Behind the Pre-prepared Dish Controversy: A "Muddled Case" of Perception, Price, and Online Traffic

The recent "pre-prepared dish debate," ignited by Luo Yonghao and Jia Guolong, founder of the restaurant chain Xibei, has rapidly escalated from a clash on social media into a nationwide public opinion storm. On the surface, the argument revolves around whether Xibei uses pre-prepared dishes. However, a deeper analysis reveals that behind it lies a vast cognitive gap between officials, businesses, and consumers; a pervasive price anxiety in contemporary society; and a public opinion battle meticulously orchestrated by a master of online traffic. This is not just a commercial dispute but a prism reflecting the complex facets of current Chinese society.

A Confused Battlefield: The "Pre-prepared Dish" No One Can Clearly Define

The root of this debate lies in a fundamental yet ambiguous question: What exactly is a pre-prepared dish?. The sources point out that the "pre-prepared dish" in the minds of officials, merchants, and the general public are entirely different concepts.

A standard issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation last March seemed to provide a definition but was, in fact, filled with "intentional ambiguity". For instance, the standard stipulates that "semi-finished products delivered from a central kitchen cannot be considered pre-prepared dishes," which became the very shield Jia Guolong used to deny their use. However, the creation of this standard is fraught with a conflict of interest—"being both the referee and the player"—as Jia Guolong himself is the vice chairman of the China Cuisine Association, which led the standard-setting process. The fairness and universality of rules heavily influenced by industry stakeholders are naturally questioned by the public.

Meanwhile, in the simple perception of consumers, pre-prepared dishes are deeply tied to negative labels like "cutting corners," "unhealthy," and "food additives and trickery". Merchants, on the other hand, operate on the logic of "what is not forbidden by law is permitted," exploiting the ambiguity of the standards to maximize their own interests, believing that as long as they don't step outside the broad circle of the rules, their food doesn't count as pre-prepared. The starkly different perceptions of these three parties laid the deepest fuse for this public opinion war.

The Entrepreneur's "Judgment Cocoon" and the Media Personality's "Public Opinion Trap"

In this confrontation, Jia Guolong's performance was described by many as "severely lacking in both IQ and EQ," a stark mismatch with his commercial success. His failure is rooted in falling into the "judgment cocoon" typical of successful entrepreneurs. Being at the top of his corporate kingdom for so long, surrounded by subordinates and PR firms that only say "Yes," led to cognitive inflation, causing him to attribute the dividends of his era entirely to his personal ability. His business thinking remains stuck in the "expansionist mindset" of a past era of market scarcity—the belief that success comes simply from opening channels and filling them with goods. He failed to evolve to the new understanding that today's market requires building an emotional bridge with consumers. Therefore, his moves to confront Luo Yonghao head-on and open up his kitchens were, in essence, using an outdated perception to fight against the hundreds of millions of consumers behind his opponent, making his defeat almost inevitable.

In contrast, Luo Yonghao demonstrated the cunning and skill of a traffic master. His seemingly random comment was, in fact, a cleverly planned publicity stunt, setting a three-step "public opinion trap".

1. Taint the concept: He first linked pre-prepared dishes with being "expensive" and "disgusting," directly tainting the public discourse and touching the public's most sensitive nerve regarding food safety.
2. Set a "dilemma trap": He directly questioned, "Do you or do you not use pre-prepared dishes?". No matter how Jia Guolong answered, he would fall into the trap. Admitting it would be tantamount to confessing to selling "disgusting" food; denying it would not only be disbelieved by consumers but would also offend the entire industry.
3. Seize the moral high ground: After pushing his opponent into a corner, he pivoted, shifting the issue from attacking Xibei to calling for the protection of consumers' "right to know" and promoting national legislation. This move instantly placed him on the moral high ground, transforming him from a critic into a champion for "us," the "people," and allowing him to "seize the momentum" and become invincible.

Consumer Anger: The Core is Price, Not the Dish

The near-unanimous public support for Luo Yonghao reveals a deep-seated social psychology. The core of consumer anger is not the pre-prepared dishes themselves, but the sentiment that "if you're going to be this disgusting, how dare you be so damn expensive?". If the average cost per person at Xibei were 15 yuan instead of 150, the public reaction would have been entirely different. This anger is, in essence, a projection of the public's own economic anxieties and feelings of powerlessness.

This mentality is vividly reflected in the current consumer market, captured by a joke popular among young people: "If they don't mind my poverty, I won't mind their fakeness.". People can tolerate flaws in cheap products but cannot accept high-priced goods that fail to live up to their name. Furthermore, there is a contradiction in the public mindset: on one hand, people enjoy the convenience brought by industrial civilization; on the other, they have a pathological nostalgia for a "pastoral" way of life, believing that only "all-natural" equals healthy. This intensifies the instinctive resistance to industrialized products like pre-prepared dishes.

The Final Verdict: A Muddle-Headed Monk Judging a Muddled Case

The sources predict that the final outcome of this storm will likely be "sacrificing Jia Long to suppress Luo Yonghao". The catering industry involves tens of millions of jobs and is crucial to social stability. When a debate threatens the foundation of an entire industry, the logic of "stability overrides everything" will intervene. Due to his clumsy response, Jia Guolong has become a "negative asset" for the industry and will likely be cut loose as a "scapegoat" to appease public anger. Luo Yonghao's recent softening stance also suggests he may be under pressure not from "capital" but from "power," because in China, any commercial force must yield to the bigger picture.

This incident will likely end inconclusively, much like the "muddle-headed monk judging a muddled case" from the classic novel Dream of the Red Chamber. Jia Guolong will pay a price, Luo Yonghao will retreat, and the public's attention will soon be diverted to the next hot topic. Meanwhile, fundamental issues like defining standards for pre-prepared dishes and ensuring consumers' right to know will probably be shelved once again, until the next crisis erupts. This is undoubtedly a recurring dilemma and a regret in China's rapid development, where regulation and perception often struggle to keep pace.

#