Article by She Zongming

Lei Jun appears weary, and the clearest indicator of this is his intense anger.

An average person's rage might lead to violence; Lei Jun's fury sparks a storm on Weibo.

He questioned, "Is there a contradiction between prioritizing a car's appearance and ensuring its safety as the foundation and prerequisite?"

He fumed, "Many online are distorting facts and smearing us."

Given Lei Jun's typically mild demeanor, this outburst seems like a 'meltdown,' leading many media outlets, known for their sensational headlines, to declare bluntly: Lei Jun is furious!

Coupled with the news that Xiaomi's current PR head, Wang Hua, is set to be transferred, it's easy to let one's imagination run wild.

The question arises: Which song better captures Lei Jun's current mood, "Feeling Troubled Lately" or "Too Wronged"?

What's certain is that Lei Jun is not in a good mood these days.

First off, I anticipate that writing on such topics will inevitably attract Mi fans who will quickly arrive to set me straight.

But Lei Jun should not be confined to mere words. Normal external evaluations are stepping stones for a company's growth.

Whether acknowledged or not, the reality is this: Lei Jun's anger is also his dilemma. Anger is the external manifestation of being trapped.

Lei Jun is ensnared by his own reputation.

In May this year, he claimed, "The past month has been the toughest since I founded Xiaomi," and he has not yet fully emerged from those challenging times.

However, "venting grievances online" is not the right approach to overcome tough times.

Faced with this wave of negative public opinion, if Lei Jun only feels wronged, then Xiaomi is in trouble.

01

Is Lei Jun wronged? Is it appropriate for him to lash out at those distorting facts and smearing?

After Lei Jun's strong counterattack against the claim that Xiaomi Auto "prioritizes appearance over safety," public opinion has become polarized.

In my view, Lei Jun certainly has the right to refute rumors and clarify, and it is necessary to do so.

Amplifying Lei Jun's statement that "appearance is the top priority" made at one event while ignoring his statements at other events that "safety is the foundation, prerequisite, and above all else," and portraying his "both and" approach as a binary opposition of "appearance over safety" is unfair to Xiaomi.

Liu Zhenyun said in One Sentence Is Worth Ten Thousand, "Nothing in the world can withstand scrutiny; upon close examination, everything harbors grievances." It is understandable that Lei Jun feels wronged.

Since venturing into car manufacturing, he has emphasized safety more than appearance, but many only focus on isolated instances without considering the whole picture.

In the fiercely competitive automotive circle, akin to the smartphone industry in the past, where car companies offer rewards for clues on malicious PR, Lei Jun's condemnation of smearers cannot be entirely attributed to paranoia.

Xiaomi, with its business extending into automotive, smartphones, home appliances, and other fields, is currently engaged in multi-line warfare. Can we really believe that it has not been targeted by competitors with "backstabbing"?

Given this, I fully support Lei Jun and Xiaomi in refuting rumors and clarifying.

Tolerance, inclusiveness, and generosity should be reserved for legitimate critics, not for malicious PR.

02

Nevertheless, I would like to offer a friendly reminder that while being misunderstood may be the fate of expressers, expressions should leave as little room for misunderstandings as possible.

If Lei Jun had changed the easily misunderstood statement "a car's appearance is the top priority" to "a car's safety is the top priority, and appearance is also extremely important," could it have avoided many misunderstandings?

Saying "appearance is the top priority" one moment and "safety is above all else" the next is too much of a test for netizens' reading comprehension skills.

Not to mention, in ideal conditions, appearance and safety should be a multiple-choice question where both can be achieved, but under cost constraints, it may become a priority judgment question with trade-offs.

Now, it seems Lei Jun and Tim from Yingshi Jufeng are caught in the same river.

After Tim's stunt at a blind date corner sparked controversy, he also blamed "malicious clips" for distorting facts.

It is true that marketing accounts used malicious clips to portray Tim as "a rich person pretending to be poor" to exploit the poor, but in his self-introduction, describing himself as a "video production-related" top blogger and his father as "courier profession-related" president of Yuantong, was he misjudging the current public opinion climate?

I am not judging Lei Jun or Tim with "perfect logic," nor am I blurring right and wrong with "a fly does not sting a seamless egg." I am merely reminding them not to underestimate the complexity of public opinion: even if the price of fame is inevitably being stabbed with "distorting facts and smearing," they should try to avoid stabbing themselves.

03

Lei Jun's refutation and clarification are understandable. However, it is also important to recognize that while his refutation and clarification can easily resolve literal misunderstandings, resolving the "trust deficit" is much harder.

Scholar Wu Guanjun once said that the structural issue with trust lies in the possibility that the trusted party may not be worthy of trust.

Over the past year, Lei Jun has become a prominent influencer among entrepreneurs: a real-life version of Xiao Nai, an ideal object for sapiosexuals, a go-to prototype for overbearing CEO themes, a prime specimen for Lei Xue (Lei Jun studies) research, and a spiritual icon suitable for the Chinese. These labels once propelled Lei Jun to great heights.

At that time, many people trusted Lei Jun because his expressions, embedded in the core of "striving" and manifested in stories of "being the strongest ever, working day and night, withstanding all pressures," resonated with ordinary people.

Empathy prompts people to take a "leap" of trust, which is usually based on emotions.

According to Luhmann, a "leap" of trust that transcends reason and logic can only become steadier with mutual careful maintenance, eventually forming a solid foundation of trust.

The current dilemma for Lei Jun and Xiaomi is that the foundation of trust between them and audiences beyond die-hard fans has not been established.

The changing trends in internet memes about Lei Jun illustrate everything.

Previously, the most typical meme was:

Lei Jun: "I had soy milk and fried dough sticks for breakfast this morning. What do you usually have for breakfast?"

Netizens: "Mr. Lei, we usually endure hardship in the morning; endure hardship in the morning, suffer losses in the afternoon, and be at a disadvantage in the evening..."

Now, the most typical meme is:

Lei Jun: "Nappa leather seats worth 8,000 yuan are free, zero-gravity seats worth 18,000 yuan are free, and molten orange is free..."

Netizens: "Going to eat at Sha County Snacks, the boss said, a bowl of noodles is 15 yuan, chopsticks are free for you to use, the stool is free for you to sit on, and chili oil is available at will..."

Nowadays, Lei Jun may still be seen as "honest and quiet" in the eyes of die-hard fans, but the interpretation is different for another group of people.

Why has this happened?

Many would attribute it to clichés like "popularity is a double-edged sword," "if you want to wear the crown, you must bear the weight," "excess leads to counteraction," "success and failure of entrepreneur IP," and "what goes around comes around."

However, the core issue lies in the fact that Lei Jun and Xiaomi have not done enough in terms of "careful maintenance."

04

At the very least, there are numerous issues awaiting responses from Lei Jun and Xiaomi:

For example, is it reasonable that a car owner paid 42,000 yuan for an optional "carbon fiber front hood," only to find that only the air duct part is made of carbon fiber?

For example, is it appropriate that a phone poster has large text stating "King of Backlighting" while small text notes "this is the product design goal"?

If Lei Jun's down-to-earth and meme-worthy image previously prompted many to take a "leap" of trust, these "trust-eroding" actions will only make many people hesitate in their trust.

Similarly, other criticized actions include:

"Ultra-strong steel" as a project name, "super energy-saving" as an air conditioner product name,

claiming "(notebook) is thinner than a one-yuan coin," saying "(car) only needs to be charged once for 1,300 kilometers."...

Are these not providing more material for netizens' memes?

These memes are different from the "Are You Ok" Kichiku (parody) BGM.

The "Are You Ok" parody BGM merely brought Lei Jun's image down to earth, indirectly winning him favor.

When netizens meme "my 54-degree water is one degree hotter than Moutai," they are "storyifying" Lei Jun, resulting in his past sincerity being deconstructed into a stereotypical "fake sincerity" routine.

Some may argue, "Small text notes are an industry-standard practice." (Please do not take offense, fans of Luo XXhao)

However, even if it is a convention, it does not change its essence of being a bad practice.

Xiaomi likes to benchmark itself against Apple and Tesla; would Apple and Tesla engage in such practices?

Since "benchmarking against the best" is aimed at "surpassing the best," it should drive the industry upwards, not downwards.

05

Writer Bi Feiyu said, "People are like this: your strength is also your weakness."

Now, Lei Jun and Xiaomi's public opinion situation seems to validate this statement.

Liu Qiangdong said not to compete with Lei Jun in marketing, but in the end, being too good at marketing has become a stumbling block for Lei Jun.

Marketing is not the problem; "high promise, low delivery" marketing is.

Furthermore, marketing is not the core issue; whether product strength can keep up with marketing is.

Over the past many years, Xiaomi has moved fast, accustomed to the narrative of "overtaking on curves."

High-frequency words in this narrative include: low price, equal rights, cost-effectiveness.

However, the flaw of overtaking on curves is that after reaching the inflection point, parts beyond curve overtaking become constraints.

At the inflection point, what matters is high-end manufacturing and hard technology. Xiaomi has actually made significant progress in this regard, with breakthroughs in both new energy vehicles and 3nm process chips.

However, the hidden danger lies in the lack of a buffer zone to exchange time for space, causing its mistakes to explode intensively in a short period.

Others have deep roots and made mistakes over a long period, with their errors "spread out" over decades or even longer.

If you cover the distance of decades in a few years, some mistakes can be avoided by "learning from the past," but some cannot, leading to intense short-term pressure.

Previously, Lei Jun and Xiaomi were in the entrepreneur IP dividend period and the corporate critical period, equivalent to being at the peak, where such potential issues were masked.

However, once the peak passes, risk points will be exposed.

To a large extent, the current public opinion Xiaomi is facing is a cumulative feedback of mistakes upon mistakes.

The questioning of Xiaomi's "prioritizing appearance over safety" intersects with this sentiment, becoming an explosion point for the intensification of the trust deficit.

Therefore, when Lei Jun refutes and clarifies from a safety perspective, it is hard to avoid others finding "fault" from other angles: How to resolve the carbon fiber front hood issue? What about the small text artistry?

06

Saying these does not mean adopting a "non-fan, non-hater" mentality to absolutely praise or criticize specific individuals or events. Every company has its own collection of mistakes; the important thing is to acknowledge and improve them.

Here, let me clarify: I am neither a fan nor a hater of Lei Jun and Xiaomi. I have previously written that "denying Xiaomi as an assembly plant is ridiculous" and advocated for "viewing Xiaomi with a neutral perspective and a long-term lens."

Xiaomi's rapid rise as a leading Chinese internet technology company by market value and a renowned Chinese brand undoubtedly has its merits. From the perspective of supporting corporate development, criticism should not lead to a complete dismissal.

Regarding safety, I fully understand the safety concerns many have after two traffic accidents in April and October this year, as well as Lei Jun's eagerness to clarify misunderstandings.

My personal view is that evaluating the safety of Xiaomi cars should consider various factors, including the actual test results of the SU7's claim to "meet the world's most stringent crash tests," the positive and negative externalities of its sub-2-second zero-to-100 acceleration, and comparisons with the safety performance of other car companies.

Nowadays, almost no car company is free from safety incidents. As long as they are on the road in bulk, they will inevitably be associated with accident risks. The number of accidents is related to product quality, but whether an accident occurs depends on the law of large numbers, not product quality alone.

However, to eliminate public safety concerns, relying solely on refutation and clarification is not enough; establishing a foundation of trust is crucial.

Without addressing the foundation of trust, mere feelings of grievance and anger will not help fill the trust gap.

07

For Lei Jun and Xiaomi, the potential cost of becoming top influencers and the accompanying risks of rapid overtaking are like a sword of Damocles hanging overhead.

With the waning of entrepreneur IP dividends and the arrival of the period for fulfilling corporate promises, the dominoes of hidden worries turning into explicit concerns will inevitably fall.

How to break out of the dilemma?

Internet analyst Wang Zhiyuan has put forward two insightful recommendations: the decentralization of personality traits and the verifiability of product attributes.

He posits that in the future, corporate communication ought to shift its focus away from amplifying a singular influential personality (IP). Instead, it should strive to construct a 'verifiable personality system.' In this system, brand language, responses, and values are seamlessly aligned. Additionally, communication itself should be endowed with an 'immune system.' This system would encompass 'co-creation spots' where users can actively participate and 'second creation pools' that encourage users to build upon existing content. By engaging with internet memes and utilizing self-deprecating humor, companies can break free from communication dilemmas.

Moreover, at the product level, three distinct types of verification mechanisms should be established. The first is 'factual' verification, which relies on parameters and performance metrics. The second is 'experiential' verification, enabling users to have a tangible and firsthand experience of the product. The third is 'visionary' verification, which depends on the passage of time to validate the product's long-term value and fulfillment of promises.

I wholeheartedly concur with these viewpoints, and here are my elaborations:

1. Exercise restraint in marketing and bide time for product excellence.

When a product's inherent strength is on par with its marketing efforts, marketing acts as a powerful accelerator, propelling the product to greater heights. Conversely, when the product falls short, marketing can become a cumbersome drag, hindering rather than helping. When a company's actions fail to live up to its lofty words, the root cause often lies with the product itself, not the public relations (PR) department. However, an intriguing paradox arises when the corporate CEO assumes the role of the primary 'PR.' In such cases, even exemplary PR efforts can inadvertently become problematic, as the CEO's personal image becomes inextricably linked with the company's brand.

2. Shift the focus from the entrepreneur's personal IP to the corporate brand.

Tying a company's fortunes to a single individual's influential personality (IP) places an undue burden on that person. Simultaneously, it deprives the company of a stable and enduring brand anchor. Take, for instance, the case of entrepreneur Lei Jun, who was previously ensnared in the persona of 'top influencer Lei Jun.' His IP was so prominent that it essentially functioned as a one-person PR department. Consequently, when issues arose, the public's attention inevitably turned to Lei Jun, placing him under immense scrutiny.

The current situation clearly indicates that this model has reached its limits and is in need of reevaluation. To borrow a popular online phrase, 'those who ascend the mountain will eventually meet those descending the divine path.' What Lei Jun is currently facing is a scenario where those who seek to dethrone the 'divine' figure are pushing the once-revered individual down from their pedestal.

This predicament, however, may present a valuable opportunity for Lei Jun and Xiaomi to engage in introspection and foster innovation. If they seize this moment, it could indeed prove to be a positive turning point.

Ultimately, Lei Jun's entrapment in the 'Lei Jun' persona is a complex and intricate knot. He himself is both the cause of the entanglement and the potential solution. As the saying goes, 'he who tied the bell must untie it.' The onus lies with Lei Jun to find a way out of this conundrum.