Recently, SHEIN founder Xu Yangtian made a rare public appearance and was positively reported by official media. However, the company he founded seems to be attempting to reduce the exposure of the founder’s appearance.
According to reports, SHEIN’s valuation in 2025 is between $30 billion and $50 billion. Outsiders have no way of knowing to what extent it has succeeded in reducing Xu Yangtian’s exposure in the domestic media ecosystem. However, several Chinese self-media outlets have claimed that posts about his on-camera appearance likely faced ‘complaints’ initiated by SHEIN and were subsequently deleted.
Based on what can be seen currently, this does not look like official censorship but rather SHEIN’s PR ‘clean-up operation’. This distinction is important. China’s actual media environment is far more fragmented. On major commercial platforms, there are millions of blogs and video accounts, mostly operated by individuals or very small teams. They are susceptible to platform rules, inconsistencies in enforcement standards, and the ‘complaint’ mechanism that companies have learned to exploit.
And SHEIN seems to be well-versed in this.
It is alleged that the company has repeatedly filed complaints with platforms on the grounds of unspecified ‘infringement.’ Sometimes these complaints are unsuccessful, and sometimes they work.
More strikingly, SHEIN also appears to have had some institutional media outlets remove their reports, including the well-known news site ‘Phoenix New Media’ (ifeng.com), which is affiliated with Hong Kong-headquartered Phoenix Television. I read that deleted Phoenix News report. It was not an investigative piece, nor was it a smear article, and it certainly did not attack SHEIN. It simply mildly narrated some challenges the company has faced in recent years. Another well-known tech news site, ‘Huxiu,’ also removed its own report.
This is precisely why this matter is worth pondering. If even content like this cannot be tolerated, then the issue has never been about ‘negative reporting’ but about SHEIN’s inability to completely control the narrative.
This, in turn, illustrates the company’s tendencies and communication posture. In an era of deepening divides between China and the West and rising regulatory and political pressure in Europe and America, it is completely understandable for a multinational company headquartered in Singapore, manufacturing in China, with the vast majority of its market overseas (especially the West), to try to maintain credibility across competing jurisdictions. Many multinationals endure similar pressures, but few companies are of SHEIN’s scale and under such intense geopolitical suspicion.
However, there is a line between coping with pressure and stifling public discussion; there is also a line between strategic ambiguity and completely censoring the media. A company this large, this globalized, and this politically sensitive has no right to act this way. It has a fundamental responsibility, especially in the homeland that powered its rise. This is particularly true for companies that are, in essence, undoubtedly Chinese, yet strive to package themselves otherwise for overseas markets and regulators.
Below is a repost of part of a post by blogger ‘Lv Minghe’. ‘Lv Minghe’ is the pen name of a former senior journalist for ‘Southern Weekly’. I have deleted some passages I considered overly emotional, but the excerpts below remain largely unchanged:
Three days ago, Xu Yangtian just made a public appearance at the Guangdong High-Quality Development Conference. Facing the cameras, he said, “Guangdong is SHEIN’s root,” announcing an investment of 100 billion and the creation of 600,000 jobs, striking a pose of a prodigal son returning home. At the time, media coverage was overwhelming; even a small account like mine jumped on the bandwagon and wrote a piece.
Logically, this should have been a meticulously planned PR feast: the mysterious founder’s debut public appearance, a heavyweight 100 billion investment announcement, and 600,000 job figures grabbing countless eyeballs. At a moment like this, any normal corporate PR department would be distributing press releases, arranging interviews, providing high-definition photos, and editing highlight videos, eager to plaster every punctuation mark their boss uttered on screens in Times Square.
And SHEIN’s PR department indeed took action.
What action did they take? Complaints. They complained about media outlets reporting on the founder’s first public appearance, complained about accounts posting videos of his speech, demanding their removal on grounds of ‘infringement’, making reports vanish and videos unplayable. Like a group of gangsters in suits, they went around the internet deleting posts featuring their own boss’s photos.
And now, this article I’ve written is also being targeted.
This becomes quite thought-provoking. A person appears publicly, then has his team erase the traces of that appearance. He speaks, then has others silence it. He announces his roots are in Guangdong, then has articles reporting this news deleted.
A man who just stepped onto the stage is having his own team smash the spotlight? A man who just opened his mouth is being gagged by his own people?
They use the term ‘infringement’ so ingeniously. Not ‘defamation’, not ‘rumormongering’, not ‘leaking trade secrets’, but the universally applicable ‘infringement’—much like the Panamanian government using ‘unconstitutionality’ to overturn Li Ka-shing’s deal: using the vaguest excuse to achieve the most precise objective.
What they want is not legal victory, but narrative reset. They do not permit any third-party interpretation of Xu Yangtian’s appearance, do not allow anyone outside the company’s designated narrative to discuss the meaning of this 100 billion investment, do not allow any ‘uncontrollable’ information to circulate. What they want is: Xu Yangtian’s existence can only be defined by them; Xu Yangtian’s photos can only be released by them; Xu Yangtian’s words can only be interpreted by them.
SHEIN’s PR logic has never been about ‘communication’, but about ‘control’. Media colleagues have summarized SHEIN’s PR style: no openness, no communication, no explanation, only complaints, complaints all the way. No matter what you write, as long as it involves SHEIN, it might be subject to an infringement complaint. Discussing whether it’s a Chinese company? Complaint. Analyzing its shareholding structure? Complaint. Reposting its financial data? Complaint. No explanation, no communication, no response, just complaints, silently, mechanically, persistently.
This is taking narrative monopoly to the extreme. What they want is not ‘communication’, but directed broadcasting. They only release information from official channels, only allow controllable narratives to exist, only retain unambiguous content. Any third-party interpretation, even mindless praise, if not written by them, must be deleted. Because in their logic, uncontrollable praise is more dangerous than controllable criticism.
And this leads to a core question: Does Xu Yangtian actually want to be seen or not?
If not, why appear publicly? If yes, why delete the reports?
The answer is: He wants to be seen by some, but not by others; he wants to be seen by specific people, but not by everyone. What he wants people to see is the present he’s willing to display, packaged and polished; what he doesn’t want people to see is the past, full of ambiguity and controversy, unearthed by media digging.
His appearance at the Guangdong High-Quality Development Conference was for the government. The 100 billion investment, the statement ‘Guangdong is the root’, the promise of 600,000 jobs—all were said for the officials. He wants policy endorsement, an IPO pathway, a safe haven amidst geopolitical risks.
His ‘disappearance’ on the internet is for the market. He doesn’t want consumers to discuss him, doesn’t want media to dig into him, doesn’t want competitors to study him, and especially doesn’t want Western regulators to keep watching him. His mystique itself is a protective shield.
This article is compiled from Pekingnology
