“Wool” is on the verge of bankruptcy


Original title: “wool” is on the verge of bankruptcy
“I am a dealer of Changhong Electric kettle. On October 8, more than 200000 orders were taken at a price far lower than the cost price in a short time. This time, it has caused huge losses to the new concept company, facing bankruptcy and bankruptcy, and the order can not be arranged for delivery.”
On October 10, on the customer service page of “Changhong kitchen appliance flagship store” on Jingdong platform, the reporter of 21st century economic report saw such a notice that the sentence was not very smooth.
Behind the notice, is the Changhong brand dealer to the user’s help. Previously, the third-party merchant released a notice on the front page of the store, saying that due to malicious deception by a promotion organization, Changhong kettle was sold 200000 orders at a price far lower than the cost in a short period of time on October 8, causing huge losses to the company, facing bankruptcy and bankruptcy, and the company’s employees would also face unemployment and orders could not be delivered.
The business said that at present, the company has reported to the relevant departments. At the same time, businesses in the announcement also sent a request to consumers who had already photographed Changhong’s teapot, hoping that consumers could get a refund.
It is understood that the announcement was issued by Zhongshan new concept e-commerce Co., Ltd., which is the main operator of “Changhong kitchen appliance flagship store”, which is a Changhong brand distributor rather than an official direct store of Changhong brand.
According to qixinbao, Zhongshan new concept e-commerce Co., Ltd. was established on February 18, 2014, with a registered capital of 3 million yuan and 37 employees.
According to the screenshot page displayed by the users who bought the electric kettle involved in the event, the price of the electric kettle with the original price of 62.9 yuan was only 7.9 yuan.
Some users even claimed that they would “collect” an electric kettle for only 3.8 yuan.
The 21st century economic report tried to contact the customer service of “Changhong kitchen appliance flagship store”, but the customer service only gave a notice urging the user to cancel the order, and did not give any more explanation on the incident.
This is not the first time that “wool collecting” has taken place on the e-commerce platform. In January 2019, some netizens said that pinduoduo had a major bug and could recharge 100 yuan with only 40 cents. Subsequently, pinduoduo said that in the early morning of that day, a black ash production Gang stole tens of millions of yuan of platform coupons through an expired coupon loophole, making improper profits.
In response to the incident, pinduoduo said that Shanghai police had filed a case for “network fraud” and set up a special group, and frozen the orders involved in the case in batches according to the relevant provisions of “property preservation”. After the loopholes were found, pinduoduo urgently removed all coupons from the shelves, and cancelled the coupons that users had collected but not used.
In contrast, Tencent video is “more generous”. During the new year’s day of 2018, Tencent video launched a preferential recharge activity. However, due to the abnormal background data of the active server, some users should pay a preferential price of 18 yuan, but only 0.2 yuan was deducted. At that time, the vulnerability attracted 390000 users.
After that, Tencent announced that it was the company’s work error, and the company would cash all these abnormal orders without any deduction. In the end, Tencent paid more than 50 million yuan for the bug, but at the same time won the praise of netizens.
Today, businesses on Jingdong platform have also encountered the event of “collecting wool”. However, the difference is that this is not a system bug, but a malicious deception encountered by the merchants themselves.
The 21st century economic report has noted that some users have applied for returns. However, there are also views that the consumer was not at fault in the incident. “The merchant has the responsibility to be responsible for his own behavior, and can not shift the responsibility to the buyer. The buyer has no responsibility to identify whether the merchant has marked the wrong price.”
(author: Yang Qingqing, editor: Li Qingyu)