案例库 · 广告与公关 · 市场决策 · 2025
这条还没译成中文，下面是英文原文。
Lin Qingxuan fined ¥21,234 for calling two serums its 'anti-aging expert'
In February 2025 Beijing Chaoyang fined Lin Qingxuan's retail arm ¥21,234 after rejecting its '山茶花抗老修护专家' claim as unsupported.
Lin Qingxuan (林清轩) · 2025-02
怎么回事
Lin Qingxuan, the Chinese botanical-skincare brand built around its founder 孙来春 and its camellia story, ran two advertising light boxes in its Beijing store at 富力广场 from early September to 23 October 2024 calling itself the '山茶花抗老修护专家' (the camellia anti-aging repair expert).
The Beijing Chaoyang District Market Supervision Administration ruled the claim unsupported. The two products it pointed to — the 山茶花修护平衡精华肌底液 and the 山茶花抗皱修护精华油 — were cosmetics without demonstrated anti-aging efficacy, and the three documents the company submitted to back the claim came from bodies the regulator found lacked the qualification to evaluate cosmetic efficacy, so their conclusions were rejected as unscientific.
In February 2025 the administration fined the company ¥21,234.50. The brand responded that it would 'attach great importance to this matter' and strengthen internal management and the standardisation of its promotion within a strict regulatory framework.
The point was sharpened by the founder's own role: 孙来春 also served as vice-chair of the 中国抗衰老促进会化妆品产业分会, a body with a business link to the brand whose expert assessment the regulator set aside. The fine was the first public blemish on a brand that had marketed itself on heritage and 22 years of clean standing.
为什么会这样
- The brand claimed a category-defining title — the 'anti-aging expert' — for products whose own promotional documents did not establish anti-aging efficacy
- The supporting evidence came from a body with a financial link to the brand, so the defence undercut the claim it was meant to prove
- An 'expert' halo built around the founder made the brand confident enough to promote a claim the market regulator was always going to test
教训
A category title — 'the expert in X' — is a proof claim, not a slogan. If the brand's own evidence cannot support the efficacy, the halo of the title becomes the liability the regulator reads first.
后来呢
The Beijing Chaoyang regulator fined the company ¥21,234.50 and rejected its submitted efficacy documents as unscientific. The brand publicly committed to tighter compliance and more rigorous promotion standards.
资料来源
发现哪里写错了？告诉我们。
类似的案例
这家公司栽倒的地方，别处有人漂亮地解开过。 第二意见 →
Comments · 0
登录 后就能评论。