Brand D&G Angers Hong Kong People

D&G prevented Hong Kong people from taking pictures outside the store, triggering massive protests.

Big difference and bad public relations are the lessons that luxury brands should learn.

In January 10th, at the beginning of the program "Phoenix and Qiang three people walking" in Phoenix Satellite TV, Dou Wentao told a joke: a man smoked on the side of convenience store in Hongkong D&G store, and attracted people to watch. The clerk explained: "he is a mainland person, he has money, he can do so.

Hongkong people can't. "

The background of this joke is: in January 3, 2012, Hongkong residents in the network discussion area said that they were photographed by their female counterparts at the public pedestrian walkway outside Harbour City's D&G store. They were blocked and driven by several Harbour City security guards and threatened to "destroy cameras".

Then, in January 4th, Hongkong media reporters were shot by shop assistants on the sidewalk 4 meters away from the store.

The brand responded later that the store had invested a lot of money in its display and product design so as to enhance consumers' awareness of the store and fight against counterfeit products.

In fact, under the lens of Hongkong media, D&G's attitude is not at all benign.

In a video that is hot on the Internet, store security is polite to customers, but in the face of a camera lens is completely another face. "Take this camera, I will destroy it."

Don't take pictures. This is the last warning. I'll break your camera. "

Once the video was released, the public was in an uproar.

D&G is believed to have unauthorized public areas to be banned from the Hongkong people's shooting area, triggering Hongkong's social outrage.

Through the mass protests and demonstrations organized by social networking site Facebook, people launched the "D&G 10000 people activity" at the gate and quickly received more than 11000 responses.

According to Hongkong's English tiger newspaper, the protests were very large. Outside the shops were crowded. D&G stores were forced to close before three p.m., and other stores also closed early due to crowds.

The protesters took a camera and took pictures of the store. Others held signs, condemned the photo ban and asked the store to apologize.

After the demonstration, D&G issued a short statement without signature, saying, "we want to emphasize that our company is not involved in any attempt to offend the public of Hongkong". "I deeply regret that D&G has been involved in the dispute."

Since D&G has not apologized for the first time as Hongkong citizens wish, more and more Hongkong people have created a boycott D&G group through the social media platform like Facebook.

Although this is only a matter of time, D&G may then issue an apology statement to continue its business, but the brand's silence may make matters worse.

In fact, the slow pace of D&G communication strategy (if there is a communication strategy in China) has caused great damage in Hongkong.

Some netizens said that the reason why D&G set up the banned area is to protect the mainland rich from shopping and privacy.

D&G responded to the incident by pointing out that the company strongly opposed any racist or degrading remarks, regretted the involvement in the debate and emphasized that the company had no intention of offending any Hongkong citizen.

According to some reporters, in recent years, filming of street view mirrors in Hongkong is often obstructed. Some of them belong to private places, which remind them to apply ahead of schedule, including government management sites, such as Tsim Sha Tsui Seaside Park, others need to argue for themselves, because photographers usually stand on one side of the sidewalk, according to the laws of Hongkong, they are able to take pictures and objects of any line of sight.

Generally speaking, as long as we ask each other, which law stipulates that we can not, the other party will go away, and the police will not be able to make a big decision, because everything is based on the law.

If the law does not, it must not be violated. However, the law does not stipulate that it cannot be done. Citizens need to defend themselves.

Unexpectedly, this time eventually led to nearly two thousand Hongkong people gathered on the Guangdong Road, calling for the company to apologize.

Since the law does not stipulate that it is against the law to take pictures in public places exposed to public windows, who has the right to deprive them of their rights?

There are also many comments and analysis that this is the Hongkong people's occupation of Guangdong road by the mainland. This shop security "a free line can take pictures, Hongkong people can not", stinging the nerves of Hongkong people, showing a sense of loss after Hongkong's economic development.

At the scene, we can see that the object of the demonstrations is very clear and the appeal is very simple.

If it is related to the freedom of the mainland, it is a fair treatment. If the law does not allow the law to stand in a public place to take photos of the shop window, only the people in Hongkong are stopped, and they are considered to have violated the regulations. Then we will also stand out for a statement.

Things are so simple. Maybe some people in Hongkong have a lot of dissatisfaction in their hearts, including for the mainland tourists. But at least on that day in Guangdong Road, they are rational, do not abuse their right to freedom of expression, and create new contradictions and resentment.

Hongkong people did not do this for the first time. In the 08 year, when people were rested in Tongluowan's Times Square, they were driven by security. After the exposure, many Hongkong people took action.

Generally speaking, the square in front of the door is not a private place.

For those in Hongkong who are accustomed to following the rules, they will not argue when they are tired of walking and sitting in the square and resting on the grounds of private security, because they understand that private places are protected by law.

However, once the square is legally prescribed to the public, the people of Hongkong will definitely return to this public space.

So some young people meet in the square, where artists perform various art of behavior.

Such freedom was obtained by the people of Hongkong.

In addition to combating the consumerist property hegemony of the business community, Hongkong people have also returned to the government for their own public space in the past few years.

If you've been to Mong Kok's pedestrian precinct, you can see street entertainers in addition to the strong commercial atmosphere and various commercial promotion. But over a year ago, these street performers, or performing groups and individuals, often received the police's ticket that they blocked the street.

This fight is more like a Party.

On the Guangdong Road, someone dressed as iron man came to the scene in a sports car. Some people disguised themselves as national treasure pandas. They used to be the entertainment stars to show their support. They didn't care whether they were in the limelight, because such a struggle was itself a Carnival Party.

For those who use traditional politics or conspiracy theory, it is hard to understand why such a scenario exists.

Everything is loose. How many people will respond to an appeal on Facebook? No one can predict it. Because it is different from meetings of political parties or groups, there is no such thing as "behind the scenes".

In fact, we feel that discrimination and injustice are not "free travel in the mainland", but those mercenary businesses.

What lessons can luxury brands learn from the D&G protests in Hongkong?

First, whether or not the market that they enter is benefiting from other more important markets (such as Hongkong's benefit from booming mainland tourism), luxury brands should avoid "favouring others" and harming the interests of local people.

Secondly, in the Internet era, the spread of crisis events will be more rapid and more international than ever before, especially in Hongkong, where the media is more open and widely popularized.

It is luxury to ignore the ability of consumers to unite to depreciate speech.

In addition, managers should take measures at a higher level to prevent similar incidents from happening again.

For example, after the demonstration, D&G responded that the store had invested a lot of money in the design of windows and products so as to enhance consumers' perception of the store and to discourage people from taking pictures in order to fight counterfeit products.

In fact, no brand can afford to be caught in such an awkward situation. To avoid such incidents happening again, it is necessary to introduce legislation like the United States to protect the intellectual property rights of fashion designers, so as to ensure that the products are more secure and that the photographed people are more dignified.