数读 | 良品铺子“花生上树”事件：AI时代下的常识乌龙与信任拷问

Core Insights - The incident involving the misrepresentation of peanuts as growing on trees by a brand has sparked significant public discourse, highlighting the pitfalls of AI technology in marketing and the erosion of brand trust [1][2][6] Group 1: Incident Overview - On August 27, 2025, a social media user discovered an error in a promotional image from a brand, which incorrectly stated that peanuts grow on trees, leading to widespread disbelief and ridicule [1] - The hashtag related to the incident gained over 203.9 million views on Weibo and 38.48 million views on Douyin, indicating the extensive reach of the controversy [3] - The brand issued an apology and initiated a comprehensive review within 28 hours of the issue being identified, but the response did not fully quell public concern [4] Group 2: Media Response - Major media outlets focused on two main issues: the misuse of AI technology and the lack of basic agricultural knowledge within the brand [2] - Reports highlighted that 10 mainstream media outlets directly referenced the brand's apology, while others criticized the incident as an industry joke stemming from human error rather than AI flaws [2] - The media coverage elevated the discussion from mere online jokes to a serious examination of marketing practices and brand accountability [2] Group 3: Public Sentiment - Public reactions revealed three primary concerns: the inadequacy of the brand's review processes, the potential for misleading product information, and the inappropriate use of AI as a scapegoat for human error [4] - Keywords such as "verification," "apology," and "consumer" emerged as focal points in the discourse, reflecting public demand for accountability and transparency [3] Group 4: Industry Implications - The incident serves as a cautionary tale for brands about the importance of maintaining professional standards and rigorous content review processes in the age of AI [6] - The overarching message emphasizes that while technology can enhance efficiency, it cannot replace fundamental knowledge and responsibility in marketing practices [6]