Bubble Mart’s “IQ Tax” Controversy

On November 6, a live broadcast accident that caused widespread concern occurred in the live broadcast room of the official flagship store of Bubble Mart Tiktok.

During the live broadcast that night, a staff member held a DIMOO hanging chain blind box priced at 79 yuan and blurted out, “Hey, this thing is indeed a bit expensive to sell for 79 yuan.” Another staff member immediately responded, “It’s nothing, someone will pay for it.

After this conversation was broadcasted in real-time, it quickly caused a huge uproar on social media platforms. The related topic “Bubble Mart Live Accident” topped the Weibo hot search list on November 7th. Netizens questioned Bubble Mart’s “connotation consumers are leeks” and strongly questioned the brand’s pricing strategy and value perception.

Regarding the live streaming incident, the official customer service of Pop Mart responded to multiple media outlets on November 7th, stating that the company has immediately initiated internal verification procedures, dealt with the staff involved seriously, and emphasized the “high importance of consumer feedback”. When asked if the price of the 79 yuan product would be adjusted, the customer service clearly stated that they have not received any relevant notification yet.

The operation direction of Bubble Mart’s live broadcast room, China News Service, stated that the situation has been handed over to relevant departments for verification and handling, but specific measures have not been disclosed. As of now, Pop Mart has not released an official statement through official announcements or social media channels, and has only made preliminary responses through customer service channels.

The product involved is the “DIMOO Freshman Diary Series – Hanging Chain Blind Box” newly launched by Bubble Mart in November. The series includes 6 regular models and 1 hidden model, with a regular model winning probability of 1:6 and a hidden model winning probability of 1:72. The price of a single blind box is 79 yuan, and the price of a whole box (6 regular models) is 474 yuan.

The product material includes zinc alloy pendants, polyester fiber hanging ropes, resin dolls, and glass/acrylic accessories. The size is approximately 19cm for hanging ropes and 3.6cm for dolls, suitable for ages 15 and above. However, a media investigation has found that the imitation cost of this blind box in the market is as low as 4 yuan, but the genuine product frequently experiences quality problems such as paint peeling, further exacerbating consumers’ doubts about the match between product value and pricing.

Many netizens believe that the male employee’s statement ‘It’s okay, someone will pay the bill’ implies that consumers are the ‘scapegoat who will pay the bill’. But most netizens joked that “employees told the truth” and bluntly stated that “79 is already very expensive”.

In fact, the serious mismatch between the cost and price of the trendy toy industry has long been an open secret. The premium of blind boxes relies more on the emotional value of IP and the surprise brought by blind boxes. This live streaming accident is just “breaking through this layer of window paper”. Some netizens have expressed that the core value of blind boxes lies in their IP and collectible attributes, but if the quality control is poor and the price is artificially high, it is inevitable to trigger the controversy of “intelligence tax”.

This live streaming incident is not the first time that Pop Mart has been embroiled in a public opinion storm. In August 2025, blogger “Yao Yao Xiao Bao” revealed that after purchasing the Bubble Mart SP Door of Entry and Exit figurine series worth 828 yuan, they received goods that were not on the right board. The packaging bags were printed with the words “Chuangyou Pin” and mixed with unknown small blind boxes.

Although Pop Mart withdrew the product under the pretext of traceability and promised offline communication, it only gave “special treatment” and did not publicly disclose the investigation results, which triggered a crisis of trust among consumers in the brand’s quality control and after-sales system.

In addition, the Skullpanda dining table series, a new product of Bubble Mart, was also urgently taken down due to quality control issues such as misprinting the steel stamp as “POP MAET”, which further exposed its loopholes in supply chain management and quality inspection.

Although Pop Mart has stated that they will not dismiss the employees involved, the live streaming incident has undoubtedly had a significant negative impact on the company. Some netizens commented that this was the “official roast of the most fatal” rollover incident.

Despite recent controversies, Bubble Mart’s performance in the third quarter of 2025 remains strong. According to the company’s announcement, its overall revenue increased by 245% to 250% year-on-year, with revenue from the Chinese market growing by 185% to 190% year-on-year and revenue from overseas markets growing by 365% to 370% year-on-year. As the fifth largest artist IP under Bubble Mart, DIMOO’s revenue reached 1.105 billion yuan in the first half of 2025, accounting for 8% of the total revenue, making it an important profit growth point for the brand.

However, behind the performance growth, Bubble Mart is also facing pressure from stock price fluctuations. Since August, its stock price has fallen by over 33%, closing at HKD 217.6 per share as of November 6th, with a total market value of HKD 292.2 billion. The evaluation of long-term brand value in the capital market is closely related to consumers’ perception of product cost-effectiveness.

In this live streaming incident, the staff’s comments of “expensive prices” and their response of “someone will pay the bill” were interpreted by consumers as a disregard for their purchasing power, and even a tacit acceptance of the behavior of “cutting leeks”. This statement not only damages the brand image, but also exposes some employees’ cognitive biases towards brand value positioning.

In the blind box economy, the high premium paid by consumers is due to their recognition of the emotional value, design creativity, and collectible attributes of the IP, rather than simply the material cost of the product. If brand owners or employees view consumers as “blind buyers” rather than value co creators, it will seriously weaken user loyalty.

As a well-known blind box brand in China, Bubble Mart has developed rapidly in recent years, but its product quality and price have also been controversial. This live streaming incident has once again pushed Pop Mart to the forefront, and has also raised higher demands from consumers for transparency and fairness in the blind box market.

The live streaming incident of Bubble Mart is essentially a microcosm of the mismatch between brand value perception and consumer expectations under the rapid development of blind box economy. As the market heat gradually fades, consumers’ attention to product cost-effectiveness, quality control, and after-sales service will continue to increase. If brand owners want to maintain long-term competitiveness, they need to continue investing in core areas such as IP operations, supply chain management, and user experience, rather than relying on “hunger marketing” or “IP halo” to maintain premiums.

Experts suggest that through this incident, Pop Mart needs to reflect on its internal training system, strengthen employees’ understanding of the brand value proposition, and avoid systemic trust crises caused by individual remarks. This incident may become an opportunity for Bubble Mart to optimize internal management and reshape its brand image, but whether it can truly win consumer trust still depends on its subsequent actions.