Brand gets reheated as feud simmers at Yung Kee
A family's legal tussle over the ownership of Yung Kee has not halted the famous Central restaurant's quest to upgrade its 70-year-old brand as anniversary celebrations loom.
The family business, known for its roast goose and fine cuisine, has made headlines after the eldest son of company founder Kam Shui-fai challenged his younger brother in court.
But away from the courtroom, the restaurant has appointed public relations agency Trimaran to devise a year-long branding and marketing campaign, the first time in seven decades it has sought help from an external agency. 'This collaboration aims to enhance the awareness and perception of Yung Kee's brand, cuisine and service offerings to the Hong Kong and Greater China market,' Trimaran said.
The 70th anniversary celebrations, to start in November, will allow locals to reminisce about the old-world charm of Chinese restaurants, the firm said.
The agency also aims to promote the Yung Kee brand and Cantonese cuisine to food-lovers worldwide.
Yvonne Kam, daughter of Kam Shui-fai's second son Ronald Kam Kwan-lai, had earlier said the restaurant could be closed for a month this year for renovations. The premises were too old - Yung Kee has occupied its Central location since the 1960s - and the ventilation system needed to be fixed, she said.
But a Yung Kee spokeswoman said yesterday it was too early to tell if a closure was necessary. 'The biggest worry is it would affect our customers,' she said.
She added that the court case would not affect the celebrations and said: 'Both bosses are devoted to continuing the restaurant business. Its operation is not affected.
'The agency will be responsible for related promotions, press coverage and advertising ... maybe for some seasonal dishes.'
Hardy Kam, son of eldest son Kinsen Kam Kwan-sing, who is fighting his brother Ronald Kam in court, said he had no idea about the new PR campaign and would not comment.
In the Court of First Instance, Kinsen Kam demanded either he could buy out his brother's 55 per cent share or his brother could buy out his 45 per cent share, claiming that he was stripped of his power when his brother unfairly obtained majority control.
If that did not materialise, he wanted the court to issue a winding-up order, which could result in a forced sale of the company.
Lawyers for both sides have completed their submissions and are awaiting the judge's verdict.
