How would you evaluate Zhang Xuefeng?

This will be my last article about Zhang Xuefeng because I’ve noticed that, especially before his passing, society’s opinions about him have been extremely polarized. So today, I want to correct a lot of people’s misconceptions.

There are generally two common views about Zhang Xuefeng. One is that he made significant contributions to society and opened a window for students; the other is that he’s just a businessman, profit-driven, charging thousands or even tens of thousands for advice on volunteering or college applications—sometimes even 100,000 or 200,000 for one-on-one sessions—and that his advice isn’t always that good, such as on civil engineering, computer science, etc. The second view was especially prevalent when he sold 200 million yuan worth of products in a live broadcast.

Our society’s understanding of “contribution” or “merit” is very one-sided. Many people think that social contribution means benefiting everyone, with no barriers—this is wrong. The emergence of free trade itself carries social contribution because free trade is voluntary. If Zhang Xuefeng didn’t provide greater value to these people, why could he keep doing it year after year, and even grow bigger and better? If you sell oranges on the street for 10,000 yuan each, can you make a deal? Can you keep doing it? He simply didn’t make his “contribution” accessible to everyone without barriers.

We must understand that if you can’t afford it, that doesn’t mean others can’t; if it’s not worth it to you, that doesn’t mean it’s not worth it to others; if your willingness is slightly less, information gaps don’t matter—this doesn’t apply to everyone. Everyone’s time value and wealth level differ; at every moment, the value of even the smallest piece of information varies. We must first accept this difference before discussing whether something is expensive or worth it, because that is highly subjective.

For example, if I pay Zhang Xuefeng 20,000 yuan for consultation, even if the final information he gives me is exactly what I already know, can I say it’s not worth it? Or that Zhang Xuefeng is just scamming me, or that he’s not providing any contribution? No. Why not? Because the money is voluntarily paid by me. When I seek his advice, I inherently expect that I might not gain new information.

I seek advice because, for me, the value involved in this decision point far exceeds 20,000 yuan, and I might have 200 million yuan in my pocket. So I don’t mind paying that 20,000 yuan to the most professional person in this field. Even if I don’t get new information, or if it just confirms what I already believe, that still has value. It’s not that he’s obligated to give me “information I don’t know”—that’s unreasonable, because everyone’s level of understanding is different. How can he predict how much I already know before providing service?

In a market economy with transparent pricing and defined service content, as long as someone makes a transaction, they contribute to society; the more transactions, the greater the contribution—even in disaster relief, if passing drivers charge sky-high rescue fees, that’s still a contribution because providing a service is better than not providing one. You can’t say that after being rescued, you should morally scrutinize whether their charges are “reasonable” or whether they’re profiteering from disaster—this isn’t a lack of morality on their part; it’s a lack of morality on yours.

Similarly, if you feel Zhang Xuefeng’s service isn’t suitable for you, or if your personal value at that point isn’t that high, you can choose not to pay—don’t pay 20,000, maybe 2,000, or fill out the form yourself. But don’t deny that there are others who value that service much more than you do, or who have a psychological need for “absolute safety”—what if? What if he has some channels or ideas I don’t know about? Just because you don’t care doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t. It’s impossible to force him to provide the service and price you want.

When it comes to treating employees well, people praise Zhang Xuefeng; when it comes to paying high prices, people say he’s just scamming—this is very contradictory. If a company isn’t focused on making money, how can it treat employees well? What most people want is a “people-oriented entrepreneur”—that is, earning enough to support employees and treat them well, without making excessive profits for the owner. Ideally, Zhang Xuefeng wouldn’t make much profit himself, keeping his charges at a level that’s “necessary to treat employees well,” so people see that as “contribution” and a sign of a “good person.”

But that’s wrong. Many of the lessons learned from childhood to university are mistaken. Their understanding of business order is completely wrong. Business is about identifying a demand, satisfying it, earning as much as possible first, and then distributing profits—whether to employees, reinvesting in the company, or doing charity. These are the correct business cycles. If someone’s primary focus isn’t following these principles, but instead prioritizes treating employees well and making sure all consumers can afford the service, placing business rules second, then they no longer qualify to provide goods and services to society.

Acting against business principles—does that increase or decrease societal contribution? I guarantee it decreases. If there are cases where it seems to increase, it’s 100% due to hidden resource drain or exploitation elsewhere in society.