Core Viewpoint - The automotive industry is facing scrutiny over exaggerated marketing claims and misleading advertisements, which can lead to consumer dissatisfaction and potential legal repercussions [1][5][12]. Group 1: Marketing Practices - Some automotive companies are investing heavily in marketing to attract consumers, but this has led to instances of exaggerated claims about new features and performance [1][6]. - The case of Xiaomi's SU7 Ultra highlights how misleading marketing can result in consumer backlash when the actual product does not meet advertised expectations [3][4][5]. - Other companies, such as SAIC Roewe, have also faced criticism for unrealistic promotional content that does not align with safe driving practices [6][10]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Implications - Misleading advertisements can trigger multiple legal responsibilities for automotive companies, including potential fines and contract breaches [5][12]. - The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) has begun addressing the issue of exaggerated and false advertising in the automotive sector, emphasizing the need for compliance with advertising laws [12][13]. - Companies are encouraged to establish rigorous content review mechanisms to ensure that all promotional materials are accurate and compliant with regulations [8][12]. Group 3: Consumer Expectations and Industry Response - Consumers are increasingly aware of the discrepancies between marketing claims and actual product performance, leading to a demand for transparency and accountability from automotive brands [4][5]. - The automotive industry is urged to adopt a more responsible approach to marketing, ensuring that all claims are substantiated by thorough testing and validation [13]. - There is a growing recognition that maintaining long-term brand reputation is more important than short-term marketing gains, prompting companies to reassess their promotional strategies [8][12].

Core Viewpoint - The recent collective rights protection incident involving Xiaomi's SU7 Ultra has highlighted the gap between marketing and actual product delivery, raising concerns about the fragility of the "entrepreneurial IP" strategy employed by the company [2][3] Group 1: Product Controversy - Hundreds of prospective owners of the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra have united to demand refunds, citing discrepancies between the advertised features and the actual product [2] - The controversy centers around the "carbon fiber dual air duct front hood," which was marketed as enhancing aerodynamics and cooling but was found to serve primarily a decorative purpose after customers paid an additional 42,000 yuan [4][7] Group 2: Company Response - In response to the backlash, Xiaomi apologized and acknowledged that their information was not clearly communicated, offering compensation options that included switching to a standard aluminum hood or receiving 20,000 loyalty points (approximately 2,000 yuan) [7] - However, customers expressed dissatisfaction with the compensation, as switching hoods would require a wait of 30-40 weeks, and the offered points were significantly less than the additional fee paid [7] Group 3: Legal and Market Implications - Legal experts have indicated that Xiaomi's promotional practices may have violated advertising laws, potentially constituting false advertising, which could lead to full compensation claims from consumers [9] - The incident underscores the difference between marketing strategies in consumer electronics and the automotive industry, where product reliability and safety are paramount, and consumers are less forgiving of perceived dishonesty [9][11] Group 4: Marketing Strategy Critique - The focus on building an "entrepreneurial IP" around founder Lei Jun has led to a disconnect between marketing and product quality, risking long-term consumer trust [11] - The automotive sector's competitive landscape requires a shift from a purely marketing-driven approach to one that emphasizes genuine product value and reliability [11]

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].

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi's automotive division is facing significant backlash from customers regarding the SU7 Ultra model, particularly concerning the advertised features of the carbon fiber hood, which are claimed to be misleading and not meeting customer expectations [1][6][13]. Group 1: Customer Reactions - Customers are demanding refunds for their deposits due to discrepancies between the advertised features and the actual product performance, particularly regarding the carbon fiber hood's functionality [1][4][11]. - A group of approximately 414 customers has formed to discuss their grievances and seek refunds, indicating a growing dissatisfaction among early adopters [4][6]. - The response from Xiaomi, which includes offering points instead of refunds, has been perceived as inadequate and disrespectful by customers [7][9]. Group 2: Company Response - Xiaomi's proposed solutions include a limited-time option to switch back to an aluminum hood for unfulfilled orders and offering 20,000 points to those who have already taken delivery [6][9]. - The company has not provided a clear resolution regarding the refund requests, leading to further frustration among customers [10][12]. - Xiaomi's handling of the situation has been described as dismissive, with customers feeling that their concerns are not being taken seriously [7][9]. Group 3: Legal Implications - Legal experts suggest that Xiaomi may be liable for false advertising if the discrepancies between the advertised and actual product features are proven [13][15]. - Customers may have grounds to demand refunds based on the argument that the misleading information influenced their purchasing decisions [12][16]. - The potential for legal action exists, as customers could argue that the failure to deliver on advertised features constitutes a breach of contract [10][16].

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 [4][21][38]. 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 raises concerns about false advertising [7][8]. - The SU7 Ultra was initially celebrated for its performance, achieving a record time at the Nürburgring, but has since faced backlash for discrepancies between promotional claims and actual product functionality [11][12]. - Xiaomi acknowledged the mismatch between the advertised features and the actual product, issuing a public apology and offering compensation to affected customers [12][15][21]. Group 2: Trust Crisis and Brand Reputation - The series of incidents, including performance limitations and customer complaints, has led to a significant trust crisis for Xiaomi, which is compounded by the personal branding of its founder, Lei Jun [26][51]. - The automotive industry is experiencing a shift where companies must address consumer concerns directly, as seen in the response to the SU7 Ultra issues, indicating a need for improved communication and customer engagement [38][52]. - The article suggests that the heightened scrutiny on Xiaomi reflects broader industry challenges, where new entrants must navigate consumer expectations and safety concerns in a rapidly evolving market [57][58].

2025.05. 10 本文字数：1864，阅读时长大约3分钟 作者 | 第一财经 武子晔 近日，小米汽车高端车型SU7 Ultra因碳纤维双风道前舱盖宣传问题陷入舆论漩涡，引发众多车主不满，进行 无损退订维权。 面对碳纤维双风道前舱盖质疑，5月7日晚间，小米汽车官方致歉并给出了相应的解决方案。小米汽车方面表 示，小米SU7 Ultra的碳纤维双风道前舱盖，在满足复刻造型的需求之外，还提供了部分气流导出和辅助前舱 散热功能。"我们对此前信息表达不够清晰深表歉意，我们将采取以下措施：对于未交付的订单，我们将提供 限时改配服务，可以改回铝制前舱盖；对于已提车和在本次限时改配结束前选配碳纤维双风道前舱盖（截至5 月10日23:59:59前）的锁单用户，将赠送2万积分以表诚意。" 根据此前小米汽车官方宣传，碳纤维双风道前舱盖完全复刻原型车，而小米汽车在5月7日声明中称，"在满足 复刻造型的需求之外，还提供了部分气流导出和辅助前舱散热功能"。 "花高价买到的只是一个装饰性的机盖，而非起初宣传的功能，这让我们觉得很不舒服。"刘衡对记者表示，他 与数十名准车主联合录制了要求无损退车的维权视频，这一联合声明发布在了社交平台上 ...

Core Viewpoint - Xiaomi's high-end model SU7 Ultra is facing backlash from over 300 prospective owners due to alleged false advertising regarding the carbon fiber dual air duct hood, leading to demands for a no-penalty return policy [1][4]. Group 1: Customer Complaints - Many SU7 Ultra prospective owners believe that the advertised features of the carbon fiber dual air duct hood do not match the actual product, which they claim is merely decorative [2][4]. - A group of SU7 Ultra prospective owners has formed a rights protection group to advocate for a no-penalty return policy, expressing dissatisfaction with Xiaomi's compensation plan [1][5]. Group 2: Xiaomi's Response - On May 7, Xiaomi publicly apologized and offered a compensation plan, which includes a limited-time option to switch back to an aluminum hood for undelivered orders and a points system for those who have already received their vehicles [3][5]. - Xiaomi's initial marketing claimed that the carbon fiber hood was a functional upgrade, but the company later stated that it only partially provides airflow and cooling benefits, which has led to confusion among consumers [3][4]. Group 3: Product Details and Market Performance - The SU7 Ultra was officially launched on February 27, priced at 529,000 yuan, and aims to be the "fastest" four-door production car, with over 10,000 pre-orders already received [6]. - The vehicle features Xiaomi's advanced electric motor system and is designed for high-performance use, including track capabilities [6].

Core Viewpoint - The recent update of the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra has sparked controversy due to the introduction of a performance limitation that requires drivers to achieve a specific lap time to unlock maximum horsepower, leading to mixed reactions from users [5][8][10]. Group 1: Update Features - The Xiaomi SU7 Ultra's 1.7.0 update includes a new ranking mode that requires drivers to meet official lap time recommendations to access the full 1548 horsepower [5][8]. - The update also optimizes driving safety features by limiting vehicle speed and power when the account is not logged in [5][8]. - A new straight-line racing waiting feature allows drivers to activate straight-line racing mode after a 60-second wait in park mode [8]. Group 2: User Reactions - Some users expressed dissatisfaction, stating that the performance limitation undermines their driving experience, as they purchased the vehicle for its high horsepower [8]. - Conversely, other users supported the changes, emphasizing the importance of safety in driving [8]. Group 3: Company Response - Xiaomi Automotive issued an apology for the confusion caused by the update and has paused the rollout of the new version [10][11]. - The company acknowledged the need for better communication and user feedback mechanisms regarding significant updates [11]. - Xiaomi plans to develop a new version to address the concerns raised, with an estimated timeline of 4 to 8 weeks for completion [11]. Group 4: Additional Changes - In response to concerns about the carbon fiber dual air duct hood, Xiaomi clarified its functionality and offered a limited-time option to switch back to the aluminum hood for undelivered orders [12][16]. - For users who selected the carbon fiber hood before a specified deadline, Xiaomi will provide 20,000 points as compensation [12][16]. - The carbon fiber hood contributes to a weight reduction of 1.3 kg for the vehicle, with a total area of 1.73 square meters [13][17].