In late November, the city of Nanning in Guangxi, China, hosted the “Nanning-ASEAN International Industrial Expo” from November 22 to 24. Hundreds of exhibitors protested on-site against false advertising, chaotic fees, and a lackluster event organization, resulting in disappointment and financial losses for the participants.
The official reports from mainland China stated that the 2025 China-ASEAN International Industrial Expo (Guangxi) held in Nanning from November 22 to 24 had the theme of “Intelligent Integration, Linking ASEAN.” Nearly 400 industrial enterprises from China and ASEAN countries participated, attracting tens of thousands of professional visitors for exhibitions and exchanges.
The expo focused on key areas such as intelligent manufacturing, green energy, and new materials, covering an exhibition area of over 20,000 square meters with seven major professional exhibition zones, including new energy vehicles, green energy, AI+ manufacturing, and emerging industries.
However, the disparity between the official reports and the actual event on-site was significant.
A participating exhibitor from Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province, Mr. Li, disclosed to reporters that upon arrival with his company’s delegation of four people, they found that the booth had been changed, the venue was desolate, and there were none of the promised 30 industry peers or ASEAN customers present as arranged earlier.
Mr. Li mentioned, “Before going, I confirmed multiple times and asked them to provide a list of fellow industry peers, competitors, or customers from our supply chain to participate, highlighted on the floor plan, including several leading companies in our sector.”
“Moreover, we were told it was a rubber and plastic expo, but upon arrival, we found nothing. I couldn’t find the words ‘rubber and plastic expo’ anywhere in the hall or surroundings,” Mr. Li stated.
Mr. Li revealed that the position arranged by the organizer, Deyou Beijing Exhibition Co., Ltd., was supposed to be next to a leading enterprise in the field. This was their primary motivation for participation, alongside the mention of ASEAN. However, upon arrival, they couldn’t locate any relevant companies. When questioned, the organizers claimed that those companies had canceled due to unforeseen circumstances.
“Many exhibitors were informed the day before the expo about booth rearrangements. The organizers said the change was due to the merging of two halls into one, but in reality, it was the consolidation of four to five halls,” Mr. Li added.
During the expo, Mr. Li only encountered one industry peer, hardly saw the promised ASEAN customers, and was shocked to discover that a Vietnamese customer he exchanged cards with turned out to be the owner of a massage parlor in Vietnam. Exhibitors suspected the customer was a recruited stand-in by the organizers.
“If everything was transparent – if the event was as described, and the names on the booths were correct, even if there were low visitor numbers, we would have accepted it for industry networking. I never imagined coming all this way to participate in an allegedly international expo would leave me feeling deceived,” said Mr. Li.
Mr. Li further disclosed that booth fees varied significantly, ranging from five thousand to eight thousand yuan for a 9-square-meter booth. Adding up the losses from participating in the expo, travel expenses, and accommodation, Mr. Li’s total loss exceeded twenty thousand yuan. He also revealed that some exhibitors faced losses of over one hundred thousand yuan, including booth setup costs.
Another exhibitor from Shandong expressed to reporters, “The organizer signed a contract with us under the guise of ASEAN, luring us to exhibit in Guangxi. However, in reality, no companies from the ASEAN countries showed up.”
On November 23 and 24, 200 exhibitors launched a rights protection protest at the venue, demanding refunds. They also visited relevant government departments, but the organizers have yet to respond to their demands. Frustrated, they are now pursuing legal actions, having hired lawyers to address the matter through legal means.
The exhibitors lamented that what was supposed to be a professional and efficient industry event had turned into a chaotic situation of “confused themes, arbitrary fees, and sparse audiences.”
Moreover, some exhibitors questioned whether this expo was the most deceptive they had participated in after working in the industry for 30 years, noting the lack of viewers, the failure of the organizers to engage local companies for visits and interactions, and the doubtfulness of the foreign guests recruited as mere actors. They pondered if the event served any purpose beyond boosting personal economic gains through stall rentals.
Mr. Li noted that the current domestic business environment was challenging, with all companies seeking external avenues for development. It was unexpected for an expo to end in such a way.
Reporters from Dajiyuan attempted to contact the organizers but received no response.