品牌被罗永浩骂了怎么办?答案是:别说话

持续日更，学英语，看世界

点击下方👇“Lee解英文”关注公众号

我们一起坚持

中英文对照版本（机器翻译，仅供参考）：

When Luo Yonghao Says Your Ice Cream Is Bad, the Smartest Move Is Silence

Journal

One Tweet, Two Reactions

On September 12, 2026, Luo Yonghao posted on Weibo.

2026年9月12日，罗永浩在微博发文。

“I tried the suddenly famous Mr. Wildman at the airport. It’s pretty average. Considering the price, you could even say it’s bad. How did it become so popular? It feels much worse than Zhong Xue Gao. I miss Zhong Xue Gao.”

“我在机场尝了突然爆火的野人先生冰淇淋，味道很普通。结合价格来看，甚至可以说不好吃。它怎么火起来的？感觉比钟薛高差远了，有点怀念钟薛高。”

Normally, a brand’s PR team would hold an emergency meeting. But the first people to panic were not the brand. They were the netizens.

一般情况下，品牌公关团队会立刻召开紧急会议。但最先慌的不是品牌方，而是网友。

The comments did not fill up with “Support Wildman” or “Support Luo.” They filled up with “Don’t answer,” “Pretend you didn’t see it,” and “Do not respond.” Some users quoted The Three-Body Problem: “Do not answer. Do not answer. Do not answer.”

评论区里没有满屏的“支持野人先生”或者“支持罗永浩”，反而都是“别回应”“假装没看见”“不要接话”。还有网友引用《三体》里的台词：“不要回答，不要回答，不要回答。”

The internet was more anxious than the brand. That anxiety pointed to one name: Xibei.

网友比品牌还要紧张。这份紧张，源于一个名字：西贝。

Xibei’s 102 Stores

In September 2025, Luo Yonghao posted that Xibei was “almost entirely pre-made dishes, and so expensive, it’s disgusting.”

2025年9月，罗永浩发文称西贝“几乎全是预制菜，还卖得这么贵，很离谱”。

Xibei founder Jia Guolong fought back. He threatened to sue Luo for 10 million yuan, mobilized 18,000 employees to “fight online black mouths,” and released Luo’s consumption records.

西贝创始人贾国龙选择正面反击。他扬言起诉罗永浩索赔1000万元，动员1.8万名员工“网战黑粉”，还公开了罗永浩的消费记录。

1.black mouths污蔑者

The result was an apology letter, a 20% price cut, and 102 stores closed in the first quarter of 2026. About 4,000 employees were affected. Severance paymentswere delayed until 2028.

最后的结果是：一封道歉信、菜品降价20%，2026年第一季度关停102家门店，约4000名员工受到影响，员工补偿金拖延至2028年才兑付。

2.severance payments离职补偿金；员工遣散费

After 100 days of silence, Jia said in an interview: “My main mistake was choosing to fight head-on. If I could choose again, I would absolutely not fight head-on.”

沉寂百日之后，贾国龙在采访中表示：“我最大的错误就是选择正面硬刚。如果重来一次，我绝对不会硬碰硬。”

3.fight head-on正面硬刚

He also said he had relied on sleeping pills for 40 days straight.

他还透露，自己连续40天都要靠安眠药入睡。

So when Luo aimed at another restaurant brand, the internet’s first reaction was to panic for the brand. That panic says more than any brand statement.

所以当罗永浩把矛头对准另一个餐饮品牌时，网友第一反应就是替品牌捏一把汗。这份担忧，比任何品牌声明都更能说明问题。

Luo Yonghao’s Trap

Luo’s debate strategy is not about winning in the usual sense. He finds the other side’s mistakes and refuses to let go. That forces them into self-justification.

罗永浩的论战策略，不是传统意义上的分出输赢。他抓住对方的问题不放，逼迫对方不断自证清白。

His debate with Wang Ziru is a good example. Wang’s logic was “I will prove your phone has problems.” Luo’s logic was “Your way of proving it has problems.” Luo did not need to prove the Smartisan phone was flawless. He only needed to raise doubts about Wang’s evidence.

他和王自如的论战就是典型例子。王自如的思路是：我证明你的手机有问题。罗永浩的思路则是：你的证明方式本身就有问题。罗永浩不需要证明锤子手机毫无瑕疵，只需要对王自如的证据提出质疑。

With Mr. Wildman, Luo had already blocked the brand’s counterattacks before he posted.

这次点评野人先生，罗永浩在发文前就已经堵死了品牌反击的空间。

4.counterattack/ˈkaʊntərəˌtæk/ v.反击，反攻  n.反击，反攻；（国际象棋）反击着法

He claimed the identity of a consumer: “This is a normal consumer evaluation and question. Please don’t provoke me and then say I’m playing dirty.” You cannot call him a malicioussmear.

他站在消费者身份发声：“这只是普通消费者的评价和疑问。别先招惹我，转头又说我耍手段。”品牌很难把这定性为恶意抹黑。

5.malicious/məˈlɪʃəs/ adj.having or showing hatred and a desire to harm sb or hurt their feelings 怀有恶意的；恶毒的

类似表达malevolent , spiteful

例：malicious gossip/lies/rumours 恶毒的流言飞语╱谎言╱谣言

He warned the brand in advance: “and then say I’m playing dirty.” If the brand hits back, it looks like it is suppressing consumers.

他提前埋下伏笔：“（别）说我耍手段。”一旦品牌反击，就会显得是在打压普通消费者。

He compared Mr. Wildman to Zhong Xue Gao and noted, “The latter has already gone bankruptand been auctioned.” He kept the discussion inside the subjective category of “does it taste good?”

他把野人先生和钟薛高做对比，还提到“后者已经破产进入拍卖程序”，把整场讨论限定在“好不好吃”这种主观感受层面。

6.go bankrupt破产

If Mr. Wildman publicly responds, “Our product is actually delicious,” it falls into the self-justification trap. You have to prove your ice cream is tasty. Taste is subjective. You can never prove it. The harder you try, the more Luo can pick apart your words.

倘若野人先生公开回应“我们产品其实很好吃”，就会掉进自证陷阱。你需要证明冰淇淋好吃，但口味是主观的，永远无法被证实。辩解越用力，罗永浩越能抓住话里的漏洞。

Lawyers confirm this. Tang Lei, a lawyer at Jiangsu Aixin Law Firm, said Luo, as a consumer, has the right to criticize and advise. A single subjective evaluation does not constitute infringement. But if Luo continues to post three or more negative pieces, “it may cause other consumers to mistake it for objective fact.”

律师也证实了这一点。江苏爱信律师事务所唐蕾律师表示，罗永浩作为消费者，享有批评、建议权。单次主观评价不构成侵权。但如果罗永浩连续发布三条及以上负面内容，则“有可能让其他消费者把主观评价当成客观事实”。

7.infringement/ɪnˈfrɪndʒmənt/ n.（对他人权益的）侵犯，侵害；（对法律、规则等的）违反，违背

The problem is that a brand suing a consumer for saying “it’s bad” is a disaster in public opinion. Luo’s new account also has over 5 million followers. One “it’s bad” tweet reaches more people than ten negative reviews from ordinary consumers.

问题在于，品牌因为一句“不好吃”去起诉消费者，会引发巨大舆论灾难。罗永浩这个新账号粉丝量超500万，一条“不好吃”的博文，传播量远超过普通消费者十条差评。

What Mr. Wildman Has Going for It

Mr. Wildman and Xibei differ in one important way.

野人先生和西贝有一个关键区别。

Xibei’s main criticism was “pre-made dishes.” That is a factual issue. You can prove your supply chain is fresh and your craftsmanshipauthentic. Mr. Wildman’s criticism is “bad taste.” That is subjective. There is no judge for taste.

当年西贝受到的核心指责是“预制菜”，这属于事实问题，可以举证证明供应链新鲜、现制工艺真实。而针对野人先生的批评是“味道差”，属于主观感受，口味没有统一评判标准。

8.craftsmanship/ˈkrɑːftsmənʃɪp/[U]1)the level of skill shown by sb in making sth beautiful with their hands 手艺；技艺

eg:The whole house is a monument to her craftsmanship. 那整座房子是她技艺的一座丰碑。

2)the quality of design and work shown by sth that has been made by hand 精工细作

eg:the superb craftsmanship of the carvings 这些雕刻品的一流工艺

There is also a key difference between Mr. Wildman and Zhong Xue Gao. Zhong Xue Gao’s problem was disguise. Mr. Wildman’s strength is transparency.

野人先生和钟薛高之间也存在核心差异。钟薛高的问题在于信息不透明，而野人先生的优势是公开透明。

9.disguise/dɪsˈɡaɪz/ 作名词表示1)a thing that you wear or use to change your appearance so that people do not recognize you 伪装物；化装用具

eg:She wore glasses and a wig as a disguise. 她用眼镜和假发伪装起来。

2)[U] the art of changing your appearance so that people do not recognize you 假扮；装扮；伪装

eg:He is a master of disguise. 他是伪装高手。

作动词表示~ sb (as sb/sth) to change your appearance so that people cannot recognize you 假扮；装扮；伪装

例：The hijackers were heavily disguised. 劫持者伪装得严严实实。

2)to hide sth or change it, so that it cannot be recognized 掩蔽；掩饰

例：She made no attempt to disguise her surprise. 她毫不掩饰自己的惊奇。

Zhong Xue Gao sat in freezers full of products under 5 yuan. It hid its price tag as if afraid of being seen. Only at checkout did customers say, “Whoa, several times more expensive.” Mr. Wildman is different. Its stores have large price signs on the storefront. The 28 to 38 yuan price is clearly displayed. You know it is not cheap before you get close.

钟薛高摆在满是5元以下雪糕的冰柜里，价签藏起来，仿佛怕人看见。顾客结账时才惊呼：天哪，贵好几倍。野人先生不一样：门店门口摆放醒目的价牌，28至38元的标价一目了然，顾客走近前就知道价格不便宜。

Mr. Wildman also offers free tastings of all flavors. Customers can try before they buy. They make choices with full information. If you think it is expensive, you do not have to buy. If you think it is bad, you can taste it and walk away.

野人先生所有口味都提供免费试吃。顾客先尝后买，在充分了解产品的前提下做选择。觉得贵可以不买；觉得不好吃，试吃完直接离开就行。

Founder Cui Jianwei once addressed pricing controversies with a calculation: “Before Wildman, the industry generally sold an 80-gram scoop for 30 to 40 yuan. Wildman sells a 130-gram portion for 28 yuan. On a per-gram basis, Wildman has cut the price of gelato.”

创始人崔健伟曾经用一组数据回应价格争议：“野人先生出现之前，行业普遍80克一球卖30-40元。野人先生28元可以买到130克。按每克单价算，我们把意式冰淇淋的价格打下来了。”

10.scoop/skuːp/ 1)[C] a tool like a large spoon with a deep bowl, used for picking up substances in powder form like flour, or for serving food like ice cream 勺；铲子

2)[C] the amount picked up by a scoop 一勺（的量）

eg:two scoops of mashed potato 两勺土豆泥

3)[C] a piece of important or exciting news that is printed in one newspaper before other newspapers know about it 抢先报道的新闻；独家新闻

4)the scoop[U](NAmE informal) the latest information about sb/sth, especially details that are not generally known （尤指详情鲜为人知的）最新消息

eg:I got the inside scoop on his new girlfriend. 我得知有关他新女友的最新内幕消息。

作动词表示1)[VN]~ sth (up) to move or lift sth with a scoop or sth like a scoop 用勺儿舀；用铲儿铲

eg:She scooped ice cream into their bowls. 她用勺把冰激凌舀到他们的碗里。

2)~ sb/sth (up)to move or lift sb/sth with a quick continuous movement （敏捷地）抱起，拿起，捡起

eg:She scooped the child up in her arms. 她一把抱起孩子。

3)to publish a story before all the other newspapers, television companies, etc. 抢先报道

eg:The paper had inside information and scooped all its rivals. 这家报纸获得内部消息，抢在所有竞争对手之前发表了。

4)(informal) to win sth, especially a large sum of money or a prize 获取，赢得（一大笔钱或丰厚的奖品）

eg:He scooped ￡10 000 on the lottery. 他中彩得了1万英镑。

In plain terms, the company is not hiding its price. It is expensive, and it says so.

简单来说，这个品牌没有隐瞒定价。它的产品确实不便宜，而且明码标价。

The Case for Silence

Mr. Wildman chose the quietest response: no public statement, no head-on confrontation. Only customer service logged the feedback.

野人先生选择了最低调的应对方式：不发公开声明、不正面硬刚，仅由客服记录这条反馈。

That looks passive. It is also a smart calculation.

看上去被动，实则是精明的权衡。

Silence brought traffic. Luo’s “bad” tweet pushed Mr. Wildman onto the trending topics. The brand account gained over 400,000 followers in 30 days, with a single-day peak of 30,000. Many netizens had never heard of the brand. After Luo’s criticism, they became curious and wanted to try it. The criticism brought traffic.

沉默反而带来流量。罗永浩这条“不好吃”的博文把野人先生送上热搜。品牌账号30天涨粉超40万，单日最高涨粉3万。很多网友此前从没听过这个品牌，经罗永浩点评之后产生好奇，想去试一试。负面评价反倒带来了曝光。

Mr. Wildman is also at a sensitive stage. After opening franchising in 2024, its stores grew from just over 100 to more than 1,400, covering 30 provinces. In 2025 alone, it opened 916 new stores. A brand growing that fast does not fear “bad taste” as much as it fears the label “expensive and bad” sticking in public opinion. Once the brand enters the fight, that label gets stronger.

野人先生本身也处在扩张敏感阶段。2024年开放加盟后，门店从一百多家扩张到1400多家，覆盖30个省份。仅2025年就新开916家门店。高速扩张的品牌不怕“味道不好”，最怕舆论贴上“又贵又难吃”的固定标签。一旦卷入论战，这个标签会被牢牢钉死。

The more you argue, the more passive you become. In public opinion, a brand’s “explanation” is often read as “excuse-making.” Silence may be read as a “guilty conscience,” but it at least does not create new material for critics. This is a distorted public opinion game. The internet’s advice was about avoiding PR damage, not doing good PR.

争辩越多，越陷入被动。舆论场里，品牌的“解释”常常被大众解读成“找借口”。沉默或许会被误解成理亏，但至少不会给批评者提供新的素材。这是一场扭曲的舆论博弈。网友给出的建议，核心是规避公关灾难，而不是做好公关宣传。

If You Must Respond

If Mr. Wildman is ever forced to respond, for example if Luo continues posting negative content or public opinion spirals, the correct response is simple:

如果野人先生迫不得已必须回应，例如罗永浩持续发布负面内容、舆论持续发酵，合适的回应话术其实很简单：

“Mr. Wildman offers free tastings. Everyone is welcome to come and try. Everyone’s taste is different. It’s normal not to like it. We hope everyone can find a flavor they like. If you can’t, we will keep working to develop new flavors, and hopefully the next one will be to your liking.”

“野人先生支持免费试吃，欢迎大家前来品尝。每个人口味不一样，不喜欢很正常。希望大家都能找到自己喜欢的口味。如果暂时没有合心意的，我们也会持续研发新品，期待下一款能得到您的喜爱。”

The response works because it acknowledges subjective differences: “Everyone’s taste is different. It’s normal not to like it.” That answers Luo’s “bad” evaluation. Taste has no standard answer. It also refocuses on free tastings. That is Mr. Wildman’s strongest fact. Consumers can verify for themselves. The brand does not need to defend itself. The closing line stays open: “We will keep working to develop new flavors.” It sounds humble and enterprising, unlike Xibei’s head-on approach.

这段话的巧妙之处在于承认口味的主观性：“每个人口味不一样，不喜欢很正常”，直接接住罗永浩“不好吃”的评价。口味本无标准答案，同时把焦点拉回免费试吃——这是野人先生最有力的事实，消费者可以亲自验证，品牌无需自证。结尾留有余地：“持续研发新品”，语气谦逊又有进取心，完全不同于西贝当初硬碰硬的做法。

During this controversy, consumer feedback was split. Some found the Wuchang rice flavor “very delicious” and the pistachioflavor “amazing.” Others agreed with Luo that the value for money was low. That split is the best answer to “bad taste.” If everyone said it was bad, that would be a problem.

这场争议里消费者评价两极分化。有人觉得武昌米口味“很好吃”，开心果味“惊艳”；也有人认同罗永浩，认为性价比偏低。这种评价分化，恰恰是对“味道差”最好的回应。如果所有人都说难吃，那才是真的出问题。

11.pistachio/pɪˈstæʃiəʊ; pɪˈstɑːʃiəʊ/ n.开心果，阿月浑子果实；阿月浑子树；淡草绿色

复数 pistachios

The Brand Does Not Need to Win the Comment Section

Luo Yonghao has huge reach. His one “bad” tweet can create a negative first impression for many who have never tried the product. But Mr. Wildman’s room to maneuveris this: it does not need to win the debate. It only needs to stop the debate from escalating.

罗永浩自带巨大流量。他一句“不好吃”，会让很多没吃过的人先形成负面初印象。但野人先生的周旋空间在于：它不需要赢下这场争论，只需要阻止事态继续升级。

12.maneuver/məˈnuːvə(r)/ (NAmE)= manoeuvre 作名词表示1)[C] a movement performed with care and skill 细致巧妙的移动；机动动作

Eg:a complicated/skilful manoeuvre 复杂的╱熟练的移动

2)a clever plan, action or movement that is used to give sb an advantage 策略；手段；花招；伎俩

SYN move

eg:diplomatic manoeuvres 外交策略

3)manoeuvres[pl.] military exercises involving a large number of soldiers, ships, etc. 军事演习；作战演习

eg:The army is on manoeuvres in the desert. 军队在沙漠中进行军事演习。

作动词表示1)to move or turn skilfully or carefully; to move or turn sth skilfully or carefully （使谨慎或熟练地）移动，运动；转动

eg:The yachts manoeuvred for position. 那些游艇灵活地寻找位置。

2)to control or influence a situation in a skilful but sometimes dishonest way 操纵；控制；使花招

eg:The new laws have left us little room to manoeuvre (= not much opportunity to change or influence a situation) . 新法律没给我们留下多少回旋的余地。

Xibei showed that fighting Luo head-on means losing even if you win, and losing even more if you lose.

西贝的案例已经证明：和罗永浩正面硬刚，赢了也是输，输了会输得更惨。

The brand’s test is at the counter. Comment section wins do not matter. The best move for Mr. Wildman is to treat Luo’s criticism as an ordinary consumer complaint: log the feedback, keep the doors open, and let the free tasting line keep forming. After the heat dies down, consumers will still use their own mouths to decide.

品牌的战场在门店柜台，评论区的胜负毫无意义。野人先生最好的做法，就是把罗永浩的点评当成普通消费者投诉：记录反馈、正常营业，继续开放免费试吃。热度褪去之后，好不好吃，终究由消费者亲口判断。

As one netizen put it: “Just treat this as an ordinary consumer complaint.”

正如一位网友所说：“就把这当成一条普通消费者的评价就好。”

Jia Guolong paid 102 stores and 40 days of sleeping pills for that lesson. Mr. Wildman only needs to “not respond” to avoid it. That is a cheap lesson.

贾国龙付出了关闭102家门店、连续40天依靠安眠药的代价才学到这个教训。而野人先生只需要做到“不回应”，就能避开这个大坑，代价轻得多。

---★---

原文：

When Luo Yonghao Says Your Ice Cream Is Bad, the Smartest Move Is Silence

Journal

One Tweet, Two Reactions

On September 12, 2026, Luo Yonghao posted on Weibo.

“I tried the suddenly famous Mr. Wildman at the airport. It’s pretty average. Considering the price, you could even say it’s bad. How did it become so popular? It feels much worse than Zhong Xue Gao. I miss Zhong Xue Gao.”

Normally, a brand’s PR team would hold an emergency meeting. But the first people to panic were not the brand. They were the netizens.

The comments did not fill up with “Support Wildman” or “Support Luo.” They filled up with “Don’t answer,” “Pretend you didn’t see it,” and “Do not respond.” Some users quotedThe Three-Body Problem: “Do not answer. Do not answer. Do not answer.”

The internet was more anxious than the brand. That anxiety pointed to one name: Xibei.

Xibei’s 102 Stores

In September 2025, Luo Yonghao posted that Xibei was “almost entirely pre-made dishes, and so expensive, it’s disgusting.”

Xibei founder Jia Guolong fought back. He threatened to sue Luo for 10 million yuan, mobilized 18,000 employees to “fight online black mouths,” and released Luo’s consumption records.

The result was an apology letter, a 20% price cut, and 102 stores closed in the first quarter of 2026. About 4,000 employees were affected. Severance payments were delayed until 2028.

After 100 days of silence, Jia said in an interview: “My main mistake was choosing to fight head-on. If I could choose again, I would absolutely not fight head-on.”

He also said he had relied on sleeping pills for 40 days straight.

So when Luo aimed at another restaurant brand, the internet’s first reaction was to panic for the brand. That panic says more than any brand statement.

Luo Yonghao’s Trap

Luo’s debate strategy is not about winning in the usual sense. He finds the other side’s mistakes and refuses to let go. That forces them into self-justification.

His debate with Wang Ziru is a good example. Wang’s logic was “I will prove your phone has problems.” Luo’s logic was “Your way of proving it has problems.” Luo did not need to prove the Smartisan phone was flawless. He only needed to raise doubts about Wang’s evidence.

With Mr. Wildman, Luo had already blocked the brand’s counterattacks before he posted.

He claimed the identity of a consumer: “This is a normal consumer evaluation and question. Please don’t provoke me and then say I’m playing dirty.” You cannot call him a malicious smear.

He warned the brand in advance: “and then say I’m playing dirty.” If the brand hits back, it looks like it is suppressing consumers.

He compared Mr. Wildman to Zhong Xue Gao and noted, “The latter has already gone bankrupt and been auctioned.” He kept the discussion inside the subjective category of “does it taste good?”

If Mr. Wildman publicly responds, “Our product is actually delicious,” it falls into the self-justification trap. You have to prove your ice cream is tasty. Taste is subjective. You can never prove it. The harder you try, the more Luo can pick apart your words.

Lawyers confirm this. Tang Lei, a lawyer at Jiangsu Aixin Law Firm, said Luo, as a consumer, has the right to criticize and advise. A single subjective evaluation does not constitute infringement. But if Luo continues to post three or more negative pieces, “it may cause other consumers to mistake it for objective fact.”

The problem is that a brand suing a consumer for saying “it’s bad” is a disaster in public opinion. Luo’s new account also has over 5 million followers. One “it’s bad” tweet reaches more people than ten negative reviews from ordinary consumers.

What Mr. Wildman Has Going for It

Mr. Wildman and Xibei differ in one important way.

Xibei’s main criticism was “pre-made dishes.” That is a factual issue. You can prove your supply chain is fresh and your craftsmanship authentic. Mr. Wildman’s criticism is “bad taste.” That is subjective. There is no judge for taste.

There is also a key difference between Mr. Wildman and Zhong Xue Gao. Zhong Xue Gao’s problem was disguise. Mr. Wildman’s strength is transparency.

Zhong Xue Gao sat in freezers full of products under 5 yuan. It hid its price tag as if afraid of being seen. Only at checkout did customers say, “Whoa, several times more expensive.” Mr. Wildman is different. Its stores have large price signs on the storefront. The 28 to 38 yuan price is clearly displayed. You know it is not cheap before you get close.

Mr. Wildman also offers free tastings of all flavors. Customers can try before they buy. They make choices with full information. If you think it is expensive, you do not have to buy. If you think it is bad, you can taste it and walk away.

Founder Cui Jianwei once addressed pricing controversies with a calculation: “Before Wildman, the industry generally sold an 80-gram scoop for 30 to 40 yuan. Wildman sells a 130-gram portion for 28 yuan. On a per-gram basis, Wildman has cut the price of gelato.”

In plain terms, the company is not hiding its price. It is expensive, and it says so.

The Case for Silence

Mr. Wildman chose the quietest response: no public statement, no head-on confrontation. Only customer service logged the feedback.

That looks passive. It is also a smart calculation.

Silence brought traffic. Luo’s “bad” tweet pushed Mr. Wildman onto the trending topics. The brand account gained over 400,000 followers in 30 days, with a single-day peak of 30,000. Many netizens had never heard of the brand. After Luo’s criticism, they became curious and wanted to try it. The criticism brought traffic.

Mr. Wildman is also at a sensitive stage. After opening franchising in 2024, its stores grew from just over 100 to more than 1,400, covering 30 provinces. In 2025 alone, it opened 916 new stores. A brand growing that fast does not fear “bad taste” as much as it fears the label “expensive and bad” sticking in public opinion. Once the brand enters the fight, that label gets stronger.

The more you argue, the more passive you become. In public opinion, a brand’s “explanation” is often read as “excuse-making.” Silence may be read as a “guilty conscience,” but it at least does not create new material for critics. This is a distorted public opinion game. The internet’s advice was about avoiding PR damage, not doing good PR.

If You Must Respond

If Mr. Wildman is ever forced to respond, for example if Luo continues posting negative content or public opinion spirals, the correct response is simple:

“Mr. Wildman offers free tastings. Everyone is welcome to come and try. Everyone’s taste is different. It’s normal not to like it. We hope everyone can find a flavor they like. If you can’t, we will keep working to develop new flavors, and hopefully the next one will be to your liking.”

The response works because it acknowledges subjective differences: “Everyone’s taste is different. It’s normal not to like it.” That answers Luo’s “bad” evaluation. Taste has no standard answer. It also refocuses on free tastings. That is Mr. Wildman’s strongest fact. Consumers can verify for themselves. The brand does not need to defend itself. The closing line stays open: “We will keep working to develop new flavors.” It sounds humble and enterprising, unlike Xibei’s head-on approach.

During this controversy, consumer feedback was split. Some found the Wuchang rice flavor “very delicious” and the pistachio flavor “amazing.” Others agreed with Luo that the value for money was low. That split is the best answer to “bad taste.” If everyone said it was bad, that would be a problem.

The Brand Does Not Need to Win the Comment Section

Luo Yonghao has huge reach. His one “bad” tweet can create a negative first impression for many who have never tried the product. But Mr. Wildman’s room to maneuver is this: it does not need to win the debate. It only needs to stop the debate from escalating.

Xibei showed that fighting Luo head-on means losing even if you win, and losing even more if you lose.

The brand’s test is at the counter. Comment section wins do not matter. The best move for Mr. Wildman is to treat Luo’s criticism as an ordinary consumer complaint: log the feedback, keep the doors open, and let the free tasting line keep forming. After the heat dies down, consumers will still use their own mouths to decide.

As one netizen put it: “Just treat this as an ordinary consumer complaint.”

Jia Guolong paid 102 stores and 40 days of sleeping pills for that lesson. Mr. Wildman only needs to “not respond” to avoid it. That is a cheap lesson.

- END -

推荐阅读：