XIAOMI(HK:01810) Xin Lang Cai Jing·2025-11-17 00:17Core Viewpoint - The article criticizes Xiaomi's marketing practices, particularly regarding its deposit system, which is perceived as misleading and exploitative towards consumers [1][10]. Group 1: Consumer Experience - Xiaomi's deposit of 5000 yuan is marketed as a "small deposit," but it effectively locks consumers into a non-refundable agreement after a 7-day hesitation period, which is seen as a form of coercive sales [3][9]. - The company failed to inform customers about the cessation of a subsidy program until the day the vehicle was delivered, creating a significant information asymmetry [6][15]. - Xiaomi's customer service is criticized for being overly procedural and lacking empathy, as it does not address consumer concerns adequately [7][13]. Group 2: Comparison with Competitors - Compared to competitors like Tesla and BYD, which have higher deposit amounts but clearer rules and proactive communication regarding policy changes, Xiaomi's approach is seen as deceptive [9][12]. - The article highlights that while Xiaomi promotes itself as transparent and sincere, its deposit mechanism is one of the least transparent aspects of its business model [10][19]. Group 3: Corporate Responsibility - The article argues that while consumers have a responsibility to stay informed, companies like Xiaomi have a greater obligation to communicate critical information proactively, especially regarding significant financial implications [15][17]. - Xiaomi's current operational philosophy is described as prioritizing efficiency and profit over genuine customer care, which undermines consumer trust [19][21].