Commentary on the Huawei Bamboo Cicada Incident

The Huawei bamboo cicada incident went viral this time for two reasons: one is the issue of positive versus negative perception, and the other is the issue of magnanimity. Back then, was "Are You OK" positive or negative? You could see it as a joke or as a jab. Lei Jun also had the choice of whether to play along with the meme. Setting aside the fact that he did play along, let's just say he objected to people mocking his English and had the videos taken down across the internet. Would the news have come out saying, "Oh, some netizens just teased Lei Jun about his English and got their content removed"? Do you think that's possible? Obviously not. Even if he lacked magnanimity, public opinion wouldn't have sided with a bunch of people mocking someone, because having a poor accent is not a fault in itself. (My core judgment is not that Yu Chengdong could have defused this mockery the way Lei Jun embraced the "Are You OK" meme; I believe that whether he played along or not, it wouldn't have changed the outcome much.) So why did this incident, which was also just people mocking someone's speech, trigger such widespread backlash? Not because Yu Chengdong chose not to play along with the meme, and not simply because videos related to the bamboo cicada were taken down. Rather, it was the business strategy behind removing all bamboo cicada videos across the internet that sparked public outrage, turning this into a negative factor that most people became aware of. How would the public interpret it? As a PR blunder or as a desecration of traditional culture? Should they mock the company's lack of magnanimity or feel wronged on Yu Chengdong's behalf? For there to be a sense of injustice, there has to be a premise: that he did nothing wrong. The public has eyes to see things clearly. As the saying goes, "The onlooker sees the game best; the player is often blind to it." Onlookers have no obligation to pick a side. They would only think this is a company that can't even tolerate the sound of a bamboo cicada. And the key is, when they dig deeper, they find that yes, it really is like that—the company refuses to accept criticism and only cares about protecting its own positive brand image. Moreover, the vast majority of people first learned about this incident from the media before joining the discussion. They got their interpreted viewpoints from authoritative outlets and then participated in this nationwide wave of satire. At that point, even if President Yu's stutter itself was not a fault, it was no longer the main focus of the discussion. Instead, it sparked a new question: whether Huawei's way of surviving in recent years has been draining the credibility it accumulated over the previous decades (even though, on some serious moral issues, it indeed has no credibility to speak of). And the fact is undeniable: the overly aggressive marketing and saturation-style negative-content removal are indeed serving to cover up problems stemming from product quality and false advertising. Outsiders won't side with Yu Chengdong just because of how much traction Huawei has gained within its own circle. If this controversy had started merely as people mocking the way someone spoke, the outcome would have been completely the opposite of what we see now.