JD.com was complained for pricing lower than Li Jiaqi’s live broadcast room, and the leading anchor’s live broadcast room set a minimum price for goods. Is this reasonable?

On the eve of the upcoming Double Eleven shopping carnival, Chinese e-commerce platform JD.com stepped forward and publicly called out well-known anchor Li Jiaqi, triggering widespread controversy. The most prominent question is: Why does lowering the price of goods lead to the need for compensation? So, JD.com was complained for pricing lower than Li Jiaqi’s live broadcast room, and the leading anchor’s live broadcast room set a minimum price for the goods. Is this reasonable? Next let’s take a closer look.

1. Details of the event

Recently, JD.com launched a campaign called "Really Low Price, Really Cheap", aiming to benchmark the lowest price in Li Jiaqi's live broadcast room. On October 24, JD.com’s sales staff publicly called Li Jiaqi to “choose one of the two” in WeChat Moments. JD.com’s purchasing and marketing campaign appealed to Li Jiaqi. JD.com’s purchasing and marketing department said that it received a letter from a lawyer because the price was lower than Li Jiaqi’s live broadcast room. The source said, “Now I finally understand why the price of Hua Xizi could not be lowered before, but I still want to express my most sincere condolences to the brand.” apology".

First of all, it needs to be made clear that the lawyer's letter was not issued by Li Jiaqi himself, but by a representative of the brand Li Jiaqi cooperated with. The core reason for this lawyer's letter is that JD.com's selling price is lower than that of Li Jiaqi's live broadcast, which may cause the brand to face huge compensation. Therefore, the brand requires JD.com to stop its activities and compensate for losses. Hai's said that JD.com has repeatedly violated the contract and directly or indirectly modified the sales price of Hai's products. At the same time, it also caused Hai's passive breach of contract in cooperation contracts with other customers, which will incur the risk of huge compensation.

The JD staff responsible for this event came forward to explain that the reason they were able to provide lower prices was because JD provided subsidies internally out of their own pockets. This approach is considered a normal price war in the market, aiming to attract more consumers. However, this has triggered complaints from brands, who believe that this approach disrupts market order and leads to damage to brand interests.

At the end of this incident, a JD.com employee came forward to question the price control behavior of Li Jiaqi’s live broadcast room and hinted that it might be illegal. He asked: "I would like to ask whether the behavior of individual super anchors who harm the long-term development of brands and harm the basic rights and interests of consumers for their own selfish interests has constituted a violation of the law?"

2. Jingdong’s price-fixing It is lower than the minimum price of goods set by the leading anchor’s live broadcast room, which was complained about by Li Jiaqi’s live broadcast room. Is this reasonable?

Let me start with the answer: This approach is definitely unreasonable. Li Jiaqi's "Hua Xizi Incident" was already very disgusting. The head anchor is also a talent that the audience likes and believes in. This talent has gradually grown up and has traffic and popularity. But the head anchor is not the National Pricing Bureau, so why is there such a thing? What about the right to set the lowest price for goods? Isn't this another form of monopoly? As the saying goes: Water can carry a boat but it can also overturn it. All the actions in Li Jiaqi's live broadcast room are completely profit-seeking behavior of businessmen, and they do not take the basic rights and interests of consumers into consideration at all.

1. Price competition and consumer interests

Li Jiaqi’s products have always been at the lowest prices on the Internet. He signed an agreement with the brand, stipulating the minimum selling price of the goods, the so-called floor price. This floor price limit is designed to protect your reputation and ensure that the prices of different channels cannot be higher than yours.

For Li Jiaqi’s fans, this seems to be a protective measure to ensure that they will not see lower prices elsewhere than in Li Jiaqi’s live broadcast room. However, JD.com challenged this floor price restriction and announced the launch of the "Really Low Price, Really Cheap" campaign, daring to compete head-on with Li Jiaqi's price.

This move caused widespread controversy, firstly because it broke through the limit of the minimum price, and secondly because it threatened the brand with huge compensation. According to the agreement, if the goods are sold at a price lower than the reserve price through other channels, the brand will face breach of contract compensation.

Because the price provided by JD.com was lower than the price of Li Jiaqi’s live broadcast room, the brand began to claim compensation. This move raises many questions: What exactly caused this price war? Who is the winner of the price war? Is there a deeper issue behind this?

From a consumer perspective, price competition is usually a good thing. Competition usually means more choices and lower prices. Consumers naturally want to buy goods at the lowest price, which is one of the basic principles of market economy.

Therefore, JD.com’s activities are popular among consumers because it means they can buy goods at lower prices and enjoy more benefits.

Another issue is legal and market norms. This incident is not only a matter of business competition, but also involves business contracts and legal issues. The price strategy introduced by JD.com caused losses to the brand, so the brand filed a claim.

This has triggered controversy over the legality of contracts and price controls within the live streaming industry. After all, whether the goods anchor can control the price of the brand and whether there is monopoly behavior are all issues that require legal clarification.

Although the brand made a claim in this incident, the final verdict will affect the norms and future development of the entire industry.

No matter what the final result is, this incident will have a profound impact on the live streaming industry and provide a useful reference for the future development of the industry.

We look forward to seeing more standardized and fair market competition in the future to meet the needs of consumers. This also reminds us that market competition and legal regulations are two inseparable components of the market economy. We must protect the rights and interests of consumers while ensuring market fairness and transparency.

2. The perspective of consumer supremacy

From the perspective of consumers, price competition is the cornerstone of the market economy and a powerful driving force for rationalizing product prices and improving product quality. It is a natural desire for consumers to buy the goods they need at the lowest price.

Under Li Jiaqi’s slogan of the lowest prices on the Internet, he has attracted a large number of consumers, and his live broadcast sales have always been far ahead. However, JD.com stood up to Li Jiaqi and challenged his price control strategy, triggering market competition and allowing consumers to fully enjoy the benefits of falling prices.

This incident reflects the vitality of the market and the concern for consumer rights. Competition encourages businesses to offer more attractive prices and services to meet growing demand.

Consumers will benefit from this price war because they can buy their favorite products at lower prices, which is one of the core advantages of a market economy. Competition drives market progress, forcing companies to improve efficiency and continuously improve products and services to attract more consumers.

However, issues related to price competition not only involve the interests of consumers, but also involve issues of law and market norms.

3. Laws and market norms

However, this incident is not only an issue of price competition, but also involves commercial contracts and legal issues. The price strategy introduced by JD.com caused losses to the brand, so the brand filed a claim.

This has triggered controversy over the legality of contracts and price controls within the live streaming industry. After all, whether the goods anchor can control the price of the brand and whether there is monopoly behavior are all issues that require legal clarification. Although the brand made a claim in this incident, the final verdict will affect the norms and future development of the entire industry.

Personal opinion: From the perspective of consumers, the so-called "lowest price" in Li Jiaqi's live broadcast room is simply treating consumers like monkeys, and a small anchor can rely on the trust given by consumers. and traffic, it is also a travesty to backstab consumers through pricing for their own benefit. In fact, I have heard a lot of tricks in the live broadcast room. It can only be said that Li Jiaqi is no longer the "worker" like everyone before. He turned into a capitalist by relying on the traffic and popularity given by his fans, and he has become more and more self-indulgent in order to pursue profits. Ugly. Even as a passerby, my impression of Li Jiaqi is getting worse and worse, and I will never buy anything from Li Jiaqi's live broadcast room in the future. Seeing him building a Zhulou, seeing him entertaining guests, and seeing his building collapse, I always believe that water can carry a boat or capsize it. Let's see how long Li Jiaqi can remain prosperous.

JD.com’s move to harden Li Jiaqi has aroused widespread concern about price control issues in the live streaming industry. This incident is not only a manifestation of business competition, but also a test of legal and market norms. This incident will have a profound impact on the live streaming industry and provide a useful reference for the future development of the industry. We look forward to seeing more standardized and fair market competition in the future to meet the needs of consumers.