A couple months ago, China Law Blog’s own Steve Dickinson wrote an article for the China Economic Review, entitled, “Danone v. Wahaha: Steven M. Dickinson on the lessons to be learned from the tensions within China’s largest beverage joint venture.” Danone, acting through its public relations firm, Ogilvy “responded” to Steve’s article, with its own piece, entitled, “Fact Sheet – the Dispute with Mr. Zong Qinghou.”
Though Ogilvy claimed it was “seeking to clarify what it believed were misconceptions in Steven Dickinson’s article (which appeared in September’s CER) about the French company’s problem-hit joint venture with Chinese firm Wahaha,” I see it as little more than Ogilvy using this as an opportunity to spin its own facts. I am not questioning the facts set forth by Ogilvy, but I do question how its article can be deemed a “response” to Steve’s when it really never addresses Steve’s article at all.
Check out the two articles and let us know what you think. Do you find it interesting that the response came from a Western PR agency and not from a China lawyer?