International Brands Are Accused Of Being Different From Chinese And Foreign: Chinese Consumers Are Frequently Playing Big Cards.

What spoiled some foreign countries?

Behind the international brand responsibility "difference between China and foreign countries"

Consumers are frequently "playing big cards" by multinationals.

The time lag for new product launch is one of the performance of some multinational companies in the Chinese mainland market.

In January 13th, mainland China and Anguilla Island, Barbuda and Bolivia jointly became the third batch of the world's iPhone4S market.

Previously, iPhone4S was first launched in 7 countries in the United States, Britain and Japan in October 14th last year.

In the next 1 months, 22 countries or regions such as Korea and Hongkong joined the listing.

This "treatment" seems to have become an apple like practice in the Chinese mainland market.

According to data released by Apple Corp official website, the first generation of apple iPad landed in mainland China 167 days after its sale in the US.

Many of the "fruit powder" complained that Apple Corp's arrangement was not commensurate with the contributions made by Chinese consumers.

Another highlight is that some landed in China.

According to statistics, from 2009 to now, the famous clothing brand ZARA (micro-blog) from Spain has been disqualified at least 7 times by local industry and Commerce sampling inspection.

However, ZARA is not the only well-known brand to be "quality blacklist punishing".

Versace (micro-blog), Louis Weedon (micro-blog), Burberry (micro-blog), Armani (Armani), and (()) and (()) international brands have all failed the sampling inspection in China.

Many well-known clothing brands do not even set up a unified after-sales service phone in China, and the provision of after-sales service and return goods is also very harsh.

At the same time, "IKEA (micro-blog) curtains were recalled in North America because of the risk of strangulation of children, but they did not recall in China", "TOYOTA motors implemented two recall standards in China and the United States".

After the exposure of product problems of some multinational companies, they immediately remedied in the foreign market, but in China, the product is in line with domestic standards.

Some multinational companies have turned a blind eye to the call for rights.

Over the past year, from the "Dumex (micro-blog) milk powder to insects" to "Luo Yonghao hit SIEMENS (micro-blog) Fridge", in the face of public doubts, many international brands "coincide" to choose the "drag" formula.

So-called

"Low illegal cost" boosts pnational corporations' "playing big cards"

Why do some international brands carry out "double standards" in the Chinese market? First of all, lack of competition makes foreign brands in a monopolistic position fearless.

Guo Haitao, deputy general manager of Beijing Telecom, said that although the Chinese market is extremely important to apple, apple does not attach much importance to China.

Because it "is a good product", it can feel "there is no fear."

In the same way, many other brands of "drag" have been effective.

Because quality problems can hardly shake their status in the short term.

There are still long queues in the ZARA store of the black list.

Secondly, the punishment standards must not be felt at home and abroad.

Liu Chunquan, senior partner of Pan Yang law firm in Shanghai, believes that the illegal cost of China's existing laws and regulations is low, which is the main reason for international brands repeatedly committing crimes.

In the European Union, the company that violates the antitrust regulations will be given the equivalent of 10% of the annual operating income.

In April 2011, daily chemical giant Unilever (micro-blog) and Procter & Gamble (micro-blog) were offered nearly 320 million euros by the EU antitrust agency for controlling the price of detergent.

In contrast, some "foreign brands" in China even if there are quality problems or fraud cases, the tickets are often only a few hundred thousand yuan, and feel no pain at all. "The" WAL-MART pork chain ", which is known as the domestic penalty" big bill ", sells fake" green pork "case, and it ends up with only 2 million 690 thousand yuan.

Finally, some local governments intentionally or unintentionally "tolerate", resulting in weak supervision of foreign brands.

Wu Hong, Dean of the school of economics and law, East China University of political science and law, believes that some local governments have provided "super national treatment" for some international brands for their consideration of employment, taxation and GDP.

Breaking the "super national treatment" of foreign brands

How to snipe the responsibility of foreign capital enterprises "different from China and foreign countries"? The experts believe that not only the change of consumers' concept, but also the need to enhance the legal deterrent, enhance the initiative of regulation, and protect the rights and interests of consumers and workers from the system.

Liu Chunquan said that the government should legislate to regulate the abuse of labor dispatch by multinational corporations, etc. at the same time, we should learn from foreign experience and raise the penalty threshold for the dishonest enterprises and increase the illegal cost of enterprises.

"Regulatory authorities should guide enterprises to realize that

Experts pointed out that some multinational companies "playing big cards" is also a Chinese consumer "pet" out.

Gu Jun, a professor at Shanghai Univer, calls on consumers to choose rationally from the perspective of quality and service, no matter where they are.