Employees and netizens have “five worries” pinned on “two hopes”,
In order to avoid the “coconut tree” on the verge of bankruptcy again
- “Five Worries”
One is worrying about affecting Hainan’s image of opening up to the world.
The second is that the Chinese famous brand “Coconut Tree”, which is going global, will be investigated and destroyed.
Third, they are worried that the 500,000 coconut farmers in Hainan will “get out of wealth and return to poverty.”
Fourth, it is worried that “Coconut Tree” will be hindered in implementing the “One Belt One Road” national strategy to set up factories in Indonesia and Vietnam and to plant coconuts in Cambodia.
Fifth, it is worried that the “coconut tree” suffered five consecutive years of losses from 1981 to 1985, and was on the verge of bankruptcy with only 20,000 yuan, and employees were unable to pay wages. More than 6,000 employees would suffer again.
This question came out too late, at least almost a week late, I wanted to answer it a long time ago. I can’t help but complain about the logic of hype. The parties involved in many incidents always have to blame for the storm of public opinion that has been triggered, being scolded for deliberate speculation, being scolded for occupying public traffic, apologizing, punishing… Some are commercial advertisements, some are normal voices on public platforms, and some are even private opinions. It broke out, are these actions the original sin that caused the controversy? If the commercial advertisement has the original sin, then I only need to buy the navy to cause a negative controversy, will the merchants be unlucky? If it is the original sin for the public platform to speak out, is it the initiator of the opinion supported by a small number of people, or the initiator of the hotly discussed topic? Who bears the responsibility is based on the number of supporters, or who is lucky enough to be noticed by the public? If everyone is guilty of making jokes in private, what is the responsibility of those who take “critical” photos and hype? What can I say and what I can’t say in private, does it depend on whether I have secretly photographed and recorded it? Is the positive advertisement of the business hoping to trigger negative reviews? Stars are exploded with negative news, don’t they want to calm it down? You can scold them for breaking the law, violating morals, and discussing the matter, but the charge of “deliberate speculation” is not pertinent, and the charge of “occupying public resources” is even more absurd and a bit guilty of crimes. Coconut has also learnt fine this time. Some of its advertisements were carefully thought out in order to arouse positive attention, which turned out to be counterproductive. If the development of public opinion is allowed to continue, the responsibility of “causing bad social atmosphere” will be more and more pressured on the coconut tree through the black spot of “the advertising design is flawed.” So, is it because the hype of coconut trees has caused the bad social atmosphere, or the malicious discussions about the coconut trees have caused the bad social atmosphere? The coconut tree “sue the wicked first”, we don’t mean it, you over-interpret it, and over-talk, it’s still malicious. In the future, if anyone says that the coconut tree is going to take the blame, the coconut tree can fight back or struggle a bit. Everything will be judged differently because of the background of the event. I don’t know who is right or who is wrong about the coconut tree, and I don’t care much about it. However, the coconut tree’s trick of throwing the pot first is really eye-catching, and it may make melon-eaters think about who is contributing to similar controversies in the future.