Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the crisis faced by companies like Xibei and Aikang Guobin, highlighting that the root of the crisis is not about right or wrong, but rather a misalignment in understanding between the companies and the public [1][2]. Group 1: Industry Standards vs Public Perception - In the medical examination industry, the standard is to "screen for abnormal indicators," not to "diagnose diseases," leading to a disconnect when consumers expect cancer detection [3]. - In the restaurant industry, Xibei's explanation that "central kitchen pre-processing does not equal pre-made dishes" fails to resonate with consumers who equate anything not freshly cooked as pre-made [4]. - This misalignment indicates that while industries have their own standards and terminologies, consumers lack the time or interest to understand these details [6]. Group 2: Defensive Reactions and Crisis Amplification - The misalignment could have been mitigated through patient explanation and communication, but both Aikang Guobin and Xibei opted for litigation as a response [7]. - For Xibei, the issue of "pre-made dishes" is not just a labeling problem but affects the entire supply chain and cost structure, necessitating a strong defense [8]. - Aikang Guobin views its examination services as "screening," not "diagnosis," and feels compelled to defend against public misconceptions that could undermine its business model [9]. Group 3: Public Sentiment and Perception - Public perception of pre-made dishes is simplistic, often siding with figures like Luo Yonghao, which indicates that Xibei underestimated consumer expectations for transparency in the food industry [10]. - In the Aikang incident, the lawyer's status as a cancer patient garnered public sympathy, making the company's litigation appear as "bullying the weak," overshadowing any professional arguments [11]. - Companies often perceive public questioning as a commercial threat, while the public desires a more open response to their concerns, leading to potential backlash if the boundaries between defense and public education are blurred [12]. Conclusion - The events involving Aikang Guobin and Xibei illustrate that in today's media environment, a company's "standard answer" may be perceived as the "wrong answer" by the public, highlighting a common challenge across industries [13]. - It is more effective for companies to establish effective communication and reduce cognitive gaps before crises arise, rather than responding defensively during a crisis [14]. - Ultimately, gaining public trust is essential for success in any industry [15].

本报（chinatimes.net.cn）记者温冲 于建平 北京报道 近日，小米SU7 Ultra车型的"碳纤维双风道前舱盖"（下称"碳纤维前舱盖"）功能争议持续发酵。众多车 主通过实测发现这一售价高达4.2万元的选装件实际导流与散热效果与宣传不符。 小米汽车在5月7日发布的声明中承认前舱盖功能表达不够清晰，并提供改配铝制机盖及2万积分补偿方 案。不过，车主认为补偿力度不足，不认同、不接受解决方案，部分车主要求退钱或退车。 车主不满小米汽车赔偿方案，要求退钱、退车 一位博主通过实验，将鼓风机对着挖孔机盖吹风，结果发现放置在开孔处的纸巾毫无反应，由此揭开了 小米SU7 Ultra碳纤维前舱盖涉嫌虚假宣传的面纱。随后，又有车主亲自拆解，发现所谓的"双风道高效 导流"碳纤维开孔，既无法有效引导空气至刹车系统，也未能产生下压力。越来越多的SU7 Ultra准车主 认为，其高价选装的碳纤维前舱盖存在虚假宣传或者官方表达有误。 面对车主们的质疑，5月7日，小米汽车通过《关于大家关心问题的回答》发布声明，承认此前信息表达 不够清晰，并给出解决方案：一、对于未交付的订单，提供限时改配服务，可以改回铝制前舱盖。二、 对于已提车 ...