Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2020

JD Finance's loan ad mocked a migrant worker — two apologies and punishments in a week

In December 2020 a JD Finance ad had a boss borrow ¥150,000 on a migrant worker's phone for upgrades. The brand apologized twice; JD Group investigated.

JD Finance (京东金融) · 2020-12

What happened

In mid-December 2020, JD Finance (京东金融) ran a series of loan ads on short-video platforms including Douyin. One video: a migrant worker's mother feels airsick on a plane, the flight attendant suggests an upgrade, and the worker cannot afford it. A passenger in a suit offers to pay for the upgrade — then takes the worker's phone, borrows ¥150,000 on JD Finance, and pitches the product's new-user interest-free coupon and daily rate of ¥1.9 per 10,000.

The video drew immediate outrage: critics said it was value-degenerate, pushed people into debt, and sold loans by mocking a migrant worker for not knowing how air travel works. Industry observers called the ad improper on both counts. It came right after 360 Jietiao had been forced to pull a similar vulgar loan ad, so the pattern was already notorious.

On 15 December, JD Finance's official Weibo account apologized: the short video had "serious value problems" and the company took full responsibility; the video was taken down; all existing short videos would be re-reviewed, agency management tightened, review teams strengthened, and those responsible punished with dismissal, demotion or docked performance pay.

On the evening of 17 December, JD Group issued a second apology and announced a dedicated investigation team, saying the incident was not just a management failure but a problem of the team's direction, culture and values — "chasing performance blindly, losing ourselves, abandoning responsibility, forgetting our original purpose". No regulator fine was reported, but the image of a boss borrowing ¥150,000 on a migrant worker's phone became the symbol of China's predatory loan-ad wave.

Why it happened

  • The ad sold humiliation as comedy: the joke was the worker had no money and the loan was the rescue — the target customer was the butt of the joke, and inducement to borrow was packaged as help.
  • Performance pressure beat review: the apology admitted 'loose management, lax review'; the group blamed 'chasing performance blindly' — metrics read 'will provoke outrage' as 'will spread'.
  • The identical pattern had just been condemned (360 Jietiao's ad was pulled), yet the industry kept running it — the brand bet the audience was numb, and hit the public's tipping point instead.
What it costads pulled; two apologies; staff punished; 'predatory' tagembarrassing

The lesson

An ad that films borrowing as a rich man's charity is remembered for the mockery, not the rate. Conversion targets don't excuse values — repeating a just-condemned pattern is a bet on public amnesia.

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 →