A popular Chinese errand platform has quietly retreated from a controversial commercial idea after social‑media uproar during the Lunar New Year season. UU Paotui, which runs an on‑demand “universal helper” service, introduced a “New Year proxy visit” package intended to relay holiday greetings for users who were away from home or physically unable to make the trip. The offering prompted swift online debate over whether a paid substitute for a personal family ritual crossed a cultural line.
In a public statement the company said it had launched the service to help people overseas, relocated workers and those with mobility constraints send their greetings and emotional support when they could not be present in person. It acknowledged that while many customers booked and understood the service, critics viewed it as trivializing or disrespecting traditional Spring Festival etiquette. UU Paotui said it had removed the specific items that sparked controversy and would proactively refund orders it could not fulfil, returning three times the order value to affected users.
Beyond the takedown and enhanced refunds, the firm signalled a willingness to keep listening to customer requests and explore other practical services suggested by netizens — such as shift coverage, pet care, and hospital caregiving — subject to evaluation. It also announced a public‑interest initiative named “Eat a Peaceful New Year’s Eve Dinner” to channel the episode into a charitable gesture and repair public relations damage. The tone of the statement combined defensive clarification with an attempt at constructive outreach.
The episode highlights a well‑worn dilemma for technology platforms in China: commercial innovation that repackages intimate social practices can trigger rapid reputational risk. In recent years companies have routinely adapted or withdrawn products within days of online criticism to avoid broader fallout or regulatory scrutiny. Cultural norms around family rituals are especially sensitive during the Lunar New Year, when questions of authenticity and respect for tradition meet platform ambitions to monetise almost any serviceable task.
For the gig‑economy sector, the incident offers three cautionary lessons. First, the commercialisation of rituals requires careful framing and stakeholder consultation. Second, quick, generous compensation can be an effective short‑term PR tactic, but it also raises the cost of experimentation for nimble startups. Third, platforms that survive this kind of controversy tend to combine product adjustments with public‑interest gestures to rebuild legitimacy.
The business consequences are modest for the short term: UU Paotui’s withdrawal is unlikely to dent core delivery volumes, but it does constrain the menu of services platforms are willing to test around sensitive cultural moments. Regulators watching the sector could decide to formalise guidance on commodifying personal services, and investors may re‑price risk for novel offerings that touch on family, ritual, or other socially charged domains. For overseas observers, the episode is a reminder that Chinese tech companies operate in an environment where public sentiment and cultural politics can be as decisive as market calculus.