Wang Ziru, from the earliest techmessager on Youku, swiping a credit card to buy a mobile phone to make a mobile phone evaluation video, to the CEO of zealer, a startup company. Luo Yonghao, from the earliest English teacher to the CEO of Hammer Technology. Two people played on Youku for three hours, and it was almost certain that Luo Yonghao overwhelmed Wang Ziru.
But this conclusion is only drawn from the scene effect. What do we expect to see from this debate before it starts, or before we watch this video? As a mobile phone evaluation agency, Zealer "cheated" when evaluating Smartisan 1 produced by Hammer Technology, whether the evaluation itself is objective, and whether the hammer mobile phone is a feeling or a burrito. The answers to these basic questions are what we want to know. But after watching the video, I feel that these questions have not been answered.
Except for Lao Luo's powerful debating skills and impromptu speech skills, and the conclusion that Wang Ziru's charm in recording is far greater than that in the scene, the voice of the world remains the same after the three-hour Youku debate. Hammer T 1 mobile phone has not been reversed in people's minds. Fans still think it's a masterpiece worth spending 3000 yuan, and critics still think it's a sentimental burrito with more gimmicks than reality. In fact, zealer is also the same. Fans will think that Luo Yonghao bullied Wang Ziru like a hooligan. Zealer, though defeated, is glorious; If you are not used to it, you will feel that you have received black money. "You have to pay it back sooner or later."
In other words, the people who watched this video and commented on it on the Internet had already stated their position before watching it, and their position has not changed because of this debate. Those who think the hammer is rotten still think the hammer is rotten, and those who think zealer is black still think zealer is black. However, Youku provides users with a platform for two positions at most, and a place for group fights.
In fact, the problems discussed by Wang Ziru and Luo Yonghao, such as fragility, sponge insulation, poor camera angle, poor screen and cable failure, are not the concerns of the fans behind these barrage. In addition to the last topic about "whether accepting the investment from four mobile phone manufacturers is detrimental to objectivity" and "why not use money to mention these defects in the evaluation and consultation report", the barrage of the two camps has nothing to do with the specific issues discussed this time for more than three hours.
Even in Zhihu, an online community with a slightly higher average quality, everyone's comments are more of a confrontation with the world outlook and a peaceful tone. Only a few netizens, major portals and comment websites are discussing the hammer mobile phone itself, the interest game between the two and the impact of this incident.
In other words, the CEOs of the two companies sat together and cheered each other for more than three hours, but only a few people paid attention to their interests.
The following figure is a simple statistics of the four major community comments. They are the views of netizens in Youku, Zhihu, Netease and Baidu Post Bar:
It can be seen that only a few netizens are concerned about the gains and losses of both sides. The object of our concern is not the confrontation between two scholars, but the confrontation between two enterprises. In other words, the vast majority of netizens do not choose to jump out to see the goals that the two companies hope to achieve, but express their views from their own worldview.
From this perspective, I don't think either Wang Ziru supporters or Luo Yonghao fans need such a debate to prove their position. At best, this kind of argument is only more firm among the groups that hold this position.
More interestingly, as mentioned above, this debate hopes to clarify the facts in theory: for example, what is the correct and professional way to evaluate a smart phone; For example, where is the boundary between accepting the strategic investment and independent evaluation of mobile phone manufacturers, and how to clarify the benefits; For example, how to evaluate the balance between the design and technology of a smart phone and so on. These questions were ignored in the debate on the stage and the audience under the stage didn't care. From this, I come to a conclusion that many people who claim to "never trust Zealer again" have never seen Zealer before. Those who "thought the hammer was good, and it seems that they won't buy it in the future" actually didn't think about buying a hammer mobile phone. Similarly, those who worship Lao Luo because of "feelings" and "ideals" still firmly believe that this is an open feat by idealists to prove their innocence; And those who berate Mr. Luo for being "rude" and shout "Come on" all the way may really think that this big boy next door who looks like Liu Xiang has played so many mobile phones and is so eloquent (in the state of recording and broadcasting) is quite cute.
So what is the practical impact of this debate? The following figure is a comparison chart of Baidu index curve between Wang Ziru and Luo Yonghao from 20 14 to today:
As you can see, the keyword Luo Yonghao has two peaks, one is the press conference in 20 14, and the other is the controversy in August 20 14. Keywords Wang Ziru had a polar index before the debate, but after the peak of 20 14 in August, it ushered in an overall increase. That is to say, before the war, many people who didn't know Wang Ziru or Zeiler knew about this person and company and wanted to know about it. From this point of view, perhaps we can draw the conclusion that Wang Ziru lost the debate and won the benefits. Is that really the case? Is it comprehensive enough only from Baidu index?
In fact, the impact of this incident on the audience is not great, but it is not small for both sides of the debate.
As for Wang Ziru, shortly after the war, he publicly released a video apology and took down the brand of "independent, objective and third party". From Glory 6 to the evaluation video of 1, Zealer video update stopped for 40 days, which is enough to evaluate at least 5 mobile phones. In the evaluation of one plus mobile phone, we also see that Wang Ziru is more tired than before. There are no jokes and tidbits among Zealer's colleagues in the video, but he has carefully marked his four strategic investors. At the same time, Wang Ziru's "Assessment 2.0" system disappeared. We found that after signing the contract, at the bottom of Zealer's video, the data comparison of the previous "Evaluation 2.0" model completely disappeared, leaving only a bunch of empty mobile phone parameters. Following the appearance of CCTV program 20 1 1 in 2004 and the large-scale recruitment of 65438+2 in 2004, zealer regained its weekly status this year, and Wang Ziru became a guest of a local TV station.
As for Lao Luo, although he said that the sales volume of T 1 mobile phone in the first year was satisfactory, compared with the sales volume of "One Plus" mobile phone in the first year10.5 million and the sales volume of red rice note2 mobile phone 12 hours, it is hard to say that Lao Luo has no pressure. Through this appointment, Lao Luo's personal style has also undergone a reversal change this year. He changed Weibo certification from Lao Luo to hammer CEO. Luo Yonghao explained that Lao Luo is a brand, and the CEO of Hammer is the leader of an enterprise, and he needs to be responsible for more than 600 employees of the enterprise. In his last speech, The Entrepreneur Story of an Idealist, Lao Luo showed his painful attitude. He said that as a serious business leader, he would no longer be outspoken, and his personal Weibo was handed over to the company team for management. People in the industry can't help but sigh that the unruly Lao Luo has become honest and mature.
Here, my point is that there is no winner in this debate except Youku, who has accumulated live experience, and Apple, the highest standard in both sides' mouths. Both of them, as well as the enterprises behind them, have paid a heavy price for this debate. An evaluation enterprise has lost its credibility greatly, and the top management of the enterprise is considered to be crazy and hooligans, which is an unacceptable loss.
To sum up, the founders of the two companies debated, but no one asked them why they came out to debate, what was the gain and loss of the debate, and what was the subsequent impact. People are busy expressing their views and positions. For the two companies, it was thought to be a zero-sum game, and both suffered heavy losses, and the zero sum became a negative sum.
What does this summary show? This is a very complicated problem. But considering the above, how many people will watch the video after this debate? Watch it for half an hour at most. From this perspective, logic is not important, facts are not important, what is important is that we need to think for ourselves.
Finally, starting from this debate, I will talk about my views on other issues.
Hammer T 1 mobile phone is not a successful product, even at the most polite level. They all said that they would never reduce the price, and finally they did. It can also be considered that the food is not good. Wang Ziru has changed from a childlike techmessager to a passionate zealer, and now zealer takes survival as the highest priority. In fact, the two companies did have feelings at first, but they both lost to the cruelty of reality to some extent. It is good for an enterprise to have feelings, but it is an ideal and needs reality to support it. Feelings are just a burrito, and so are domestic games. We can understand that domestic enterprises start late and their level is limited, but we can't accept that you sell our products at the flagship price of large international enterprises and at the low-end product line level of international enterprises.
Enterprises can have feelings, but products have no feelings.
From this perspective, those who say that evaluation agencies should not vote for people are also determined by their asses, as long as they feel unrealistic. The word evaluation is difficult to be objective and fair to a third party, but it can be measured. We look at the evaluation of an evaluation agency, and the evaluation is also out of measurement. Evaluate your own style and characteristics objectively and fairly. But we must never judge and measure subjectively. If you can measure it objectively, I think most people won't care if you take the money or not. Rational people understand that there are dozens or even hundreds of brothers who want to eat behind entrepreneurs.
In fact, our online public opinion is far from being an objective and fair third party. The vast majority of netizens' comments are far from seeing the essence through the incident, but this is indeed the degree that an ideal network society should reach.
Moreover, the impact time of a big network event is very limited, and the impact is also limited. The following figure shows the Baidu index of the keyword "Debate between Luo Yonghao and Wang Ziru" since 20 14:
A year has passed, and the sound of the waves remains the same.
Comments are to restrain their feelings; To pursue an ideal, we must realize that reality is not an ideal.
Finally, I left a question that I didn't think clearly. Why should a good network society be harmonious? Why do we comment on events rationally and objectively instead of spontaneously? What is a good name?