Chen Zhen, a well-known car reviewer, recently sparked widespread attention and controversy because of a video review of the Xiaomi SU7. In the video, his comments on this car attracted heated discussions among netizens, and even many car owners joined in the criticism of him.
Since Xiaomi entered the automotive industry, every move it has made has attracted the attention of the market and consumers. The release of the Xiaomi SU7 was supposed to be a double victory showcase of technology and the market.
Things are always unexpected, especially in the age of the internet, where everything can change for one or two small details.
At this press conference, Xiaomi chose another car critic, Han Lu, as a guest and did not invite Chen Zhen. This was an ordinary personnel arrangement, but it unexpectedly became the fuse of the subsequent controversy.
Chen Zhen has previously expressed concern about Xiaomi's automotive technology on many occasions, and has also publicly expressed his desire to participate in the evaluation. This "omission" seems to have touched Chen Zhen's sensitive nerves.
Chen Zhen posted a video reviewing the Xiaomi SU7. In the video, he gives a detailed review of the car's performance, but the overall evaluation is surprisingly negative.
He mentioned that although the Xiaomi SU7 has made breakthroughs in some technologies, there are still many problems in terms of design and practicality. After the video was released, it was originally just an ordinary product evaluation, but because of Chen Zhen's fame and his words, it quickly detonated the Internet.
It turned out that a few weeks before the Xiaomi SU7 launch conference, Chen Zhen had mentioned in public that he wanted to be able to test this new car, and his words caused a certain amount of expectation among fans.
Many people were surprised when they found out that he had not been able to appear at the press conference. This emotion turned into disappointment and dissatisfaction after watching his review video, and many people began to doubt Chen Zhen's professionalism, believing that he may have affected the objectivity of the review due to his personal emotions.