Who gave Tesla the confidence to be "uncompromising"
On the 19th, at the Tesla booth at the Shanghai Auto Show, a female car owner wearing a "brake failure" T-shirt stood on the roof of the car to defend her rights, causing concern.
Subsequently, an executive of the company responded that “there is no way to compromise, this is a necessary process for the development of new products,” and emphasized that “my own research shows that 90% of customers are willing to choose Tesla again.”
The arrogant response of Tesla executives almost made people feel the sincerity of solving the problem.
I have to say that this is a more complicated rights protection incident.
At present, the two parties hold the same opinion: the owner claimed that the Tesla he bought had a "brake failure" problem, and it was reported that he had sat on the roof of the car and held a loud horn to defend his rights; Tesla responded that the owner had "had a collision due to speeding violations." Accident, and then insisted on returning the car on the grounds of product quality."
The facts are difficult to rush into conclusions, and the disputes can be settled after the relevant departments have conducted in-depth investigations.
From the perspective of online public opinion, the arrogant response of Tesla executives has made many people feel puzzling.
In particular, the expressions such as "the recent negatives are all contributed by her", "I think she is also very professional, there should be someone behind her" and other expressions are not appropriate.
Objectively speaking, a company cannot satisfy everyone, but as a "star" company, it should have products and service attitudes that satisfy consumers.
It is true that extreme rights protection methods are not to be encouraged, but as some netizens have said: If consumers can smoothly defend their rights, who will risk standing on the roof of the car to defend their rights?
Of course, both the companies and consumers involved must express their demands within the framework of the rule of law. It should neither encourage rights defenders to "succumb to trouble", nor should it make people feel that the company is "deceptively".
If car companies cannot provide high-quality products and good after-sales service, cannot guarantee consumers' safe driving, or even maliciously guess the motives of defenders, they may smash their own signs.
China is one of the world's largest automobile production and sales markets, and an important market for world-renowned automobile companies to compete for.
No matter which car company, it must be in awe of the Chinese market and sincerely accept consumer supervision.
For the problems reported by consumers, car companies should establish unobstructed complaint handling channels, and should not allow customer service calls to be always busy, or "a very good attitude, just don't do it"-otherwise, in the long run, relevant car companies are likely to be marketed Marginalized.
In addition, if car companies are suspected of "big shop bullying", relevant departments must strengthen supervision. There are many laws and regulations and detailed implementation rules to protect the rights and interests of consumers, but whether they can be implemented in place is the key. It is necessary to make consumer rights protection more efficient and convenient, and try to avoid all kinds of rights protection farce. This can not only force car companies to improve quality, but also help protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. (Commentors Zhang Jian, Wang Yang)