罗技侮辱消费者？大厂就不该试图做内容

Logitech insults consumers? Big tech shouldn't try to create content

Banfo XianrenFollow

From WeChat public account: Banfo Xianren, Author: Banfo Xianren, Header image from: Visual China

Many people have asked me what I think about the recent Logitech incident.

First, you can look at the news. Logitech apologized immediately, which shows they know it was wrong.

(Screenshot from Jimu News)

But honestly, it just proves what I argued four years ago.

Big tech companies simply shouldn't try to run new media content accounts.

You read that right – not 'how to do it', but they just shouldn't do it at all.

The only viable path for big tech social accounts: issue coupons, discounts, promotions, say auspicious things, and donate money.

If you absolutely want to produce content, then hire good-looking people in black stockings — that's it.

Of course, "black stockings" is a metaphor; white, flesh, purple, shirtless men dancing, abs charm, moe furry dances, and countless other themes — you get the idea. I'm sure you've seen plenty.

Why must big tech do new media this way?

Because the whole endeavor of big tech doing new media content is absurd.

Little benefit, all risk.

Audiences have different expectations for a personal account versus a corporate account.

Many things said by a personal account are considered memes.

Said by a corporate account, they become provocations.

Even if the person posting is just an individual employee, externally it represents the company.

How can you operate like this?

No upside if you do well; one wrong sentence equals the company causing a public scene.

See the absurdity?

Hundreds of millions in corporate goodwill are held in the hands of an underpaid social media editor, with a middle manager who knows nothing about content as the only safety rope.

Actually, scratch that – they don't even understand memes.

Safety depends entirely on the editor's mood that day.

And you never know how many clueless bosses have tormented that editor, whether they're boiling with frustration.

Then the editor thinks, "it's too unfair," and has a sudden impulse.

Late at night, they log in and post things they shouldn't, like things they shouldn't — you can't stop them.

And in the market's eyes, it's not personal; it's the company's act, because it came from the corporate account.

The next morning, the manager wakes up and sees they're late for work.

Then they check their phone — relieved, no longer afraid of being late, because the job is already gone.

And how do you risk-control this?

You can't. Sometimes you can't even find the person responsible — maybe an AI scraped internet memes and auto-posted.

Many memes that users can joke about, a brand account shouldn't touch at all.

But the editor doesn't care.

The AI cares even less: "I'm AI, come at my servers if you dare, nyaa~"

Let me repeat: This account is the megaphone of the big tech company, directly representing its image. It should never attempt daily meme-style content.

It's not a question of whether a crisis will happen; it's a question of when and how.

An ordinary account blows up, so be it.

But a brand's explosion leads to boycotts, maybe even credit report consequences.

Difficult, too difficult.

So what should big tech's communications strategy be?

Either issue coupons, say lucky words, or stay silent and just show attractive people looking good.

If you have too much money burning a hole, pay TV, radio, traditional media, self-media, and endorsers — outsource your promotion needs.

Let them do the crazy stuff.

Spend money; they are professionals at this, far better than big-tech managers who know nothing about content and only harass execution-level staff.

This is not only about handing off requirements, but also about risk segregation.

You pay as the client; if something goes wrong, you're the victim. Even if a campaign flops, you promptly announce termination of cooperation, and the criticism won't fall on the big tech company.

But if you insist on doing it yourself, you bear the consequences.

Isn't that just asking for trouble?