In March of this year, a marketing phrase from a Logitech authorized operator — "When I cut the price, won't you come running like a dog?" — sparked widespread backlash from netizens.
Logitech (China) Technology Co., Ltd. and the involved operator, Shanghai Best Electronic Co., Ltd., each issued apology statements.
In July, Shanghai Best was fined 200,000 yuan by the Shanghai Jing'an District Market Supervision Administration for publishing a video advertisement containing insulting text.
On November 2, the controversy erupted again. Nearly ten trending topics surged onto search rankings, including "Why can't Logitech's layers of review stop a dog?", "Logitech ad accused of insulting users again", "Logitech boycotted by netizens", and "Logitech picks a fight with users."
The trigger was another Logitech authorized store's recent mouse marketing short video featuring a puppy emoji: the puppy waves its paw to show disinterest at "100 yuan off"; but when "60% off after coupon, yours for under 300" appears, the puppy's eyes light up immediately, with the caption "Sharp judge of character."
Seemingly just a meme, it is essentially a variation of the previous inappropriate copy, using metaphor to belittle consumers waiting for discounts.
China is Logitech's second-largest single-country market after the United States, and the company has continued to reap market dividends thanks to the support of a large number of Chinese consumers.
Three questions for Logitech: While making big money in the Chinese market, why does it repeatedly humiliate Chinese consumers?
First question: Are the rectification promises merely surface-level efforts to quell public opinion? In the previous wave of backlash, the company attributed the problem to unauthorized posting by a代运营 and review oversight, and stated in black and white in its apology that it would "deeply review its management of authorized stores' marketing behavior and resolutely prevent such incidents from happening again." Yet four months after the 200,000 yuan penalty, the same offensive logic has resurfaced in a different form. Where is the management effort? What has been prevented? Deleting videos, issuing apology statements, holding partners accountable — this crisis PR playbook that even the public knows by heart — is it merely Logitech's surface-level response to public opinion?
Second question: Is "a big store bullying customers" the "authorized" marketing philosophy? Relying on the Chinese market for revenue yet repeatedly mocking consumers through marketing metaphors, with every incident "originating from authorized stores" — is "a big store bullying customers" the "authorized" marketing philosophy? Transactions are meant to be equal two-way exchanges. Comparing prices, waiting for discounts, and choosing the right price are perfectly normal rational choices. Consumers pay, brands provide products — there is no hierarchy between the two. Having established itself in the market through the spending of China's vast user base, yet in its marketing narrative, it portrays ordinary people who carefully calculate and wait for discounts as mercenary and mockable figures. Prices can be adjusted and fluctuate — but does personal dignity also have room for negotiation?
Third question: Are authorized channels a natural shield from liability? Commercial agency operations are not uncommon; what is uncommon is that whenever something goes wrong, the brand shifts responsibility to the agency operator. Last time it was Shanghai Best that was penalized; this time Logitech customer service responded that it is investigating the authorized store involved. Though there is no official statement, one still wants to ask: Are authorized channels your natural shield from liability? Agency-operated accounts carry the company's brand identity, so the brand should exercise unified and standardized management. Marketing strategies and scripts should have unified standards, and review mechanisms and processes should share the same criteria. Can ordinary users really distinguish between the parent company and the agency operator? In the last apology statement, the company said it "always respects every player." This time customer service emphasized respecting players. If so-called "respecting players" is the brand value proposition, then that proposition clearly has not been transmitted to every checkpoint of front-end marketing. With this kind of "respect on paper," who knows how many more agency operators will continue to "offend" Chinese consumers in other forms, and how many more blame will be placed on China's agency operators!
China has two idioms about the way of marketing, differing by one character but with completely opposite meanings. One is "seeing profit and thinking of righteousness" from Confucius' Analects, which emphasizes upholding moral bottom lines when seeking profit. The other is "seeing profit and forgetting righteousness" from Ban Gu's Book of Han in the Eastern Han dynasty, which criticizes those who care only about profit and have no sense of loyalty. Borrowing e-commerce marketing language as a friendly reminder: Dear, if you want to deeply cultivate the Chinese market and gain long-term market support, we suggest you study Chinese culture well and learn to truly respect Chinese consumers!
Comments