People by “Value”—A Bare Declaration of Business Darwinism
The title of the internal letter, “Those without value should not have a place,” treats employees as replaceable parts of the company. This logic embodies the principles of “business Darwinism,” focusing solely on profit and disregarding human relationships.
Ironically, boss Yao Liangsong has already secured his own safety (with 5.7 billion yuan in dividends), while employees are left to fend for themselves. The so-called effort to “save the ship” actually protects the boss’s interests, not the well-being of the employees. The so-called “sharing hardships” only applies to employees, as the boss enjoys the benefits during difficult times.
Conclusion
Opai’s story serves as a stark reflection of the cruel reality in some companies: when “value” is placed above human considerations and employees and consumers are treated as mere pawns, even if the ship does not sink immediately, it will eventually lose public support.