Xiaomi's Marketing Missteps: A Deep Dive into the SU7 Controversy
Xiaomi, known for its mastery of marketing to consumers who value aesthetics, may have stumbled with its latest Xiaomi SU7 Ultra release. Lei Jun's recent statement regarding a challenging month for Xiaomi suggests potential issues beyond just the car accident involving three girls. This article explores the controversies surrounding the SU7 Ultra, specifically the "speed limit gate" and the "dual-channel gate."
The "Speed Limit Gate": Unfulfilled Performance Promises
The Xiaomi SU7 Ultra was marketed as a high-performance vehicle, boasting a top speed of 324 km/h achieved at the Nürburgring, 1,548 horsepower, and a designed top speed of 350 km/h. However, some customers who received their cars discovered that the vehicle was speed-limited, effectively reducing the horsepower to around 900. This discrepancy between advertised and actual performance led to considerable dissatisfaction.
The "Dual-Channel Gate": A Functional or Faux Feature?
Another controversy arose regarding the optional carbon fiber front hood with dual air ducts, priced at 48,000 yuan. Xiaomi claimed this feature offered several benefits, including:
-
Weight reduction (1.3 kg)
-
Assisted cooling for the motor and wheel hubs
-
Improved downforce
However, independent testing revealed that the air ducts were non-functional. Tests showed that the ducts did not produce the promised airflow or cooling effects. This perceived deception led over 300 customers to request refunds.
Xiaomi's Response and Proposed Solutions
In response to the controversies, Xiaomi issued a statement addressing the issues.
-
Speed Limit: Xiaomi initially cited safety concerns as the reason for the speed limit, suggesting it was intended for drivers with limited racing experience. However, the company later decided to release the speed limit altogether.
-
Dual-Channel Hood: Xiaomi offered two options to affected customers:
- Exchange the carbon fiber hood for a standard hood.
- Keep the carbon fiber hood and receive 20,000 Xiaomi points (equivalent to approximately 2,000 yuan), effectively reducing the cost of the hood to 40,000 yuan.
Lotus's Subtle Jab: A Competitor Weighs In
Lotus, another manufacturer of high-performance electric vehicles with a showroom in the Guomao area, subtly criticized Xiaomi with a Weibo post referencing "true wind tunnels" and "true downforce," echoing a tone similar to a Durex marketing campaign.
The Underlying Issue: Over-Marketing and Value Perception
The core problem appears to be Xiaomi's over-marketing and the perceived value proposition. While many cars feature hood scoops for aesthetic or functional reasons (such as the Porsche 911, Ferrari, Lamborghini, and classic muscle cars like the Pontiac Firebird, Ford Mustang, and Chevrolet Camaro), Xiaomi's exaggerated claims and insufficient compensation have backfired.
Many argue that Xiaomi is following a pattern of promoting impressive specifications and performance metrics before launch, only to undercut the pricing and deliver a somewhat compromised product. This tactic, along with the inadequate response to the "dual-channel gate," has fueled the perception of excessive marketing.
A Broader Trend: Over-Marketing in the Automotive Industry
Xiaomi is not alone in employing aggressive marketing tactics. Other companies, like Huawei, are also accused of similar practices, focusing on in-cabin features like "refrigerators, color TVs, and large sofas" and exaggerating self-driving capabilities, despite the lack of Level 3 autonomous driving approvals in China.
In conclusion, Xiaomi's SU7 Ultra controversy highlights the risks of over-marketing and the importance of delivering on promises. While aesthetic appeal is a crucial factor for consumers, functionality and transparency remain essential for building trust and long-term brand loyalty.