Regarding false publicity, in 2021, I believe that everyone has experienced many false "strategies" of enterprises, as long as they are discovered by consumers, the consequences are often difficult to end.
Lynk & Co 01 roof steel is suspected of false publicity
Recently, the owner of Lynk & Co 01 broke out that the steel strength of Lynk & Co 01 was suspected of reducing allocation and false publicity.
At the time of the release of Lynk & Co 01, the official promotion of Lynk & Co 01 reached 73.2% of the use rate of comprehensive high-strength steel, and the global implementation of unified standards, in the site map of the conference, as well as on the instructions of Lynk & Co 01, are so publicized.
But in May last year, the official website of Lynk & Co secretly replaced the 01 model with a picture, the second half of the roof beam from the previous ultra-high-strength steel, replaced by high-strength steel, don't look at only one word difference, this "super" word, related to the safety of consumers in the face of danger.
In May last year, a car platform disassembled Lynk & Co 01, after actual measurement, found that Lynk & Co 01 measured the strength of steel, the front and rear are different, according to the owner information and dismantling measurement, so the owner questioned the Lynk & Co propaganda fraud.
What does the official response mean?
Regarding the question of Lynk & Co's suspected false publicity and allocation reduction, Lynk & Co officially made a relevant response for the first time in the APP, with a long content and detailed picture information.
Briefly summarize the core content of Lynk & Co's reply: Regarding the body structure, the country currently has no unified standards, and Lynk & Co currently has no unified schematic specifications, resulting in inconsistent body structure representations used by different departments or different scenes.
For this paragraph, the author briefly analyzed, meaning: there is no specification to say that Lynk & Co 01 must use ultra-high-strength steel, regardless of the use of ultra-high strength or high strength, all belong to the reasonable and legal category, if in accordance with the national no standard specifications, this answer is indeed true; but Lynk & Co 01 at the time of release, for their own publicity and later changes in the use of can not be consistent, it shows that there is indeed false propaganda and misleading, so, Lynk & Co 01 current official response, In the eyes of the author and the owner, it is completely a haha, without any practical value.
This is not the first time the family has had such problems
In addition to the suspected such problems of Lynk & Co 01, on the same brother brand of the Lynk & Co brand, Extreme Kr 001 is also once listed, on the topic of continuous, the initial because of the light sense of the sky caused by the suspected false publicity is also boiling, the promotional picture looks particularly "tall" Texture performance let many car owners make a blind booking in advance, and then found that not only does not have a "tall" texture, but looks low burst, quickly let the owner collective complaint and infringement, and finally had to invite the owner to the workshop" Look first and then decide whether to install it" before it can be calmed down.
Then, in the near future, a car big V direct diss extreme Kr 001 car machine Caton, as a flagship electric vehicle, but the use of the previous generation of car chip Qualcomm 820A, and did not use the current mainstream flagship chip Qualcomm 8155, but also made it difficult for many consumers to accept.
summary
About Lynk & Co 01 and Extreme Kr 001, both are the first products of the two brands, but there is also a packaging classic game that is difficult for consumers to accept: "The product is based on the physical object", which will lead to consumers being difficult to accept, collective complaints and rights protection, and why are the two brands in the same door having such the same incident, is it really a family inheritance? The author also wants to hear the thoughts of consumers and netizens here.
In fact, this year's Euler good cat chip door incident should have given many brands a free course, but many brands are like this, still going their own way, thinking that this kind of thing can only happen to "others", certainly will not happen to "themselves"; about many such things, I hope that manufacturers can avoid, if consumers find, you can also use many channels to reasonably protect your rights.