要知道，他可是米粉眼中的 "反米先锋"，不仅多次贬低小米产品，还曾将小米用户称作 "负资产"，其粉丝群体 也长期充斥对小米的攻击性言论。这种"一边骂还一边拿钱" 的操作，让米粉瞬间炸了锅。 以下文章来源于伯乐在线 ，作者伯小乐 伯乐在线 . 伯乐在线分享IT互联网职场和精选干货文章（原域名已不再维护）。组织维护10万+star的开源技术资源 库，包括：Python, Java, C/C++, Go, JS, CSS, Node.js, PHP, .NET 等 【导读】：1 月 5 日，"小米投了万能的大熊"一事引爆数码圈。这位长期贬低小米用户为 "负资产" 的博主，竟 被曝与小米有合作接触，引发米粉和核心合作大V强烈抵制。最终小米公关负责人徐洁云致歉，宣布立即终止 且永不合作，这场风波才暂告一段落。 导火索："米黑"自曝合作引众怒 事件的起点很直接，博主"万能的大熊"（宗宁）在群聊中直言 "因为小米投了我呀"。 关键点：核心大V带头"反水" "米系大V"午后狂睡的反应最为激烈。他直接发文吐槽 "太恶心了"，不仅喊停与小米的所有后续合作，还把正 在用的小米 17 Ultra 徕卡版丢给别人，换成了其他品牌手机。 ...

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].

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the carbon fiber front hood of the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra model has escalated, with many owners disputing the advertised performance and actual functionality of this high-priced optional component [2][3]. Summary by Sections Product Controversy - Owners have conducted tests revealing that the carbon fiber front hood, priced at 42,000 yuan, does not perform as advertised in terms of airflow and cooling [2][3]. - Xiaomi acknowledged the unclear communication regarding the front hood's functionality and offered a compensation plan, which includes switching to an aluminum hood and providing 20,000 points (approximately 2,000 yuan) for affected customers [3][5]. Customer Reactions - A group of prospective owners released a video demanding refunds or returns, expressing dissatisfaction with Xiaomi's response to the alleged false advertising [4]. - Many customers feel that the compensation offered is insufficient, as it only represents 4.76% of the optional hood's cost [3][5]. Company Response - Xiaomi's official statement indicated that the carbon fiber hood was not part of the original production plan and was introduced in response to customer demand after positive feedback on the prototype [6][7]. - The company emphasized the high production standards and costs associated with the carbon fiber hood, which involves advanced manufacturing techniques [6][7]. Impact on Sales and Reputation - The controversy has led to a decline in sales, with April's delivery figures dropping to 28,000 units, marking a 3.4% decrease, the first sales drop for Xiaomi [9]. - The SU7 model ranked last in a quality assessment of new energy vehicles, further damaging the brand's reputation [9]. - CEO Lei Jun expressed that the past month has been one of the most challenging periods since founding Xiaomi, indicating the potential long-term impact of this issue on the company's image and future product launches [9].