news

zhu zeping, commentator of chao news client

screenshot of the live broadcast room

the controversy caused by the sale of "hong kong meicheng mooncakes" by the three sheep company continues to ferment. on september 17, the market supervision bureau of hefei high-tech zone, anhui province, issued a notice that a case has been filed against three sheep network technology co., ltd. for suspected "misleading consumers" and other behaviors in live broadcasts, and will be handled in accordance with laws and regulations based on the results of the investigation. on the 18th, guangzhou huadu district issued a notice to explain the business conditions, trademark use and commissioned processing, supervision and inspection, and food testing of the company involved. no prominent food safety hazards have been found, and no illegal behavior has been found in the company.

just because no problems have been found with the manufacturer does not mean there are no problems with the live broadcast room. whether there is false advertising and what role the manufacturer and the live broadcast room play in it are still questions that have not been answered.

mooncakes claiming to be hong kong brands are actually produced in the mainland. this model of "registering a brand in hong kong and producing in the mainland" may not be an isolated case. it may not be illegal from a legal point of view. however, can products produced under this model be regarded as hong kong brands during live broadcasts or sales promotions? this is controversial.

in the live broadcast room of three sheep, the anchors used exaggerated words to repeatedly emphasize that meicheng is a "big brand in hong kong" and "a well-known brand in hong kong". "they all know in hong kong that hong kong meicheng sells offline for 700 yuan a box." the brand "has been in business for more than 20 years" and even introduced well-known hong kong artists to "endorse" it. if you say that these operations do not deliberately mislead or even deceive consumers, can you believe it? this behavior of cutting consumers as leeks is morally dishonest, and legally, it may also be suspected of infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and even suspected of consumer fraud. behind this, is it that the manufacturer deliberately concealed the false packaging, or are the anchors lying with their eyes open? we should ask.

in recent years, the live streaming industry has flourished, but it has also spawned various problems that violate integrity. for example, the head anchor "crazy little yang" who has caused controversy many times has been involved in product quality and false advertising incidents more than once, frequently overdrawing consumers' trust, and also sounding the alarm for the healthy development of the industry.

live streaming with goods is a prosperous scene woven by anchors, consumers, platforms and merchants. integrity is the cornerstone to ensure the harmonious coexistence of the entire ecosystem. in the ups and downs of the business world, the word integrity is needless to say, but now some anchors think that they have a huge traffic blessing, and have an illusion that "money is easy to make", so they can't help but feel light-hearted. however, some merchants cannot withstand the temptation of interests, throw integrity behind their minds, intentionally or unintentionally relax the control of goods, and reach a conspiracy with anchors to "hunt" consumers.

live streaming with goods cannot be "naked" on the issue of integrity. first of all, live streaming anchors should realize that the greater the traffic, the greater the responsibility. if the goods are repeatedly "turned over", it will definitely consume the trust of consumers, and they will also bear the risk of backlash. the head anchor is not only the advertising spokesperson for the product, but also acts as a seller or marketer in many cases. it is necessary to do a good job of product control, establish a sound risk management mechanism, and be responsible to consumers to the end. secondly, the platform should play the role of gatekeeper, strengthen the pre-regulation of live streaming anchors, especially the violations of the head anchors, which must be treated equally and intervened in time, and must not be condoned just because of the head. finally, the regulatory authorities should improve the relevant rules, do a good job of guiding norms, draw a red line bottom line, and resolutely punish the dishonest behavior of live streaming with goods in response to new situations and new problems. only by working together can we ensure that live streaming with goods can go steadily on the track of "integrity".

"please indicate the source when reprinting"