Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2026

Insta360 founder said US pricing subsidises Chinese buyers, then edited it

Insta360's founder called its 5,299-yuan Luna 'US-market pricing'; after backlash he rewrote it as 'higher overseas costs' — both markets felt fleeced.

Insta360 (影石创新)

What happened

In May 2026, ahead of the 618 sale, Insta360's new hand-held dual-gimbal camera Luna went on sale at 5,299 yuan (6,499 yuan for the bundle). As 'overpriced and fleecing users' criticism built online before launch, founder Liu Jingkang posted on Weibo that the price was US-market pricing, and that 'high US-market pricing can subsidise domestic consumers'.

Within hours the post was edited: by 11am the same day Liu had rewritten the line to 'higher overseas costs'. A reporter who asked the company about the final price earlier had been told it was 'not convenient to disclose'.

The remark backfired on both fronts. Domestic users rejected being told they were being 'subsidised' by US buyers, while the US — Insta360's single largest market, with overseas revenue at 69% of the total — felt treated as 'leeks'. Analysts read the differential-pricing logic as strategic immaturity that damaged brand and capital-market trust.

Why it happened

  • A founder answered a pricing row with a 'subsidise one market at another's expense' line, which framed both sets of customers as being taken advantage of in turn.
  • It ignored the company's own geography: with 69% of revenue overseas, telling that market it was paying for Chinese buyers' discounts attacked the brand's core profit source.
  • Fixing it by editing the post the same day made the backtracking visible, turning a pricing question into a trust question.
  • Going public on a pricing principle before launch, with no internal communication discipline for a going-global founder, turned a product row into a PR and capital-market crisis.
What it costPricing remark backfired in both markets; trust damagedcostly

The lesson

A founder's off-the-cuff pricing logic can cost more than the price. Framing one market as subsidising another reads as fleecing both — and editing the post hours later makes the backtrack the story.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →