When Luo Yonghao Says Your Ice Cream Is Bad, the Smartest Move Is Silence

One Tweet, Two Reactions

On September 12, 2026, Luo Yonghao posted on Weibo.

“I tried the suddenly famous Mr. Wildman at the airport. It’s pretty average. Considering the price, you could even say it’s bad. How did it become so popular? It feels much worse than Zhong Xue Gao. I miss Zhong Xue Gao.”

Normally, a brand’s PR team would hold an emergency meeting. But the first people to panic were not the brand. They were the netizens.

The comments did not fill up with “Support Wildman” or “Support Luo.” They filled up with “Don’t answer,” “Pretend you didn’t see it,” and “Do not respond.” Some users quoted The Three-Body Problem: “Do not answer. Do not answer. Do not answer.”

The internet was more anxious than the brand. That anxiety pointed to one name: Xibei.

Xibei’s 102 Stores

In September 2025, Luo Yonghao posted that Xibei was “almost entirely pre-made dishes, and so expensive, it’s disgusting.”

Xibei founder Jia Guolong fought back. He threatened to sue Luo for 10 million yuan, mobilized 18,000 employees to “fight online black mouths,” and released Luo’s consumption records.

The result was an apology letter, a 20% price cut, and 102 stores closed in the first quarter of 2026. About 4,000 employees were affected. Severance payments were delayed until 2028.

After 100 days of silence, Jia said in an interview: “My main mistake was choosing to fight head-on. If I could choose again, I would absolutely not fight head-on.”

He also said he had relied on sleeping pills for 40 days straight.

So when Luo aimed at another restaurant brand, the internet’s first reaction was to panic for the brand. That panic says more than any brand statement.

Luo Yonghao’s Trap

Luo’s debate strategy is not about winning in the usual sense. He finds the other side’s mistakes and refuses to let go. That forces them into self-justification.

His debate with Wang Ziru is a good example. Wang’s logic was “I will prove your phone has problems.” Luo’s logic was “Your way of proving it has problems.” Luo did not need to prove the Smartisan phone was flawless. He only needed to raise doubts about Wang’s evidence.

With Mr. Wildman, Luo had already blocked the brand’s counterattacks before he posted.

He claimed the identity of a consumer: “This is a normal consumer evaluation and question. Please don’t provoke me and then say I’m playing dirty.” You cannot call him a malicious smear.

He warned the brand in advance: “and then say I’m playing dirty.” If the brand hits back, it looks like it is suppressing consumers.

He compared Mr. Wildman to Zhong Xue Gao and noted, “The latter has already gone bankrupt and been auctioned.” He kept the discussion inside the subjective category of “does it taste good?”

If Mr. Wildman publicly responds, “Our product is actually delicious,” it falls into the self-justification trap. You have to prove your ice cream is tasty. Taste is subjective. You can never prove it. The harder you try, the more Luo can pick apart your words.

Lawyers confirm this. Tang Lei, a lawyer at Jiangsu Aixin Law Firm, said Luo, as a consumer, has the right to criticize and advise. A single subjective evaluation does not constitute infringement. But if Luo continues to post three or more negative pieces, “it may cause other consumers to mistake it for objective fact.”

The problem is that a brand suing a consumer for saying “it’s bad” is a disaster in public opinion. Luo’s new account also has over 5 million followers. One “it’s bad” tweet reaches more people than ten negative reviews from ordinary consumers.

What Mr. Wildman Has Going for It

Mr. Wildman and Xibei differ in one important way.

Xibei’s main criticism was “pre-made dishes.” That is a factual issue. You can prove your supply chain is fresh and your craftsmanship authentic. Mr. Wildman’s criticism is “bad taste.” That is subjective. There is no judge for taste.

There is also a key difference between Mr. Wildman and Zhong Xue Gao. Zhong Xue Gao’s problem was disguise. Mr. Wildman’s strength is transparency.

Zhong Xue Gao sat in freezers full of products under 5 yuan. It hid its price tag as if afraid of being seen. Only at checkout did customers say, “Whoa, several times more expensive.” Mr. Wildman is different. Its stores have large price signs on the storefront. The 28 to 38 yuan price is clearly displayed. You know it is not cheap before you get close.

Mr. Wildman also offers free tastings of all flavors. Customers can try before they buy. They make choices with full information. If you think it is expensive, you do not have to buy. If you think it is bad, you can taste it and walk away.

Founder Cui Jianwei once addressed pricing controversies with a calculation: “Before Wildman, the industry generally sold an 80-gram scoop for 30 to 40 yuan. Wildman sells a 130-gram portion for 28 yuan. On a per-gram basis, Wildman has cut the price of gelato.”

In plain terms, the company is not hiding its price. It is expensive, and it says so.

The Case for Silence

Mr. Wildman chose the quietest response: no public statement, no head-on confrontation. Only customer service logged the feedback.

That looks passive. It is also a smart calculation.

Silence brought traffic. Luo’s “bad” tweet pushed Mr. Wildman onto the trending topics. The brand account gained over 400,000 followers in 30 days, with a single-day peak of 30,000. Many netizens had never heard of the brand. After Luo’s criticism, they became curious and wanted to try it. The criticism brought traffic.

Mr. Wildman is also at a sensitive stage. After opening franchising in 2024, its stores grew from just over 100 to more than 1,400, covering 30 provinces. In 2025 alone, it opened 916 new stores. A brand growing that fast does not fear “bad taste” as much as it fears the label “expensive and bad” sticking in public opinion. Once the brand enters the fight, that label gets stronger.

The more you argue, the more passive you become. In public opinion, a brand’s “explanation” is often read as “excuse-making.” Silence may be read as a “guilty conscience,” but it at least does not create new material for critics. This is a distorted public opinion game. The internet’s advice was about avoiding PR damage, not doing good PR.

If You Must Respond

If Mr. Wildman is ever forced to respond, for example if Luo continues posting negative content or public opinion spirals, the correct response is simple:

“Mr. Wildman offers free tastings. Everyone is welcome to come and try. Everyone’s taste is different. It’s normal not to like it. We hope everyone can find a flavor they like. If you can’t, we will keep working to develop new flavors, and hopefully the next one will be to your liking.”

The response works because it acknowledges subjective differences: “Everyone’s taste is different. It’s normal not to like it.” That answers Luo’s “bad” evaluation. Taste has no standard answer. It also refocuses on free tastings. That is Mr. Wildman’s strongest fact. Consumers can verify for themselves. The brand does not need to defend itself. The closing line stays open: “We will keep working to develop new flavors.” It sounds humble and enterprising, unlike Xibei’s head-on approach.

During this controversy, consumer feedback was split. Some found the Wuchang rice flavor “very delicious” and the pistachio flavor “amazing.” Others agreed with Luo that the value for money was low. That split is the best answer to “bad taste.” If everyone said it was bad, that would be a problem.

The Brand Does Not Need to Win the Comment Section

Luo Yonghao has huge reach. His one “bad” tweet can create a negative first impression for many who have never tried the product. But Mr. Wildman’s room to maneuver is this: it does not need to win the debate. It only needs to stop the debate from escalating.

Xibei showed that fighting Luo head-on means losing even if you win, and losing even more if you lose.

The brand’s test is at the counter. Comment section wins do not matter. The best move for Mr. Wildman is to treat Luo’s criticism as an ordinary consumer complaint: log the feedback, keep the doors open, and let the free tasting line keep forming. After the heat dies down, consumers will still use their own mouths to decide.

As one netizen put it: “Just treat this as an ordinary consumer complaint.”

Jia Guolong paid 102 stores and 40 days of sleeping pills for that lesson. Mr. Wildman only needs to “not respond” to avoid it. That is a cheap lesson.