Top stream anchors can hardly escape a car rollover.
Editor’s note: This article is from the WeChat public account “kaiboluocaijing” (ID: kaiboluocaijing), author: Jin Junfan.
The “521 Via Carnival” is going on in full swing, but the “live streaming queen” who made the festival has recently been involved in a fake sale scandal.
On the evening of May 14th, a 198 yuan “halter-neck small fan co-branded by the fashion brand Supreme and the domestic brand GUZI” sold in the Wei Ya live broadcast room was revealed by the fashion blogger Abestyle the next day as a copycat. According to Abestyle, “GUZI is a very unknown small domestic brand, and the genuine Supreme has never been co-branded with any domestic brands, and it will not be sold at 198 (yuan).”
According to the inquiry of Kaipine Finance, GUZI belongs to Foshan Shunde Yinuo Network Technology Co., Ltd.’s own brand. It was founded in 2014. As of press time, there are only 92 fans on the official Weibo of GUZI.
After the event was fermented, Wei Ya responded to the matter in the live broadcast room. She said that she misunderstood the joint name of this product and gave a solution to refund and not return. Wei Ya did not admit to selling the fakes and did not express an apology. But at the time, the other party involved, Gu Zi, GUZI, had issued an apology through the official Weibo and removed the co-branded halterneck fan.
Is Wei Ya wrong? Are the “Supreme co-branded products” sold in her live broadcast room counterfeit goods? Open Pineapple Finance looked at the replay of the live broadcast of the Weiya live broadcast room on the 14th evening and found that the product has been deleted and the commentary clip that can be reviewed has been deleted.
Picture Source / Taobao
In the past, Simba sold fake bird’s nests, Luo Yonghao sold fake woolen sweaters, and Wei Ya sold fakes. On the surface, falling into the sale of fakes seemed to be a curse for the head anchor, but The industry issues exposed behind the scandal are more worthy of discussion.
Why is Wei Ya wrong?
It was accused of selling counterfeit goods. The anchor and the brand party could be regarded as grasshoppers on the same rope. However, afterwards, the Wei Ya team and the co-branded Fang Guzi responded completely differently.
According to the chronological order, after the co-branded fan was knocked off by fashion bloggers on the 15th, Gu Zi responded to the matter as early as Weiya on the evening of the 17th, and issued an apology through the official Weibo saying that it had been removed The joint hanging neck fan, purchaseConsumers who bought the product “can apply for a full refund and do not need to return the product.”
At the same time, Gu Zi said, “Immediately terminate the cooperation with the Supreme China brand that signed the cooperation, and reserves the right to pursue legal liabilities.”
From the point of view of the apology statement, Gu Zi obtained authorization from the so-called “Supreme China Brand Party” and reached a joint cooperation. The latter “provided a series of American brand authorization documents and documents before signing with Gu Zi. Co-branded models with many brands”. After the fan sales were questioned by netizens, Gu Zi immediately contacted the “Supreme China Brand Party” and asked for re-verification of the trademark authorization information, but the other party did not actively cooperate to provide more proof.
Gu Zi explained that, “After being reminded by netizens, our company learned that there are multiple Supreme brands in the United States”, and for this authorization cooperation “paid in time for brand authorization and joint cooperation that are extremely expensive for start-ups. cost of”.
After Gu Zi responded, Wei Ya also responded in the live broadcast room that night, which was relatively understatement.
She said in the live broadcast room, “I now think that the joint name is a bit controversial. I contacted this merchant and also contacted Tmall International, because it was recommended to me by the official Tmall International junior second. It is indeed from the United States. Supreme’s joint name, but the Supreme I understand may not be the same, and it may be okay in law, but from my own point of view, it’s not the Supreme I want to sell. I don’t think this should happen to me, so I Now I hope that the merchant can give a full refund to all who bought it, without returning the goods.”
According to the follow-up information of the fashion blogger Abestyle, the operator behind the “cottage co-branding” is “Sichuan Super Brand Management Co., Ltd.” and has not been authorized by the genuine Supreme company for two reasons. The website is wrong and the founder information does not match.
According to the Tianyancha APP, the company has registered “SupremeChina Official Weibo” and a filing website called “Supremeusa.com”.
Picture source / Tianyan check
Open Pineapple Finance and click on this website and found that as of now, there are still a number of Supreme peripheral co-branded products displayed on this website, including Datang Everbright City, KSM diapers, Sparkling liqueur, KAX soda, TVT electronic cigarettes and NRN masks, there are also Supreme x GUZI joint names sold by Wei Ya this time.
“Supremeusa.com” website homepage
Picture source / “Supremeusa.com” website
The inside and outside of the website are packaged to look like the official website of Supreme, but the official website of the genuine Supreme is Supremenewyork.com, not Supremeusa.com.
In addition, the American company authorized to “Sichuan Supreme Brand Management Co., Ltd.” on the filing website is the American Supreme brand management group “Supreme Brand Management Group”, the founder is WEN-JIANG SHIEN, not the famous Supreme founder James Jebbia.
Actually, the copyright company that owns Supreme is VF Corporation. This company is the parent company of the North Face, Vans and other brands. In November 2020, it acquired the fashion brand Supreme at a price of more than 2.1 billion US dollars.
There are two more suspicious information worthy of attention: First, this Sichuan Supurui Brand Management Co., Ltd. was listed as an abnormal operation by the Chenghua Market Supervision and Administration Bureau in April this year, and secondly, Sichuan Supurui Brand Management Co., Ltd. The ultimate beneficiary of the Brand Management Co., Ltd. is Xie Yixin. Another company, Guangdong Traditional Chinese Medicine Co., Ltd., which is 100% owned by the company, is applying for at least 8 Supreme-related trademarks.
Picture source / Tianyan check
To sum up, according to the current evidence, lawyer Li Sheng from Beijing Zhipu Law Firm judges that the goods sold by Via are not a joint venture between GUZI and Supreme Italia, or a joint venture between GUZI and Supreme Italia. , But Wei Ya and her staff repeatedly emphasized that the product is a hot product in the live broadcast room that night, claiming to be a joint name of the United States and not a Hong Kong agent, which can easily confuse consumers with the Supreme brand in New York, USA Misleading, it should be a joint fake.
This is an episode. The Supreme that most people understand is the well-known fashion brand Supreme founded by Jame Jebbie in New York, USA in 1994. This is also the selling point of the goods sold by Wei Ya this time. However, there are not many “Supreme counterfeiting incidents”. Part of the reason is that the International Brand Firm (IBF) registered Supreme Italia and other related trademarks in Italy before Supreme in the United States in 2011. Because of the legal trademark and brand identity protection, it was once Unscrupulously “legally” joint names all over the world, even the international big-name Samsung has been “pitted”.
Sell 6.54 million, should Wei Ya bear responsibility?
The controversy about the authenticity of the Supreme brand has continued. Supreme America has been defending rights globally for many years, but because of this, the whole thing happened to the top streamer Wei Ya, which seems a bit outrageous. In her own words, ” Shouldn’t happen to me”.
In the view of Wang Sheng, a partner of Inno Angel Fund, the possibility of subjective problems with the main anchor is relatively small. The greater possibility is that Wei Ya’s selection team is not professional enough and does not understand fashion brands.
Although Supreme is very famous in the fashion brand circle, it has been very slow to enter the Chinese market. This gives “Li Gui” Supreme an opportunity. If a company owns its domestic trademark, it is very bluffing. He recalled from Pineapple Finance that he once received “Supreme’s financing BP” and was “shocked at the time” because of the LOGO and the truth.The real Supreme is almost exactly the same, it is difficult to distinguish the true from the false, and this company has registered trademarks, patents and other intellectual property rights in the country.
In other words, this incident exposed the unprofessionalism of Via’s selection team. “As an influential anchor, Wei Ya has built a huge selection team. Not only is she confused about “Li Kui” and “Li Gui” Supreme, she has not yet achieved control and professionalism in all aspects of her selection. Obviously I also don’t have the ability to contact Supreme’s U.S. officials directly.” Wang Sheng analyzed.
No matter how much Li Gui resembles Li Kui, he is still Li Gui. So, Wei Ya sold “Li Gui” Supreme to consumers who wanted to buy “Li Kui” Supreme, which caused the sales of this product to soar. Should Wei Ya bear the responsibility?
According to the big data of the third-party platform Xiaohulu, 53 products were put on the Weiya live broadcast room on the evening of the 14th, with a total sales of 100 million yuan. Among them, the Guzi hanging neck fan Supreme co-branded sales volume was 21,900. Sales of 6.5403 million yuan.
Picture source / Xiaohulu big data
Lawyer Li Sheng analyzes from the perspective of legal theory, if Wei Ya is the spokesperson of the goods sold, and knows or should know that the advertisement is false, and still recommends or proves it, it shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the “Advertising Law” , Bear joint and several civil liabilities with advertisers; if Wei Ya, as a well-known anchor, makes false or misleading commercial promotion of goods, he shall be subject to administrative punishment; Wei Ya’s anchor act is an advertising act, which may constitute the crime of false advertising.
“The so-called top selection team behind Wei Ya did not understand the fashion brand Supreme, this is just one of the problems that it exposed.” A relevant person in charge of the fashion brand told Pineapple Finance that Wei Ya and the team did not respond adequately afterwards. profession.
Bian Xu, the person in charge of an e-commerce platform, described it like this, “Weiya’s response in the live broadcast room is like a celebrity’s response to a problem with the product she endorsed.” The core subtext is “It’s nothing to do with me. thing”.
“Weiya expressed a clearer meaning in her response. The first responsible person is the co-branded party, and the reason why she broadcasts this product is’recommended by the official Tmall International Junior 2′, and the Tmall platform is the second responsibility. People, as a seller, are only joint and several responsibility.” Cui Lili, a professor of e-commerce at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, analyzed. In other words, in Wei Ya’s view, the brand side and Tmall Global should be the first and secondLine of defense, and oneself is the third line.
This response seemed to Cui Lili lacking sincerity. “Even if many parties are responsible for this matter, some responsibility lies with the co-branding party and some responsibility lies with Tmall International, but the responsibility of the sales anchor is definitely unavoidable.” She told Kaipao Finance that Wei Ya should at least be sincere first. Express an apology, explain the whole story, and help the victimized consumers fight for the protection of their rights and interests.
Wang Sheng also agrees with this view from the point of view of reason. “After all, consumers bought counterfeit goods because they trusted her. The relationship between her and consumers is not a simple product recommendation relationship, but a transaction relationship.”
Regarding the live broadcast of the car rollover and the post-event response, Wei Ya cannot avoid being compared with Luo Yonghao. In this regard, Cui Lili said that the reason why Wei Ya’s treatment was not as good as Luo Yonghao’s this time may be that she was limited by her past honors and the recognition of herself from all walks of life. The psychological burden was heavier. Objectively speaking, everyone faced “capture in the gutter.” “It is difficult to admit mistakes openly and positively.
“For the anchor, product quality, brand correctness, and whether there are fakes, these are the red lines of zero tolerance and cannot be touched, especially in the current position of Wei Ya.” Bian Xu said, this is consumption The requirements of the author for the head anchor.
The sentence in Wei Ya’s response, “This thing shouldn’t happen to me” may be a true expression of the heart. And Luo Yonghao actively responded to crises, large and small, and survived in peace. In Cui Lili’s view, part of the reason is that Luo Yonghao was originally a novice in the industry compared to Wei Ya and Li Jiaqi, and if he made a mistake, he would act like a novice in the workplace. Apologize frankly and make high-profile corrections.
Li Sheng also mentioned that top streamers like Wei Ya, as a public figure, should take a positive attitude toward counterfeit goods incidents. Otherwise, they will not only bring adverse effects to themselves, but also set up bad influences for their peers. example.
TOP anchor must overturn?
In the past, Simba sold fake bird’s nests, Luo Yonghao sold fake sweaters, and then Wei Ya sold fake Supreme co-branded, which makes people wonder. Is it inevitable that the top anchors will roll over?
More than one person who pays attention to live streaming e-commerce gave Kaipineapple Finance the answer is yes. A car rollover is a probabilistic event that the head anchor can’t avoid. The frequent fake sales scandals also expose the live streaming industry. Many loopholes.
On the one hand, the top anchor sells 40-50 different brands of goods every day, which is equivalent to a large department store. However, the industry is developing too fast, and the brands that cooperate with the big anchor are mixed, even the head selection team It is also difficult to cover such a wide range of categories, and it is bound to overturn in certain areas.
Not only because of the lack of professionalism, but also because of “I often walk by the river where there are no shoes that are not wet.”. “These live selection teams are not professional clothing trading companies. They only use paper documents for supply chain selection and certification of a brand. In many cases, they have no ability to distinguish true from false.” Bian Xu said.
In addition, according to his observation, “When the traffic of some top anchors gradually weakens, the pit fee is no longer as expensive as before. For some small and medium-sized brands that have given money, even if they judge that the sales are not good, they will try If you sell it, it will inevitably turn over.”
On the other hand, in Wang Sheng’s view, it is difficult to completely avoid fakes in both offline and online commercial formats. Nowadays, it is not a problem that the anchor can solve by himself.
At the end of last year, in response to “Luo Yonghao selling counterfeit shoes in the live broadcast”, the company behind it “make friends” responded via official Weibo, “because the cooperation link is long, it is impossible to be 100% sure of a certain partner in the middle. Whether there is illegal deception or malicious concealment of facts; no company can do it, technically 100% without the problem of fakes or knockoffs.”
“In China, there are a large number of unorganized agencies and factories, and the general environment is like this.” Bian Xu said.
Speaking back to the Supreme incident of Wei Ya selling a copycat, he said that if it is true that Wei Ya said, this product is recommended by the official Tmall International Junior 2, then the product selection mechanism and cooperation model of this product are likely to be in line with Wei Ya. The general selection of Ya’s team is different. Maybe Tmall takes the lead, coupled with the endorsement of Tmall International, Wei Ya’s selection of products will not be as strict as in the past, which may lead to similar problems.
According to his analysis, this incident also exposed a serious industry problem-even if it is as strong as the Via product selection team and professional as the domestic leading e-commerce platform, it still cannot accurately determine the relevant authorized links of Supreme.
Perhaps precisely because of this, after the sale of this product in the Wei Ya live studio on May 14, it did not immediately attract attention. “Many parties may be playing tacit ball, and they don’t want this matter to ferment.” Bian Xu analyzed.
But having said that, many practitioners, including Bian Xu, believe that selling counterfeit goods has “zero impact” on Wei Ya. “Compared to other anchors, Wei Ya is like an aircraft carrier against a fishing boat. Even if the fishing boat is facing the Gang aircraft carrier, Wei Ya has no loss.”
Bian Xu’s evaluation of Wei Ya’s status is that no other team can compare with her in terms of economics or resources. “Two years ago, she and Li Jiaqi were almost the same, but after two years of continuous outings, Wei Ya and Li Jiaqi are no longer in the same order of magnitude.”
“Occasionally roll over once or twice, the public can understand it, but the attitude must be sincere.” Cui Lili analyzed that if the team of the head anchor does not have certain accumulation and research on the category it brings, it will inevitably cause frequent accidents and affect credibility. . “If an anchor wants to bring a certain category, he needs to add experts in this area to help the team improve the ability of selection and discrimination.”
*At the request of the interviewee, Bian Xu is a pseudonym in the text.