WeChat official account, a subsidiary of Tencent, defended VVIP that ＂Chinese people are not worthy of spiritual life＂ and apologized.

(Observer Network News/Yiming Editor/Yin Zhe)

I thought that the "VVIP storm" of Tencent video triggered by the hit drama Joy of Life had gradually subsided, but last Friday, the column "News Brother" of Tencent News published the title "Chinese doesn’t deserve a spiritual life! Not worthy! "(hereinafter referred to as" unworthy ") has once again pushed Tencent to the forefront.

In the early morning of December 23rd, "News Brother" issued an apology statement on its WeChat WeChat official account, saying that the person in charge of WeChat official account would be replaced from now on, and the relevant editors of this article would be suspended.

The apology statement stressed that the article "Unworthy" was seriously inappropriate in terms of title, viewpoint and wording. "We recognized the mistake and deleted the article. This article does not represent Tencent’s attitude towards the video membership incident in Joy of Life. Previously, the Tencent video team has already reflected and explained this. All members of the team will reflect deeply and take this as a warning to live up to everyone’s expectations. "

The team of "News Brother" said that the person in charge of WeChat official account will be replaced from now on, and the relevant editors of this article will be suspended; At the same time, the editorial process in WeChat official account will be optimized and improved to ensure that such incidents will not happen again.

Previously, the advance VOD event in 50 yuan, Joy of Life aroused public concern and was dubbed "VVIP" service by netizens.

Tencent revised the rules under controversy.

After the release of the new regulations, it immediately became a hot topic on the Internet. Weibo @ People’s Daily also issued a comment saying: "Setting VVIP outside VIP, paying extra money to enjoy advanced on-demand video sites is creating anxiety and inducing user consumption." In addition, the People’s Daily also pointed out that if this kind of extra payment behavior is not indicated in the VIP user agreement of the video website, it is actually a violation of consumers’ rights and interests.

After becoming the target of public criticism, Wang Juan, editor-in-chief of Tencent Video, said that the controversy was "not considerate enough" in informing members and grasping consumer psychology. Subsequently, Tencent Video revised the advanced on-demand rules.

Just as the public opinion gradually subsided, last Friday, the column "News Brother" of Tencent News published the article "Unworthy". The article said, "Why can’t you charge for good content? Do people who create content deserve to die of poverty? " , "Joy of Life vvip this thing, too expensive 50 yuan is false, don’t want to spend a penny is true".

Finally, the article concludes: "This is the current situation of China’s content market. This is the reality that Chinese doesn’t deserve a spiritual life at all! After all, Chinese does not deserve it. "

It is worth noting that after the publication of this article, Li Nan, a former Meizu executive, made an opinion on this article in Zhihu on 22nd, saying that the huge loss of video platform just proved the success of the game between content and platform. "Because the platform loses money, it is not that it can’t receive money, but that it has to pay more copyright fees, and the money is really given to the content creators."

"Chinese’s willingness to pay for content is quite strong. The data and traffic we see follow the content, and the platform is actually not loyal. This is a healthy ecology." He pointed out, "Originally, users paid a lot, so it should not be a problem to support content creation (a small-budget movie can also sell more than 300,000 box office)."

In his view, the production cost and cost of actors in China today are so high that video platforms compete for copyright and raise prices.

Li Nan said that it was the coquettish operation of Tencent’s vvip that caused the negativity that should not have existed now. "I don’t come out to apologize, I don’t have the consciousness of holding public opinion, and I even educate users."

This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer. It cannot be reproduced without authorization.