Investing should be based on the research reports of Golden麒麟 analysts, which are authoritative, professional, timely, and comprehensive, helping you uncover potential thematic opportunities! Recently, JD.com's founder Richard Liu has once again been delivering New Year goods to his hometown folks in Guangming Village, Suqian. Almost every online post about this has been met with overwhelmingly positive feedback.

Since 2015, "Brother Dong" (Richard Liu) has been showing care for his hometown folks every year before the Spring Festival, a consistent act of kindness for over a decade. Besides not forgetting his fellow villagers after achieving wealth, Brother Dong has consistently appeared genuine and sincere on various occasions. For instance, he has been seen treating delivery workers to meals by the roadside, and at a wine tasting event, he personally toasted with real liquor at each of the 15 tables.

For such a wealthy magnate to be as straightforward as the guy next door is remarkable. Gradually, people have forgotten that the current Brother Dong was the same person who found himself in an embarrassing situation in the United States back on September 2, 2018. The current mood of Xibei's boss, Jia Guolong, is likely as dismal as Brother Dong's was in Minnesota in 2018. Old Jia has been resentfully complaining, much like the literary character Xianglin's Wife, "I don't understand public relations; I am just someone who works steadfastly in industry and service. Does it mean that ordinary people in this world who don't know how to quibble should be bullied?"

This statement strikes a chord. It highlights a current reality: some entrepreneurs feel wronged because they see themselves as "honest people" who focus on实干 (doing solid work); while some netizens feel angry, perceiving this as arrogant bosses making excuses. So where exactly does the problem lie? First, I would like to say to the bosses who feel aggrieved: I understand your sense of powerlessness. In the past, the power of discourse was held by major platforms; companies only needed to manage a few key nodes to control their reputation. But now things have changed; we have entered an era of "technological empowerment" and "emotional empowerment." The emotions of any ordinary individual, if they tap into a societal pain point, can potentially erupt instantly. In this environment, the attitude of some netizens towards entrepreneurs is often "emotion first." When entrepreneurs try to reason, using rigid PR rhetoric to counter emotions, netizens might perceive it as "whitewashing" or making excuses; while entrepreneurs feel bullied, netizens might see it as arrogance. We must admit that sometimes the court of public opinion is indeed not entirely fair, and can even be filled with irrationality. In this "post-truth" era, emotions spread far faster than fact-checking. Look at the controversy surrounding Xibei's "pre-made dishes": the founder Jia Guolong personally stepped in to confront critics head-on, even threatening lawsuits. What was the result? Public anger was thoroughly ignited, and daily revenue plummeted. But does this mean that companies can only be at the mercy of external emotions? Absolutely not. Often, PR failures occur not because they "failed to deceive everyone," but because they attempted to manipulate public opinion. Take, for example, Arc'teryx setting off fireworks in the Himalayas while promoting values of "reverence for nature" – this contradiction between words and actions creates a sense of "betrayal," which is the real reason for the backlash. In the age of big data, no one should attempt to use PR techniques to cover up flaws in their values. Under the microscope of public sentiment, any hint of hypocrisy will be instantly deconstructed and rapidly disproven. Similarly, there is an unhelpful tendency nowadays called the "omnipotence of PR theory" or the "PR scapegoat theory." It is crucial to clarify that companies should not simply "lie down and accept criticism," but there must be boundaries to explanation and counter-attacks. If netizens complain that your product doesn't taste good or that your service attitude is poor, even if delivered emotionally or harshly, this falls within consumers exercising their right to supervision. In such cases, companies can only listen, accept, and improve. The PR response here can only be communication and improvement. However, if the accusations are fabricated out of thin air, such as malicious slander like "Chai Duidui accusing Pang Donglai of passing off inferior jade as high-quality," then it is no longer a PR issue, but a legal one. The law and product quality are a company's ultimate line of defense, not PR. It is crucial not to confuse the two. Using the law to suppress legitimate consumer criticism is bullying; using PR to cover up illegal flaws is fraud. Having observed many cases, I have found a simple truth: "Empathy" and "action" can cut through the fog of irrationality. Sincerity is the best public relations. Look at Haidilao's response to the "urination incident." Facing an extreme food safety crisis, they did not make excuses or shift blame to temporary workers. Instead, they issued an apology within 3 hours and offered 10-fold compensation. Why did this work? Because they correctly read the public's情绪 (sentiment). In such situations,超额 (above-and-beyond) action (compensation and rectification) is the best sedative.

Consider Pang Donglai's case. When faced with质疑 (doubts), they directly presented inspection reports, and the boss even shed tears during a live stream. Where is the PR technique in that? This transparent approach helped build trust with the public. The primary task of public relations is not to talk your way out of a situation, but to "set your heart right and do things properly." I recently came across a fitting metaphor: genuine PR is like the down inside a down jacket, not the conspicuous logo on the outside. The logo is the outward-facing facade, the marketing, the carefully curated social media profile; the down is the inner lining next to the skin, the unseen warmth, the tangible values. When you encounter a crisis and are unsure how to respond, don't think about fancy rhetoric. Instead, pause and ask yourself: If I were an honest, decent, and responsible person, what would be the right thing to do? In this noisy era, we cannot change the direction of public opinion, but we can decide our own posture. For ordinary people, while venting emotions is understandable, it's also important to leave a little room for rationality. After all, many situations are complex, and we often only see one side. Not every explanation is an attempt to cover up. For entrepreneurs, please remember: "Working steadfastly in实业 (substantive business)" is the fundamental basis for your existence, not a weapon to use against public opinion. I believe that understanding PR does not mean learning to quibble诡辩, but learning to respect. Respect the emotions of every consumer, respect common sense, and respect contracts. If entrepreneurs want to learn from Brother Qiangdong (Richard Liu), they must first shift from control to empathy, from事后补救 (post-facto remediation) to事前融入 (proactive integration). More importantly, they should learn the following core principles: 1. Cognitive Reframing – Deeply understand that "emotional value" is the core currency of public sentiment in the new era. Public opinion is no longer just about information dissemination; it is an arena for emotional interaction and value resonance. The public consumes not only information during events but also emotional release, moral judgment, and identity affirmation. First, learn to identify emotional signals and distinguish between factual质疑 (queries) and emotional dissatisfaction (e.g., feelings of being ignored, unfairness, or lack of security). Scrutinize whether corporate actions create positive emotional value (trust, pride, warmth) or trigger negative emotional drain (disappointment, anger, betrayal). 2. Mindset Shift – Evolve from a "defender" role to a "co-builder" role. Abandon the defensive mentality of "covering up" or merely "issuing statements." Adopt an open, transparent, and humble posture, treating public sentiment responses as an opportunity to修复关系 (repair relationships) and重建信任 (rebuild trust) with the public. Initial responses should convey "awareness and high priority," but more importantly, leave room for "investigating the truth and taking responsible action," avoiding empty talk. In major events involving emotional harm, having the entrepreneur or top leader personally apologize and communicate carries far greater emotional weight than an official statement. 3. Capability Evolution – Build organizational capacity for emotional response. Managing public sentiment is no longer the孤军奋战 (lonely battle) of the PR department; it is a core management capability requiring executive understanding,全员共识 (organization-wide consensus), and systemic support. This includes conducting public sentiment literacy training for senior management, equipping them with basic emotional communication skills and risk awareness; establishing internal early warning and authorization mechanisms, creating rapid internal reporting channels from frontline employees to headquarters, and granting frontline staff certain discretionary powers for response within defined limits; and instituting review and learning mechanisms, conducting non-blaming internal reviews after major public sentiment events to convert lessons into improvements in systems, processes, or training. In the public sentiment society dominated by emotional value, the highest realm of entrepreneurial crisis management is aligning the company's daily actions with the public's emotional expectations, making corporate values a stabilizer for societal emotions, not a detonator. Because, in a world full of shrewd calculations,笨拙的真诚 (clumsy sincerity) often proves to be the most reliable passport.