Summary of Key Points
In the second season of the "Bamboo Cicada" incident, despite the official media's advice that "strong companies should be open to discussion," the company did not resolve the controversy but instead launched a counterattack against public opinion. They labeled netizens' playful use of the "Bamboo Cicada" toy to mock the company's exaggerated marketing as "cyberbullying" and "damage to the business environment," and even cited legal policies to support their stance. However, this approach was a classic example of short-sighted public relations strategy. While they may have temporarily silenced criticism, their misinterpretation of concepts, double standards in their use of language, manipulation of algorithms to create a "silence effect," and failure to understand the official's good intentions pushed the brand into an even deeper crisis, ultimately losing public goodwill.
1. Conceptual Misplacement: Turning Humor into Business Damage
The Central Internet Information Office's initiative to "improve the business environment" was intended to protect companies from malicious PR attacks and false rumors (such as claiming a company was on the verge of bankruptcy). Yet, the company's PR team wrongly linked ordinary netizens' humor—using a cheap "Bamboo Cicada" toy to mock the company's slogan "Preferably under 10 million"—to "damaging the private economy." In other words, when a company boasts to attract attention and is laughed at, it uses national policies as a shield, claiming that others are harming it. This is like a child who, after boasting and being mocked, cries out, "I'll tell the teacher you're bullying me"—a clear case of misplacing the context to intimidate others.
2. Double Standards in Language Use
What infuriates the public most is the company's use of double standards:
- Corporate executives make exaggerated statements at press conferences (e.g., "Preferably under 10 million"), which the PR team welcomes as good publicity and free traffic.
- When netizens use the "Bamboo Cicada" toy to tease these claims, the PR team immediately reacts harshly, citing the Civil Code to accuse them of being "unforgiving" and "breaking the law." In other words, they want all the benefits (the traffic) but refuse to accept any criticism. Such a brand, which once was a source of national pride, becomes one that people avoid.
3. The Magic of Numbers: 171 Complaints and the Silence Effect
PR teams claim, "We monitored 56,000 pieces of content online and only received 171 complaints, showing restraint." This is a trick with numbers. Platform algorithms now assume that any content related to "Bamboo Cicada" is risky if a few influential creators (e.g., popular bloggers) file complaints, automatically limiting or downgrading its visibility. Thus, 171 complaints can silence all discussions about the brand. Although fewer negative videos appear, public dissatisfaction remains unexpressed—like being silenced, only making them angrier.
4. Misinterpreting Signals: Refusing to Accept Consequences
The official media's advice was an opportunity for the company to show humility. For example, a self-deprecating video about using the "Bamboo Cicada" toy or a promotional giveaway could have turned the situation into a positive experience, boosting public goodwill. Instead, the PR team chose to confront netizens legally and suppress content, which may silence criticism in the short term but makes the brand appear "arrogant" and unsympathetic in the long run. Brand dignity comes from the quality of its products and respect for the public; the more you try to suppress criticism, the more it makes you seem guilty.
In Conclusion
The company's PR team thought they won the battle for public opinion, but in reality, they lost what is most valuable: the trust and goodwill of the people. Public trust and affection are far more important than temporary control over public opinion.