The underlying logic of brand crisis has changed — anger is now an industry

Brand crises are no longer rare accidents. They are routine, monetised market events inside an economic ecosystem that rewards outrage. It has been reported that Oxford picked "rage bait" as its 2025 word of the year — a shorthand that helps Western readers grasp what Chinese commentators have been warning about: faster PR responses, more frequent scandals, and poorer outcomes. It has also been reported that Dreame (追觅) management now requires staff to act as KOCs and post daily; whether true or not, the claim captures a wider industry pressure to feed the outrage machine.

The four-pocket economy of anger

Researchers and Chinese commentators describe four interlocking roles that make the system self-perpetuating. First, "rage bait" creators manufacture anger to harvest clicks and ad revenue. Reportedly, some individual creators earned six-figure sums in 2024 by leaning into outrage. Second, "anger arbitrageurs" don't light the fire but flip the heat — curating old controversies, compiling hit pieces, or jumping on rival brands to monetise attention. Third, platforms amplify all of this: algorithms reward engagement and sell longer watch time to advertisers. Fourth, the "vent economy" sells emotional relief — from stress toys to paid counselling — turning outrage into another consumer product. Together these parts redistribute value away from product quality and into attention-driven pockets.

Case studies: Dongfang Zhenxuan, Nongfu Spring and winners

Real incidents make the dynamics clear. It has been reported that four core anchors at Dongfang Zhenxuan (东方甄选) posted within 48 hours that they would leave; the company's shares fell intraday by about 8% and its main account reportedly lost some 40,000 followers, with waves of refund requests following. When veteran entrepreneur Zhong Shanshan and Nongfu Spring (农夫山泉) were targeted after a widely shared bereavement discussion, over five million related posts reportedly circulated — few discussed the product, many focused on personal attacks. Competitors profited: it has been reported that rival Wahaha (娃哈哈) saw a sales spike of roughly 500% in some channels, and local dealers reported order volumes jumping from annual to monthly levels. Corporate losses tracked in financials — a reported 21.3% drop in Nongfu Spring's drinking-water revenue in 2024 — map directly onto rival gains and creator income.

What this means for brands and regulators

So what should brands do when a crisis is effectively a market? Traditional crisis playbooks — apology, rapid correction, containment — may be insufficient or counterproductive when platforms, arbitrageurs and vent services are all economically primed to amplify conflict. Against a backdrop of global scrutiny over algorithmic amplification and Beijing's ongoing regulation of internet platforms, Chinese firms must now model not only reputational risk but also the incentive structures that reward outrage. Otherwise, every PR emergency will simply become someone else’s payday.