Abstract:
It's okay to "relax young people who dare to make fun of their bosses". Interpersonal relationships can be relaxed, but business management cannot be relaxed. Otherwise, it would be making fun of investors and consumers. Xpeng MONA L05 pre-sale conference will be held on October 15th. Etta, a product manager born in the 2000s, repeatedly used derogatory terms such as "Lao Deng" and "Reject the aesthetics of Deng" in his speeches, which aroused public opinion.
Some netizens asked: If you want to make money from me and call me "Lao Deng", who do you think you are?
The words are crude but not crude, and the questions are reasonable.
01
The entire press conference was fully managed by the post-95s and post-00s product teams, focusing on "young people's own definition of cars." However, the results were disappointing.
Offending "Lao Deng" is an inexplicable overturn even from the most down-to-earth business perspective. Not to mention that the main consumer group of SUVs is family users, especially families with multiple children, with a high proportion of consumers over 35 years old. Do people enjoy being offended?
Even if MONA L05 does not follow an unusual path and wins young consumer groups through aesthetics, the pricing is not "youth-friendly"? According to the mature market classification of the automobile industry, the price of "youth-friendly cars (youth-friendly cars)" is positioned in the 50,000 to 150,000 yuan range. The MONA L05 starts at 170,000 yuan, which is obviously beyond the range.
Except for a few "high-quality young people", most young consumers rely on their parents to "support" their orders. People pamper their own children, but they don’t spoil Xiaopeng’s post-2000 team. It's not too much to say, "You want to make money from me, and you call me Lao Deng, who do you think you are?"
▲Xpeng MONA L05 press conference (picture/video screenshot)
You don’t have to cater to customers when doing marketing, but offending customers for no reason is undoubtedly a dereliction of duty on the part of a professional manager. However, this is not the biggest drawback.
The whole process lasted for more than an hour, with only mediocre PPTs and unspectacular guest speeches. If I have to mention the famous scene, it is not just the "dignifying taste", but the only interactive part.
When talking about rejecting the boss's suggestion, the main speaker Etta asked the audience, "We young people won't want to add (the solid wood texture, paint color, and chrome trim suggested by the boss), right?" There was a sparse response from the audience, and the scene was extremely embarrassing.
Etta was completely unaware of it and continued to add more damage, "If we add these, it will be over. This L05 will become a mediocre traditional luxury car." Does Etta have any misunderstanding about the positioning of her own products? For a car with a pre-sale price of 169,800, nothing can be added to make it a luxury car.
This awkward chat was the only effective interaction in the audience. Other cold jokes and jokes have basically fallen into disuse.
The whole press conference was almost as quiet as a chicken. It feels more like a middle school open class. Even as a public course, it was quite a failure.
Because Teacher Etta’s professional ability as a product manager is really not very good. MONA L05 is a youth-oriented product. The product manager may not understand "old people" and can tolerate the "luxury car" talk, but it is really unbearable to forcefully define young people.
Young people don’t like to be defined by “old people”, but they like to be defined by their peers? Everyone has their own preferences for radish and green vegetables, and there are also many young people making string bracelets and wearing Hanfu. It is not Teacher Etta’s personal aesthetic taste that dominates the world.
Is it possible that those who like the "three-piece set" of traditional car decorations will be expelled from the "Qing Ji"? Your company sells cars, not "young people's aesthetic certification". This kind of "top boss-style questioning" that cannot be refuted is more "deng-flavored" than Lao Deng.
Etta looks down on the traditional "three-piece set" of car decoration, but the "aesthetic" of MONA L05 doesn't have any unique and innovative selling points.
Whether it is the overall exterior design of a low-lying, wide-body, streamlined design, or the detailed interior configuration of starlight lights and 256-color waterfall-style ambient lights, they are all common design elements in mainstream models in recent years. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is a bad street, and it is not enough to rely on the "three-piece set" of traditional car accessories.
So, the most disappointing thing about the entire press conference was not the "age discrimination" gaffe, but the selling point of "youth-oriented", but it turned out to be so devoid of new ideas and vitality.
To be honest, the new car launch conferences of various car companies these days are full of tricks. Xiaopeng can make it so "simple", boring and lengthy, which can be regarded as Scorpion's daddy - the only one.
From the form to the content, it is full of a sense of déjà vu that reminds me of the 1990s. The speaker talked at length about the unexciting content of "unilateral output". Didn't he realize that it contained a high level of "denigration"? Lei Jun, who was born in the 1960s, can still say "Are you OK", but Etta, who was born in the 2000s, only has dry awkward chats. How can this not disappoint?
In addition to being disappointed, I am just wondering. After all, Xpeng Motors is also a leader in the new energy vehicle industry. How can it have a new car launch in 2026 like it was in 1996?
On October 24, after Xiaopeng Vice President Yu Tao published a long article in strong response, I realized that it is really "a dragon begets a dragon, and a phoenix begets a phoenix."
02
On October 22, Etta first posted an apology video. Personally, I think it's quite sincere. It stands to reason that even if there are still some "don't buy it" voices in public opinion, after all, it is not a flaw in the quality of the product. This level of gaffe incident will basically end the story.
▲Etta released an apology video (picture/video screenshot)
However, it was reversed two days later. According to Vice President Yu, not only did Etta not deserve an apology, but public opinion owed her an apology.
Vice President Yu made it clear that the title "Lao Deng" was "from beginning to end, the product team was ridiculing the internal core person in charge, and it did not point to any external users at all." Does this count as exonerating yourself?
However, product launches are not internal meetings. "It does not point to any external users at all", what else did you say at the press conference? Any information released publicly at a press conference has externalities. Even if it is a misunderstanding of "the speaker did not mean it, but the listener did it intentionally", one should still bear the responsibility for the misunderstanding caused by improper expression.
▲Xpeng Vice President Yu Tao issued a response (picture/network)
However, after Vice President Yu characterized the incident as "internal", he followed internal standards.
He said that several internal managers known as "Lao Deng" "none of them were dissatisfied, but instead repeatedly praised internally." Praise for what? What's there to praise? Not to mention the negative public opinion caused by the "gaffe scandal", what can be praised about the monotonous format, dull atmosphere and silence of this press conference?
The reason for the praise is that "compared to the same reading of parameters, this kind of real co-creation process can best allow users to understand the background of a car."
This is too weird. Nowadays, in car company press conferences with a little bit of brand name, who "reads out the same parameters"? Does arguing with your boss about interior choices count as a “real co-creation process”?
What does this kind of joke have to do with the color of a car? I’m sorry that the Xpeng X9 was just recalled in August due to the “pause” problem. Is it because the “real co-creation process” was not mentioned in the press conference that year and the car owner bought it home without knowing the truth?
The press conference is interspersed with internal jokes, starting from the "Lao Lao Deng" Steve Jobs and Gates. It’s nothing more than tidbits to set the mood. Who can expect consumers to understand the product? Which company replaces product manuals with a collection of internal jokes?
Furthermore, whether it is internal praise or criticism within your company, does it have anything to do with the public? Does this require public opinion reviews to be based on your company’s internal reviews? This domineering side leaks... tsk tsk
What follows becomes more and more bizarre. Mr. Yu earnestly educates everyone, "In fact, the true culture of Internet classmates may not be the strict hierarchies of other companies, but the relaxation of young people who dare to make fun of their bosses."
It doesn't have to be "possible". Internet culture is indeed not different from top to bottom, because there is no top or bottom. However, what this gaffe at the press conference involves is neither the Internet culture nor the corporate culture of your company, but the business culture of respecting customers. You can't tell the difference between big and small kings.
First it was "there is a difference between internal and external", and then it was "based on the internal". I really don't understand Vice President Yu's logic, if he has any logic at all. The preface was inconsistent with the subtitles, and the digression was thousands of miles away. The operation was as fierce as a tiger, and Vice President Yu began to "counterattack and calculate."
Yu Tao said that the apology video was initiated by Enta. Does the implication mean that it is an unofficial personal act? She also said, "She saw that some friends who had not watched the live broadcast had misunderstandings and felt that there were omissions in her wording, so she took the initiative to make a video to explain the whole story." She directly replaced "apology" with "explain the whole story."
Then, he zoomed in and said, "Old people are not disgusting, but some people's taste is disgusting, so there is less verbal criticism of the post-00s." This is to elevate the netizens' criticism of the post-00s' gaffes at the Etta press conference to "verbal criticism of the post-00s", which is a proper "top line and online" line.
According to Vice President Yu's logic, not only should Etta not apologize, but the critics also have to apologize for the "dengwei".
At this point, I finally understand why the press conference turned out like that. Corporate management does not distinguish between right and wrong, right or wrong, and is an unprincipled "Qing Mei" who does not distinguish between occasions. Xiaopeng Motors has forced its own young people to become disabled.
03
It's okay to "relax young people who dare to make fun of their bosses". Interpersonal relationships can be relaxed, but business management cannot be relaxed. Otherwise, it would be making fun of investors and consumers.
Vice President Yu’s “tough response” exposed how lax the preparations for the MONA L05 press conference were. Yu Tao’s original words were “the real ‘Home Alone’” - he had reviewed the PPT and left the rest to the team themselves, with no scripts or red tape.
If it's an internal meeting, this is slack for speaking out. Saying the wrong thing in an internal meeting is not a big deal. However, a new car launch is a corporate public event for the public, with different natures and different risks. How many "veterans" have fallen into disgrace on such occasions, why is Vice President Yu so worried? What should be ignored is not to let young people go, but to be irresponsible and mislead young people.
On the surface, letting the post-2000 team take the leading role in important occasions such as new car launches, and then shouldering the public opinion and "replying toughly" when problems arise is an all-round and no-nonsense love of young people. In fact, both the front and back are wrong.
Even if Etta, born in the 2000s, is a genius with amazing potential, it still takes a growth process to transform potential into ability. Growth means trial and error, and trial and error comes at a cost.
The responsibility of the manager is to minimize the trial and error cost of the younger generation as they grow up, so those who should be reviewed should be reviewed, and those who should be guided should be guided. Etta's gaffe and even the problems of the entire press conference should have been avoided through the normal management process that Yu Tao was responsible for, but they happened because of Yu Tao's inaction.
After Etta's gaffe caused negative public opinion, Yu Tao's "tough response" with arrogant words and changing concepts actually changed nothing. The public's negative impression of Etta will not be reversed, nor will the industry's evaluation.
Even within the company, several senior executives criticized him for "repeated praise" and strongly suppressed him, which only made colleagues feel dissatisfied. In the final analysis, the fact that this new product launch triggered a large-scale negative response from public opinion is there. Yu Tao can pretend not to see it, but others have no obligation to cooperate.
However, it is not all without gain through Yu Tao's "tough response." Now the public knows that Etta's gaffe was purely personal and was not pre-planned by the company. With the high-profile announcement of "repeated praise" within the company, the conclusion that turning defeat into victory was considered stable, and Yu Tao and the department he led were certainly not held accountable.
There is no love for no reason in the workplace, only visible and invisible benefits. "Mei Qing" is no exception, but is the beneficiary really the young man at the front? If this is the case in the workplace, why not be the same in other “fields”?
Exquisite egoists always stand up in an altruistic manner.
Author: Guan Buyu
Comments