Why do consumers think foreign brands are selling their China businesses? ⚔️ | Following the Yuan

Starbucks, Häagen-Dazs and Pandora VS the likes of Mixue, Pop Mart and Laopu Gold

Welcome to “China color” — a column that records Chinese people’s unfiltered, original voices, as well as our writers’ field trips.

In the last few months, we have seen a number of multinational brands, from Starbucks to Häagen-Dazs to Pandora, selling part or all of their China businesses.

We analyzed some RedNote comments under relevant discussions for each brand below. Overall, we see a similar pattern of these three reactions from consumers:

1) De-glamorization of premium brands. Once viewed as symbols of quality lifestyle in the consumption upgrade era, brands like Pandora and Häagen-Dazs are losing their aura. With information now widely accessible, the price differences between the China market and elsewhere spark resentment.

2) Value-driven. Many weigh decisions pragmatically, prioritizing cost-benefit over prestige, which was a mainstream theme we started noticing post-2022. This manifests as an unwillingness to pay a premium for premium brands.

3) Rising confidence in homegrown brands. The rise of competitive local brands such as the three investor darlings Mixue, Pop Mart and Laopu Gold, fuels a shift. There is pride in Chinese alternatives that match or surpass multinationals in price affordability, product innovation, and marketing cultural relevance.

While their common denominator may be losing market competence to domestic ones, each of their status quo in China carries varied nuances. We hope that by showing some unfiltered thoughts from Chinese consumers, more layers would be added to the conversation of multinationals in China.

Pandora

Danish jewelry brand Pandora officially entered China in 2015 and grew its store count to 240 within four years. It won the hearts of many young female consumers’ with its limited themed and collectible beads. Since July, there has been news about Pandora seeking to restructure its China business amid poor performance.

1) overpriced “IQ tax 智商税”: Many believe the brand sells cheap synthetic materials sold at a luxury markup. Among the haters, Pandora jewelry is often described as childish, toy-like, or tacky, lacking the sense of elegance expected for its price point.

2) preference for precious metals: Consumers prefer pure gold or silver, which retains value better than Pandora’s materials.

3) other substitutes for emotional value: Pandora’s “emotional value” in storied beads has lost traction, as Chinese consumers find themselves eyeing on trendier alternatives, including Pop Mart’s blind boxes.

Häagen-Dazs

American ice cream brand Häagen-Dazs opened its first store in China in 1996 when it was under Diageo. Its store count dropped from 466 in January 2024 to 385 in July 2025, according to business intelligence platform Zhaimen Canyan via Blue Whale News. General Mills is reportedly considering selling its China Haagen-Dazs stores.

1) “overpriced at home, cheap abroad”: Many feel cheated after realizing Häagen-Dazs is positioned as premium in China but sold much cheaper overseas. This price gap creates a sense of being overcharged or even discriminated against.

2) weak versus domestic rivals: At the same price point, brands like DQ offer more variety in flavors, larger portions, and fun designs. In contrast, Häagen-Dazs is seen as expensive, small, and less exciting.

3) quality vs affordability: A small group of loyalists highlight Häagen-Dazs’ high quality ingredients compared to competitors. But for most, the difference isn’t obvious, and in an era of “consumption downgrade,” price outweighs premium quality.

Starbucks

Since entering China in 1999, Starbucks has established many market standards within the coffee industry. This year, Bloomberg and Reuters reported that it kicked off a formal sale process of its China operations in May. However, it has not decided whether to sell a controlling or a minority stake, or to keep some parts of its China operations.

1) Starbucks as a market stabilizer: Many believe Starbucks helps anchor coffee prices and product standards in the Chinese market. Without it, the market could slip into a “race to the bottom.” Others note McDonald’s became more affordable after its sale, so Starbucks customers might benefit in the same way.

2) price vs taste: Critics say Starbucks is overpriced compared to Mixue or Luckin, with little taste difference. Supporters argue Starbucks’ coffee quality is far superior.

3) Starbucks as the “third space”: Starbucks’ selling point as a workspace doesn’t match how most Chinese consumers drink coffee — as a quick, on-the-go item. Still, it has a loyal base that values its space and service, even if they don’t go every day. 🔚