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].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the crisis management strategies of Haidilao, emphasizing the importance of brand narrative and effective communication in handling public relations crises [4][10][36]. Group 1: Brand Narrative and Crisis Management - Haidilao's brand narrative includes principles such as "changing fate with both hands," "apprenticeship system," and "extreme pursuit of customer experience," which form a coherent structure for brand storytelling [3][4]. - The company faced a significant crisis in August 2017 when a serious hygiene issue at its Beijing store was exposed, leading to widespread media attention [5]. - Haidilao's response was swift, acknowledging the issue, issuing an apology, and committing to comprehensive reforms across all stores, including transparency in kitchen operations and enhanced internal management [6][7]. Group 2: Recent Controversies and Responses - A recent incident in February 2023 involved two minors misbehaving in a Haidilao restaurant, which sparked public outrage and raised questions about food safety and management practices [12][30]. - The company's initial response focused on giving minors a chance and threatened legal action against those who spread the video, which was perceived as a misjudgment of public expectations [13][29]. - Haidilao later offered full refunds and tenfold compensation to affected customers, indicating a sincere attempt to address the situation and restore trust [14][38]. Group 3: Public Perception and Communication Strategy - The article highlights the importance of understanding public sentiment and the potential pitfalls of labeling individuals as "malicious spreaders," which can alienate the audience [18][23]. - Effective crisis communication should focus on empathy, clear messaging, and maintaining trust, rather than merely reacting to social media trends [37][46]. - The article warns against the trend of treating crises as marketing opportunities, emphasizing that genuine crisis management should prioritize restoring organizational reputation and addressing structural flaws [39][59].

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 ...