2025年，汽车行业的营销像一个突然被刺破的气球，喧嚣在一声脆响后开始迅速干瘪。 根据中汽协与部分上市车企上半年财报数据，行业平均营销及管理费用占营收比重较2023年攀升了约2 个百分点，但国内乘用车销量同比增速降至近几年的低点。 在这条略显失速的曲线上，是虚假宣传的泛滥与反噬，是创始人/品牌人设崩塌的连锁反应，也是流量 逻辑的极限与失控。 消费者、监管部门和市场本身，都在呼唤一种更真实、更透明、更注重长期价值的理性营销。泡沫被刺 破的过程固然痛苦，但它也为行业刮骨疗毒、走向下一个健康增长周期，撕开了一道必需的口子。 泡沫、崩塌与反噬 虚假与夸张宣传在汽车行业不是新问题，但在2025年，它从"潜规则"变成了足以引发行业地震的危机。 某跨界造车品牌的"碳纤维双风道前舱盖"以数万元价格作为高性能选装件出售，但首批车主发现其内部 结构与普通版差异极小，仅具装饰功能，引发车主集体诉讼。 另一品牌则被曝出，车主花5000元选装的"红色卡钳"实为贴在普通卡钳上的塑料壳，订单描述事后被悄 然改为"红色卡钳罩"。这些事件彻底暴露了部分车企重营销话术、轻产品实质的问题。 （原标题：2025汽车行业年鉴 | 营销篇：信任崩塌之后 ...

Core Points - Xiaomi's SU7 Ultra is facing a collective refund issue from pre-order customers due to dissatisfaction with the carbon fiber hood's functionality, which was misrepresented as having cooling and downforce benefits [2][8] - Customers have reported a 60-day cooling-off period for communication regarding order continuation, with deposits being non-refundable once the order is locked [2][8] - Xiaomi has publicly apologized for the unclear communication regarding the carbon fiber hood and is offering a limited-time option to switch to an aluminum hood for unfulfilled orders [9] Group 1 - Multiple pre-order customers have expressed concerns about a 60-day cooling-off period for refunds, with some considering legal action for alleged false advertising [2][8] - A customer reported paying a total of 20,000 yuan in deposits for a vehicle priced at 583,900 yuan, which has now ceased production [8] - Xiaomi's customer service confirmed that if customers do not communicate their intent to continue production within 60 days, their orders will be considered canceled [2][8] Group 2 - Xiaomi's vice president addressed rumors about the potential collapse of the automotive division, stating that no such claims were made during discussions with industry peers [8] - The company is providing a compensation of 20,000 points to customers who had locked in orders for the carbon fiber hood before the deadline [9]

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].

Group 1 - Apple is entering the brain-computer interface market, aiming to allow users to control iPhones using brain signals, which could benefit individuals with severe disabilities [1] - The total revenue of listed companies in Foshan reached 204.94 billion yuan in Q1, a year-on-year increase of 14.53%, while net profit attributable to shareholders rose by 28.90% to 17.88 billion yuan [1] - In Wuhan, citizens can offset mortgage interest by using public transport, with a maximum redemption of 2,000 yuan based on carbon reduction activities [1] Group 2 - Xiaomi's SU7 Ultra car owners are seeking refunds due to discrepancies between advertised and actual performance of the carbon fiber hood, which was marketed as enhancing aerodynamics but failed to meet expectations [2] - The trend of renting gold jewelry for weddings is rising among young people, reflecting changing consumer behaviors and economic pressures [2] Group 3 - In April, China's exports reached 315.69 billion USD, a year-on-year increase of 8.1%, while imports slightly declined by 0.2% to 219.51 billion USD, resulting in a trade surplus of 96.18 billion USD [3]

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 - Xiaomi's automotive division is facing significant backlash due to discrepancies between the advertised features of the SU7 Ultra model and the actual product delivered to customers, leading to a trust crisis in the high-end market [1][5][12]. Group 1: Product Features and Customer Expectations - The SU7 Ultra's carbon fiber hood, priced at 42,000 yuan, was marketed as a "complete replica of the prototype car's aerodynamic design," but customers found it to be structurally similar to a standard aluminum hood, lacking promised features [1][3]. - Customers expressed dissatisfaction as Xiaomi did not consult them before changing the specifications and failed to provide adequate compensation, leading to demands for order cancellations and refunds [3][14]. - Xiaomi's apology acknowledged "unclear information expression" and offered two options: switch to an aluminum hood with a 30-40 week wait or receive 20,000 points (approximately 2,000 yuan), which many customers deemed insufficient [3][14]. Group 2: Technical and Engineering Challenges - The complexity of producing the advertised dual-channel airflow design may have contributed to the failure to deliver on promises, as it requires significant modifications to the vehicle's thermal management system [5][9]. - The carbon fiber hood's manufacturing process is labor-intensive, and while it theoretically offers weight reduction, the actual design choices led to minimal weight savings, raising questions about its value [6][10]. - The introduction of decorative openings in the hood, intended to replicate the prototype's appearance, ultimately increased material usage and negated potential weight benefits [6][7]. Group 3: Marketing and Consumer Trust - Xiaomi's marketing strategy prioritized aesthetic appeal over functional performance, resulting in a product that did not meet consumer expectations for high-performance features [12][13]. - The company's decision to limit the vehicle's horsepower from 1,500 to 900 unless specific track performance criteria were met further alienated customers, leading to accusations of "false promises" [13][16]. - As consumer dissatisfaction grows, there are indications of potential legal action against Xiaomi for misleading advertising practices, which could have significant implications for the company's reputation and financial liability [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].