Beware of scams.
(Baonghean) - Throughout the past week, besides the most lively discussions about Tet preparations, shopping for Tet, and returning home for Tet, the second most talked-about topic was the fly, the farmer, and the beverage "tycoon" Tan Hiep Phat (THP).
The commotion arose because a fly, considered one of the most disgusting creatures due to its "vegetable-laden legs," suddenly fetched an exorbitant price of half a billion dong per individual. This spectacular rise to fame was due, either by accident or design, to being found inside a bottle of soft drink produced by THP beverage company. The farmer, whether intentionally or unintentionally, found the bottle and made an offer to THP: either pay 1 billion dong in exchange for the bottle in silence, or face publicity, with his photo and image published online and in the press. If that happened, THP's reputation and product quality would be ruined, and their business could plummet dramatically and be difficult to recover from.
That's the not-so-naive, but rather cunning and devious way of thinking of a country bumpkin from Tien Giang. But in life, few people learn the lesson of foresight. THP, on one hand, pretended to negotiate a price reduction for the dead fly in the bottle of water from one billion to 500 million dong; on the other hand, they enlisted the police's intervention. And just as that not-so-simple farmer was receiving those ill-gotten gains, the police handcuffed him on charges of extortion.
The story might have simply faded away, and the farmer might have silently paid the price for his moment of greed with a long prison sentence. But no, social media immediately erupted with heated debates from various perspectives. It was a very unexpected and unusual uproar. Those defending the farmer criticized THP for deliberately playing dirty and harming him. They argued that after meeting and reaching an agreement, THP went back on its word and reported the matter to the police in a moment of greed. Therefore, they called for a boycott of THP products to "demand justice for the farmer." If this call were widely supported by consumers, it would be a disaster that would push THP to the brink of bankruptcy. Those defending THP argued that the farmer's actions were clearly extortion and blackmail. THP reports that the authorities are right and have a "social responsibility" in eradicating and eliminating elements and seeds of evil. This is the prevailing opinion.Thirdly, it is argued that both the farmer's and THP's actions were inappropriate. Ideally, upon discovering dead flies in THP's products, a truly responsible farmer should have contacted the relevant authorities to report the issue and demand clarification regarding THP's food safety and hygiene standards. He should also have widely publicized the information through the media to warn consumers. Such opportunistic behavior is completely unacceptable. As for THP, upon discovering the problem with its products, it should not have repeatedly negotiated to cover up the fly incident. Instead, it should have thoroughly investigated to determine the truth. If it was a false accusation, it should have clarified the situation. If it was true, it should have identified the cause. Then, it should have publicly announced the unfortunate incident through the media and apologized to consumers. Simultaneously, it should have recalled the suspected products, regardless of the potential losses. They should resolutely refuse to negotiate or abet extortion, no matter the cost. That's the only way to be fair, upright, and worthy of a large corporation. Instead, they accepted negotiations. This shows a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth if the negotiations were successful. And when things didn't go their way, they set a trap, pushing someone into legal trouble because of a shallow and foolish thought. Is that befitting of a "big boss"?
As for the social media backlash, what was the purpose of this wave of criticism? To protect the farmer? Not necessarily. It might just be a pretext to call for a boycott of THP's products. Could someone be taking advantage of the situation, using this incident to escalate the situation and eliminate a competitor in the highly profitable beverage market? But this might not necessarily be a vicious attack from THP's rival; it could also be a clever marketing tactic by THP itself. Since the incident, THP's presence on social media and in the mainstream media has been frequent and consistently attracts attention without spending a single penny. If that's the case, then this is a rare and ingenious tactic in brand promotion. The remaining task is to remain extremely vigilant and always be alert to discern between genuine anomalies and those that are deliberately fabricated, so as not to fall into the trap of gimmicks aimed at promoting brands or eliminating competitors for free. This not only disrupts public opinion but also wastes effort and time unnecessarily.
Duy Huong
