![]() This seemed to be supported when Li Yi, a consultant to the Ministry of Information wrote on Weibo that CCTV's priority should be to "protect domestic consumers from the bullying of foreign brands" and that "at the same time, domestic products also should get stronger". Most recently, a Korean electronics giant, Samsung, sent “deep apologies for causing inconvenience to its customers” after CCTV claimed that it had been selling faulty smartphones in China, despite no confirmation of the alleged faults.įoreign critics have pointed out that the national media increasingly resembles a consumer advocacy body. Adverse publicity over food scares this year has also significantly impacted Yum, owner of the KFC brand and a New Zealand-based dairy giant, Fonterra. In July, Danone and Nestle cut baby formula prices by as much as 20%, after the official People’s Daily newspaper claimed that regulators had evidence of price-fixing. In April, Apple CEO Tim Cook apologised and changed Apple’s warranty terms in China after a CCTV campaign reported that broken iPhone claims were handled differently in China than elsewhere. In fact the phrase “one is willing to hit, the other to be hurt” may be more suitable to illustrate China's recent relationship with a number of foreign brands who have taken a public flogging, whether justified or not. Starbucks are also not breaking any rules in setting a high price for their coffee, and consumers have plenty of choices elsewhere. ![]() Public apologiesĪcquiring a grande latte is hardly a burning issue in China and a visit to the ubiquitous Taiwanese chain 85☌ would yield a take-away version for less than one-half of the Starbucks price (Rmb13). Whether it was an act of defiance or the innocent result of neglect is hard for authorities to determine, just as China’s critics may never know if the media attack on Starbucks originated from within government. And, in what it claims was an inadvertent move, Starbuck’s official page on Chinese microblogging platform Weibo the next day featured a picture that was interpreted by many followers as a veiled censor-evading insult directed at CCTV. Starbucks China’s head office in Shanghai was understandably dismissive when approached by CCTV journalists. Despite this, the CCTV report was ridiculed by the foreign media as nationalist posturing by a state-controlled network. Aside from Starbucks, data cited from SmithStreet, a Chinese consulting firm, compared the prices of 500 items across 50 clothing brands and found them, on average, to be priced 70% higher in China than the US. The story found that internet use and foreign travel is increasing price awareness among consumers, and that many items are pricier in China than elsewhere. In fact, the current round of Starbucks-bashing (dubbed “fierce-gate” since the CCTV airing) originated in a September story on the Chinese website of the Wall Street Journal. The comparatively high price of Starbucks in China has, for years, been targeted by the media, but this was the first time the issue made national television. It also cited an old Chinese phrase to describe the relationship: “one is willing to hit, the other to be hurt”, in reference to an episode from the historical epic tale "The Three Kingdoms", in which one character is publicly flogged by his ally to fool enemies into believing his subsequent feigned defection. The investigation linked high prices to the company’s “fierce” profit margins in Asia and to Chinese customers “blind faith” in foreign brands at any price. ![]() It often indicates a user profile.Ĭhina Central Television (CCTV) recently broadcast a 22-minute “special investigation” into why a medium latte at Starbucks in Beijing costs Rmb27 (US$4.43), one-third more than in Chicago. Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |