Group 1 - The crisis public relations industry is experiencing rapid growth due to advancements in AI, media technology, and increasing global complexities [1][3] - Domestic crisis public relations companies are rising, capturing market share from foreign firms by adapting to local environments and the emergence of domestic brands [3][4] - New "cross-border public relations companies" are entering the crisis PR space, but they often lack the expertise and market share of established firms [4] Group 2 - The latest ranking of crisis public relations companies highlights the top firms, with Zhongtian Public Relations, Edelman, and Ogilvy Public Relations leading the list [6][7] - The ranking criteria have been updated to include real-world case data and the reputation of firms as assessed by executives from listed companies [6][7] - Zhongtian Public Relations is noted for its significant experience and successful management of public relations for major Chinese companies [9] Group 3 - The crisis public relations industry is expected to continue its rapid growth, particularly among large enterprises that are willing to invest significantly in crisis management [12] - There is a growing demand for specialized services such as reputation risk management and crisis training, reflecting the increasing importance placed on crisis management capabilities by large companies [12]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the crisis faced by Mercedes-Benz during the launch of the A-Class in 1997, specifically focusing on the moose test incident and how the company turned the crisis into an opportunity for brand recovery and innovation [1]. Group 1: Background and Initial Challenges - The A-Class was launched on October 21, 1997, just three days after its European debut, when it faced a major crisis due to a rollover incident during a moose test conducted by a journalist [2][21]. - The development of the A-Class took four years, with total costs reaching $1.4 billion, including an 18-month marketing campaign costing $115 million [3][17]. - At the time, Mercedes-Benz held a 25% market share in the European luxury car market, facing competition from brands like BMW and Audi [5]. Group 2: Crisis Response and Initial Reactions - Following the rollover incident, the management team was caught off guard, as the A-Class had passed numerous tests prior to the incident [22][25]. - Initial public statements from the company downplayed the incident, which was perceived as arrogant and led to negative media coverage [29][32]. - The stock price of Daimler dropped from $77.18 to $68.50, a decline of over 11% during the crisis [46]. Group 3: Technical Analysis and Solutions - Engineers suggested that the rollover was due to extreme driving conditions and possibly incorrect tire usage during the test [39][40]. - The company proposed to install the Electronic Stability Program (ESP) in all A-Class vehicles to enhance safety, which was a significant innovation at the time [59][67]. - A crisis management team was formed to address the situation, leading to a decision to recall 17,000 A-Class vehicles for modifications [68][70]. Group 4: Marketing and Brand Recovery - Mercedes-Benz launched a new advertising campaign focusing on the moose test, transforming it into a humorous narrative to regain public interest [94][100]. - The company invited journalists to test the modified A-Class, which resulted in positive feedback and helped restore confidence in the vehicle's safety [105][111]. - By February 1998, the A-Class had regained popularity, with pre-orders increasing to 120,000 units, surpassing the initial 100,000 orders [143][144]. Group 5: Long-term Impact and Lessons Learned - The crisis ultimately led to a reevaluation of crisis management strategies within Daimler, emphasizing the importance of proactive communication and technical preparedness for future product launches [139][140]. - The A-Class became a commercial success post-crisis, highlighting the effectiveness of the company's recovery strategies and the resilience of the Mercedes-Benz brand [141][142].

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi is facing a significant trust crisis following a series of negative events, including a car accident and subsequent issues related to its automotive technology, which have raised doubts about its brand reputation and product quality [1][5][12]. Group 1: Product Development and Technology - Xiaomi introduced its self-developed 3nm SoC chip, Xuanjie O1, and the highly anticipated YU7 model during a recent product launch, marking a critical step in its strategy to regain public trust [1][6]. - The introduction of the Xuanjie chip positions Xiaomi as the only Chinese company capable of self-developing a 3nm SoC chip after Huawei's sanctions, potentially shifting public focus from past controversies to its technological capabilities [6][9]. Group 2: Brand Reputation and Public Trust - The recent incidents have severely damaged Xiaomi's brand reputation, with public skepticism about its product quality and marketing claims resurfacing [5][12]. - The company is attempting to rebuild trust through a dual approach of emotional engagement and technical transparency, including public apologies and data disclosures related to the incidents [12][17]. Group 3: Crisis Management Strategies - Xiaomi's crisis response strategy involves a "three-layer response" model, focusing on emotional resonance, factual transparency, and third-party validation to restore trust [14][20]. - In contrast to Gree's approach of diverting attention from its crisis, Xiaomi's strategy emphasizes accountability and long-term commitment to transparency, which aligns with its identity as a technology-driven company [17][20].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a public relations battle between Wahaha and Jinmailang, highlighting how Wahaha's reliance on Jinmailang for bottled water production has backfired, leading to a potential self-directed PR strategy by Jinmailang to gain market share [2][10][39]. Group 1: Background of the Situation - Wahaha engaged Jinmailang for contract manufacturing, producing 1.2 billion bottles of water due to its inability to meet demand [3][10]. - In April 2025, Wahaha unilaterally terminated the partnership, citing quality issues with Jinmailang's products [4][12]. Group 2: Public Reaction and Company Responses - Consumers expressed disappointment upon learning that Wahaha's bottled water was produced by Jinmailang, questioning their loyalty to Wahaha [6]. - Wahaha responded to the backlash by claiming that Jinmailang's products failed quality checks, attempting to protect its brand image [4][6]. Group 3: Jinmailang's Strategic Response - Jinmailang's chairman avoided discussing the quality issues and instead emphasized cost control and low pricing strategies [10][18]. - The company likely orchestrated a PR campaign to leverage the situation, positioning itself as a cost-effective alternative to Wahaha [10][39]. Group 4: Media and Public Relations Tactics - Jinmailang appeared to have planned the PR strategy, including encouraging consumer discussions online and engaging media to amplify the narrative [19][21]. - The initial media coverage by a specific outlet sparked significant public interest, leading to a trending topic on social media [27][38]. Group 5: Market Implications - Jinmailang's chairman stated that their blue label water has a net profit of only 0.02 yuan per bottle, highlighting their competitive pricing strategy [18][39]. - The article suggests that this PR battle could be worth at least 100 million yuan in advertising value for Jinmailang, indicating a successful market positioning strategy [39][40].

文｜ 闰然 编辑｜ 何子维 视觉 | 顾芗 在17岁男孩的小便门事件中，身为受害者的海底捞，却成为了众矢之的。 从结果上看，海底捞不仅道歉，还不惜大方地掏出上千万的天价赔偿金——对4109单顾客，进行10倍补 偿。 但回顾整个事件便会发现，或因海底捞过度想要呈现"服务至上""消费者至上"的完美形象，反而对公众 的愤怒失去了判断，导致其公关策略犯了糊涂。 它宽容了犯事者，却将顾客架在对立面，顺风翻盘的局势被打成了逆风。 "老好人"海底捞 一则让人生理不适的视频在网上流传——2月24日凌晨，两个17岁的男孩，在海底捞上海外滩店聚餐， 醉酒后站上餐桌，向火锅内小便。 3月6日之后，视频火了。 海底捞和消费者，瞬间成了此次事件的直接受害者。 但事关未成年人，海底捞没有第一时间锚定受害者的身份，而是针对始作俑者，采取了原谅的态度，表 示要给他们一个接受教训与成长的机会，并且还呼吁大家避免对其个人及家庭进行不当传播或攻击，并 强调谴责并追究"恶意传播者"的责任。 但不明是非的大度，时机显然不对，共情对象也错了——未成年人公然挑衅公序良俗，向火锅内小便， 这是极为不文明的行为，影响十分恶劣。但海底捞不能保证消费者的用餐安全 ...