Arrogance and malice hidden in "Proud reserve" —— Some problems in Dior's public relations

? Recently, Dior held an art exhibition called "Dior and Art" in Shanghai. Before Dior's hype, the combination of international luxury brands and internationally renowned photographers was undoubtedly full of expectations. However, after the exhibition, one of the photos caused a heated discussion on the Internet. This controversial work is the image of "traditional women in China" designed by photographer Chen Man. It was this work that made Man Chen be pushed to the forefront, and entered the public from the photography circle, which became an instant hit. In the picture, an Asian woman is dressed in Qing Dynasty costume, holding a Dior black classic Dai Fei bag, her hair is combed into locks of greasy hair, her eyes are cloudy and dim, and she looks straight ahead, her face is dark and freckled, her nails are long and her dark background is ... chilling and uncomfortable from the bottom of my heart. More ironically, the name of this photo is "Proud Reservation".

? Is this the beauty of Asian women in Dior's eyes? Where is the pride? Where is the dignity? This photo spread quickly on the Internet. Some people think that it caters to the strong stereotype of Asian ethnic groups in the West, others think that it is a malicious interpretation and a manifestation of cultural self-distrust, and some people are born with squinting, so squinting is not necessarily ugly. However, the overall public opinion orientation is still angrily criticizing the ugly Asian image. In the face of controversy and abuse, Man Chen initially refused to apologize and declared: "There is a distance between art and real life, and art is not understood by everyone." Dior's subsequent public relations statement was not bought by the public.

So what mistakes did Dior make in this public relations?

? The first is the mistake of communication and propaganda. At the beginning of the incident, I had an immature idea. This event may be a marketing communication of Dior, aiming to highlight its distinctive features and selling points. After all, "black and red" is also red, so it can be considered that Dior is successful in communication. But in essence, this is not the result they expected.

? Combined with the S-O-R model, it can be seen that Dior has built a top international luxury, and the story of China's top photographer insulting China has stimulated the public in China. After being stimulated by this, they showed an angry attitude. In response, they began to criticize the brand and fight with each other. At the same time, this highly emotional reaction also brings a higher possibility of communication. As an influential figure in the photography circle, Man Chen's popularity was enhanced by this incident, which made her enter the public view from behind the scenes and made the name known to more people. But in any case, the effect of this kind of communication must not be what the brand wants. For the public, this communication event has brought a completely negative impact. Even if Dior took the initiative to plan, this kind of event marketing can hardly be said to be successful.

? Secondly, combined with the theory of crisis public relations and the life cycle of the problem, I think the development of this incident can be divided into three stages. Dior's improper public relations management is manifested in its failure to analyze the development characteristics of each stage of the incident and take appropriate corresponding measures at a specific stage.

1, in the emergency stage, choose silence in the face of public doubts.

At this stage, most people have not paid attention to this matter, or paid special attention to it. When Dior released his own art exhibition, netizens pointed out that one of the photos was suspected of discriminating against Chinese. At this time, in the sudden stage of the crisis, the focus of netizens is on whether the photo itself is discriminatory. Just because of a work, it is difficult to judge whether Dior is "deliberately doing it". At this time, we should pay attention to timeliness, seize the opportunity, take the initiative, and control and lead the development direction of the topic. At the same time, handle the incident coldly to avoid making a mountain out of a molehill and downplay the problem. Dior, on the other hand, had to get the cold shoulder. Faced with doubts and neglect, Man Chen kept silent and let things continue to develop.

2. In the event diffusion stage, the public was deceived by the wrong aesthetic questions.

At this stage, with the intervention of the media and stakeholders, the voice of public opinion is noisy. The measures to be taken at this stage are to monitor problems and media trends, analyze complete events and public opinion trends, and show your position. As the heat fermented, the real protagonists of this event-Dior and Man Chen-surfaced. Dior didn't expect the photos to have such a big response, so he immediately took the classic measures of withdrawing photos, deleting comments, buying manuscripts and reducing hot search, while Chen Man responded with "not everyone can understand art", both of which attempted to shift the topic to aesthetic pluralism to dispel public doubts. Paradoxically, however, the public is concerned about the cultural discrimination and uglification of Asians behind the photos and is angry about it. The response of public relations is that people's appreciation and aesthetics are different. This move is undoubtedly adding fuel to the fire, attracting another wave of ridicule from netizens.

3, the climax stage, choose to shirk responsibility.

At the climax stage, more facts and opinions are put in front of people. At this stage, it is necessary to rebuild trust and save the brand image.

Seeing that the trend of public opinion has shifted from demonizing Asia to "national self-confidence and cultural self-confidence", if things continue to develop at this time, it will rise to the contradiction between Chinese and western cultures, and then the contradiction of ideology. Therefore, Man Chen took a step back in front of public opinion and made a big mistake because of his early ignorance. But it was at this time that a message "Just for a meal" was posted on the Internet, which was silly. Man Chen has been deeply labeled as a "double standard" in public psychology. After Man Chen made a sound, Dior immediately responded, took advantage of the situation, and put all the responsibility on Man Chen without any apology. Dior's action destroyed the public's expectation in one fell swoop, so it can be considered that this incident has caused great damage to the brand image of Dior brand in China.

? In my opinion, this incident is not a simple aesthetic conflict, but a complete conflict of values. Although there are great differences in ideology and aesthetics between the East and the West, it is impossible for the other side to reach an understanding with us in a short time. However, as an international brand, Dior must show its sincerity to the public in China if it wants to gain benefits in the China market. You may disagree, but you must acknowledge and respect our differences and see the culture and values behind China. Man Chen is a man with no bottom line. As a China native and a renowned photographer, her works show a completely different style, which makes the public clearly see that she is "watching food". Her arrogance in the face of the China public is in sharp contrast to her deliberate ingratiation with the western media.

Why this photo causes deep discomfort lies in its elements: high cheekbones, squint eyes, sallow complexion, freckles ... This is a deep impression that westerners have had on China people for more than 100 years. Single eyelid, morbid face, squint, flat nose, freckles, long armor and other elements are all gathered in one work. Is it really a coincidence?

In that era of smoke, we were bullied at will by the great powers. China is not that China now. The world situation has changed, but they still look at us with malicious eyes. Dior's aesthetic pluralism will only further increase public anger. In our view, this is not an aesthetic difference, but a naked humiliation. We have our own unique and healthy aesthetics and culture, and we don't need a brand to define and determine our aesthetics.