Core Viewpoint - The rapid decline of the internet celebrity "Chicken Chop Brother" highlights the pitfalls of over-commercialization and the loss of authenticity in the influencer economy, leading to a backlash from fans and the public [23][29]. Group 1: Event Overview - The "National Tour" of Chicken Chop Brother kicked off in Nanjing, attracting large crowds and long queues, indicating initial popularity [1]. - Controversy arose with the emergence of "ticket scalpers" charging up to 299 yuan for queue positions, leading to public outcry and viral social media posts [3]. Group 2: Public Reaction - A significant backlash erupted in cities where Chicken Chop Brother planned to continue his tour, with local residents organizing "boycott" campaigns and promoting local food alternatives [7][19]. - The hashtag "ChickenChopBrotherCharacterCollapse" trended on social media, amassing over 280 million views in just three hours, showcasing the rapid shift in public sentiment [7]. Group 3: Price and Value Discrepancy - The price of Chicken Chop Brother's signature chicken chop surged from 6 yuan in 2024 to 50 yuan during the tour, an increase of over 8 times, leading to dissatisfaction among customers regarding quality and value [15][17]. - The response from Chicken Chop Brother's team regarding the price increase further fueled public anger, as many felt the experience did not justify the cost [15]. Group 4: Market Impact - The tour sparked regional conflicts, with local businesses expressing concerns about the potential disruption to their markets and customer bases due to the hype surrounding Chicken Chop Brother [21]. - Some local vendors in cities like Hangzhou and Ningbo issued statements refusing to support the tour, emphasizing the need to protect local food culture [21]. Group 5: Lessons for Influencer Economy - The case of Chicken Chop Brother serves as a cautionary tale for the influencer economy, illustrating the dangers of prioritizing rapid commercialization over maintaining authenticity and trust with followers [23][27]. - The rapid rise and fall of Chicken Chop Brother reflect a broader trend in the influencer industry, where the loss of genuine connection with the audience can lead to swift backlash and loss of credibility [29].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the phenomenon of "traffic backlash" experienced by companies like Xiaomi, highlighting the relationship between user base growth, product reputation, and the challenges of scaling business in a digital environment [1][5][24]. Group 1: Traffic and Reputation - The increase in user base directly affects product reputation, creating a formula where product reputation safety coefficient = project time / user base, indicating that a larger coefficient means greater safety [4]. - Companies that focus solely on traffic without considering reputation often face backlash, as seen in the cases of Xiaomi, Alibaba, and others [5][12]. - The article emphasizes that a mature company should separate public relations and marketing functions to ensure that reputation management is not compromised for the sake of traffic [10][14]. Group 2: Understanding Backlash - Backlash is not an inevitable outcome of pursuing traffic; it can be mitigated by focusing on product quality rather than relying on individual personalities or trends [15][20]. - Successful companies like those in Silicon Valley manage to avoid backlash by aligning traffic with product performance, demonstrating that genuine product value is key [17][18]. - The article suggests that backlash can be seen as a form of validation, indicating that a company has reached a level of success where backlash is possible [24][26]. Group 3: Strategies to Mitigate Backlash - Companies should maintain open communication with users, competitors, and media to manage public perception and avoid triggering regulatory scrutiny [30][31]. - A proactive approach to criticism, including listening and adapting, is essential for companies to navigate backlash effectively [32]. - The article concludes that true strength lies in a company's ability to remain unaffected by rumors and maintain a focus on product integrity [33].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the relationship between emotions and traffic in content creation, emphasizing that while emotions can drive traffic, they can also lead to negative consequences if not managed properly [2][35][40]. Group 1: Traffic Framework - A new traffic operation framework called "3-step 'anti-algorithm' traffic framework" has been developed to capture platform traffic, driven by the demand for B2B business [1]. - The framework includes various stages of user engagement, from exposure to purchase, highlighting the importance of understanding user psychology and emotional triggers [23][24]. Group 2: Emotional Impact on Traffic - The concept that "emotion equals traffic" is highlighted, indicating that emotional content can significantly increase engagement and readership [2][35]. - However, the article warns that manipulating emotions for traffic can lead to negative backlash, as seen in the author's experience with controversial content [10][11][20]. Group 3: Content Strategy and Audience Engagement - Successful content must balance emotional appeal with genuine value; high-quality products and authentic experiences are essential for sustainable growth [23][40]. - The article outlines a strategy for engaging audiences through emotional resonance, suggesting that content should avoid rational appeals that may disengage readers [32][38]. Group 4: Audience Behavior and Feedback - Audience reactions to content can vary widely, with a significant portion engaging out of curiosity or emotional response rather than rational analysis [36]. - The article emphasizes the need for content creators to be aware of the potential for negative feedback and the importance of maintaining a positive relationship with their audience [12][21].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges faced by Xiaomi in the automotive sector, particularly regarding the SU7 Ultra model, highlighting issues of false advertising and customer dissatisfaction, which reflect broader industry concerns about trust and accountability in the electric vehicle market [1][21][35]. Group 1: Customer Issues and Reactions - Multiple owners of the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra have demanded refunds due to the carbon fiber hood not performing as advertised, leading to accusations of false advertising [3][4][6]. - Xiaomi acknowledged the discrepancies in their product claims and issued a public apology, offering compensation in the form of loyalty points to affected customers [7][9][13]. - The controversy has sparked significant backlash from consumers, who feel that Xiaomi's response has not adequately addressed their grievances [13][20]. Group 2: Product Performance and Safety Concerns - Following a series of incidents, Xiaomi limited the SU7 Ultra's maximum horsepower from 1548 to 900, requiring owners to complete a track test to unlock the full power [18][20]. - This decision has been met with criticism, as many believe it undermines the vehicle's appeal and disregards customer input [20][21]. Group 3: Industry Context and Implications - The article places Xiaomi's challenges within the broader context of the electric vehicle industry, where trust and safety are paramount, especially as new players enter the market [23][25][31]. - The shift in consumer expectations and the evolving relationship between car manufacturers and buyers are highlighted, indicating a need for greater accountability and transparency in the industry [27][28][32]. - Xiaomi's experience serves as a cautionary tale for other companies in the sector, emphasizing the importance of maintaining consumer trust and addressing issues proactively [29][35].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges faced by Xiaomi in the automotive sector, particularly regarding the SU7 Ultra model, highlighting issues of false advertising and customer dissatisfaction, which have led to a significant trust crisis for the brand [2][28]. Group 1: Issues with SU7 Ultra - Multiple owners of the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra have demanded refunds due to the carbon fiber hood not performing as advertised, which they claim constitutes false advertising [5][12]. - The SU7 Ultra was initially celebrated for its performance, achieving a record time at the Nürburgring, but subsequent revelations about the product's actual capabilities have led to significant backlash from consumers [6][11]. - Xiaomi publicly apologized for the misleading information regarding the carbon fiber hood and offered compensation in the form of loyalty points to affected customers [9][12]. Group 2: Performance Limitations - In response to safety concerns, Xiaomi limited the SU7 Ultra's maximum horsepower from 1548 to 900, requiring owners to complete a track test to unlock the full power [20][23]. - This decision has been met with criticism from consumers who feel it undermines the vehicle's appeal and does not respect customer feedback [21][27]. Group 3: Broader Industry Context - The article places Xiaomi's challenges within the larger context of the automotive industry, noting that many new energy vehicle manufacturers are facing similar scrutiny and consumer expectations regarding safety and performance [24][27]. - The shift in consumer behavior towards seeking accountability from car manufacturers is highlighted, indicating a change in the relationship between consumers and automotive brands [25][26]. Group 4: Brand and Market Position - Xiaomi's rapid rise in the automotive market is noted, with the company entering a highly competitive space and establishing a strong brand identity among younger consumers [28][29]. - The article suggests that the current issues faced by Xiaomi should serve as a turning point for the entire industry, emphasizing the importance of safety and trust in the development of new energy vehicles [29].