Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Marketing & Brand · Marketing decision · 2025

JD.com charged its PLUS members more — the loyalty program that penalised loyalty

JD's PLUS members discovered they paid ¥247 more for the same phone than non-members, triggering a 'big data price discrimination' backlash

JD.com · 京东 · 2025-05-19

What happened

In May 2025, JD.com was accused of 'big data price discrimination' (大数据杀熟) after multiple PLUS members reported being shown higher prices than non-members for the same products. One consumer found that a mobile phone was priced ¥247 higher when logged into a PLUS member account — despite paying an annual membership fee for 'exclusive benefits.' Other complaints included PLUS members being excluded from promotions available to non-members and long-term members being charged ¥198 for renewal while newer members received offers of ¥99–128.

The allegations struck at the core promise of JD's PLUS programme: that members pay for better treatment. Instead, the pricing data suggested the opposite — that JD was using its customer data to identify and charge more to its most loyal users. JD did not issue a direct public response to the specific allegations. The incident became part of a broader Chinese consumer backlash against platform price discrimination, following similar cases involving Meituan and Ctrip.

Why it happened

  • JD built a paid loyalty programme on the promise of exclusive benefits — then was caught charging those members more, which is the opposite of loyalty
  • Using customer data to identify and extract more from repeat buyers destroys the trust that the membership model depends on
What it costbrand trust and credibility of the PLUS membership programmeembarrassing

The lesson

A loyalty programme that charges loyal customers more is not a bug — it is a broken business model that will be called out the moment a customer compares screens

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 →