Luo Yonghao overwhelmed Wang Ziru, but the sound of the world waves remained the same.

Luo Yonghao has overwhelmed Wang Ziru, but the sound of the world is still

Wang Ziru, from the earliest techmessager on Youku, swiping a credit card to buy 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 fought 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? Zealer, as a mobile phone evaluation agency, did it "cheat" when evaluating Smartisan 1 produced by Hammer Technology, whether the evaluation itself was objective, and whether the hammer mobile phone was sentimental or burrito. The answers to these basic questions are what we want to know. But after watching the video, I don't think these questions have been answered.

In addition to the conclusion that Lao Luo's powerful debating skills and impromptu speech skills, and Wang Ziru's charm in recording is far greater than the scene, which has been proved many times, after the three-hour Youku debate, the sound of the world remains the same. The evaluation of Hammer T1 mobile phone in people's minds has not turned over. Fans still think it is a masterpiece worth paying 3, yuan, and critics still think it is a sentimental burrito with more gimmicks than reality. In fact, the same is true for zealer. Fans will think that Luo Yonghao bullies Wang Ziru like a hooligan. Although zealer is defeated, he is still glorious; Those who have never been used to it will feel that they have received black money and "will pay it back sooner or later."

In other words, the people who watched this video and made comments on the Internet had already taken a position before watching the video, and their position has not changed because of this debate. People who think the hammer is rotten still think the hammer is rotten, and people who think zealer is black still think zealer is black. At most, however, Youku provides a platform for netizens with two positions and a place to fight in groups.

In fact, the problems discussed by Wang Ziru and Luo Yonghao, such as fragility, sponge insulation, camera angle difference, screen difference and cable breakdown, are not concerned by the fans behind these barrage. In addition to the final topics about "whether accepting the investment from four mobile phone manufacturers is harmful to objectivity" and "why don't these defects be mentioned in the evaluation and consultation report with money", the barrage of the two camps was not related to the specific issues discussed this time for most of the time in 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 they stand in peace. Only a small number of 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.

That is to say, the CEOs of the two companies sat together and held each other for more than three hours, but only a few people were concerned about the word interest.

The figure below is a simple statistic of the comments of the four major communities. It is a distribution of netizens' opinions in Youku, Zhihu, Netease and Baidu Post Bar respectively: < P > It can be seen that only a few netizens focus on 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 world outlook.

From this point of view, I think that neither the supporters of Wang Ziru nor the fans of Luo Yonghao need such a debate to prove their position. At most, this debate is only firmer among the people who hold this position.

More interestingly, as mentioned above, the facts that this debate theoretically hopes to clarify are: for example, what is the right skill and way to professionally evaluate a smart phone; For example, where is the boundary between accepting the strategic investment of mobile phone manufacturers and independent evaluation, and how to clarify the interests; For example, how to evaluate the balance between design and technology of a smart phone, etc., these issues are ignored in the debate on the stage, and the audience under the stage does not care. From this, I have come to a conclusion that many people who claim to "never trust Zealer again" have actually never seen Zealer before; Those who "originally thought the hammer was quite 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 of idealists to prove their innocence; And those who berate Mr. Luo for "no manners" 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 actual impact of this debate? The following figure is a comparison chart of Baidu index curves of two keywords, Wang Ziru and Luo Yonghao, from 214 to today:

As you can see, the keyword Luo Yonghao has two peaks, one is the press conference in 214, and the other is the debate that took place in August 214. The keyword "Wang Ziru" had a polar index before the debate, but after this peak in August 214, it ushered in an overall rise. That is to say, before the war, many people who didn't know Wang Ziru or zealer knew about this person and company, and wanted to know about this person and company. From this perspective, perhaps we can draw the conclusion that Wang Ziru lost the debate and won the interest. Is that really the case? Is it comprehensive enough only from the perspective of Baidu index?

In fact, the impact of this event is not great for the audience, but it is not small for both sides of the debate.

For Wang Ziru, shortly after the war, he publicly released a video to apologize and took down the brand of "independent, objective and third party". From the evaluation video of Glory 6 to one plus one, Zealer video update stopped for 4 days, which is enough time 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, and there are no jokes and tidbits among Zealer colleagues in the video, but he has seriously marked his four strategic investors. At the same time, Wang Ziru's "Evaluation 2." system disappeared. We found that after the contract, at the bottom of Zealer's video, the data comparison of the previous "Evaluation 2." models disappeared completely, leaving only a pile of empty mobile phone parameters. After the appearance on CCTV program in November 214 and the large-scale recruitment in December, zealer only regained the state of weekly shift this year, and Wang Ziru became a guest of a local TV station.

For Lao Luo, although he said that the sales volume of T1 mobile phone was 25, in the first year was satisfactory, compared with the sales volume of "One Plus" mobile phone, which just started, which was 1.5 million a year, and the sales volume of Red Rice note2 mobile phone, which was 8, in 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 his Weibo certification from Lao Luo to Hammer CEO. Luo Yonghao explained that Lao Luo is a brand, while the CEO of Hammer is the leader of an enterprise, who needs to be responsible for more than 6 employees of the enterprise. In his last speech "An Idealist's Entrepreneurial Story", 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 also handed over to the company team management. The industry could not help but sigh that the unruly Lao Luo has become honest and Wang Ziru has become more mature.

here, my point is that there is no winner in this debate except Youku, who has accumulated live broadcast experience, and Apple, the highest standard in both sides' mouths. Two people, as well as the enterprises behind them, have paid a heavy price for this debate. An evaluation enterprise has greatly lost its credibility, and the top level of an enterprise is considered to be crazy and hooligans, which are unacceptable losses.

To sum up, the founders of the two companies argued, but no one asked why they came out to argue, what were the gains and losses 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 of them 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 point of view, logic is not important, facts are not important, and what is important requires us to think for ourselves.

Finally, starting from this debate, I would like to talk about my views on some other issues.

from now on, the hammer T1 mobile phone is not a successful product, even if it is the most polite. It is said that the price will never be reduced, and finally it will be reduced. It can also be considered that eating 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, both 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 to be supported by reality. Feelings are nothing but a burrito, and so are domestic games. We can understand that domestic enterprises started late and their level is limited, but we can't accept that you sell our products with the low-end product line level of international enterprises at the flagship price of other big international enterprises.

enterprises can have feelings, but products have no feelings.

from this perspective, those who say that evaluation agencies should not invest in people are also determined by their asses, as long as their feelings are not realistic. 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 institution, and the evaluation is also separated from the measurement. To be fair and objective, we can evaluate our own style and characteristics. But we must never judge and measure subjectively. If it can be measured objectively, I think most people don't care whether you take money or not. Rational people understand that there are dozens or even hundreds of brothers behind entrepreneurs who want to eat.

In fact, our online public opinion is far from being an objective and impartial third party. The comments of the vast majority of netizens are far from seeing the essence through events, but this is indeed the degree that an ideal network society should reach.

The impact time of a big network event is very limited, and its influence is also limited. The following figure shows the Baidu index of the keyword "Luo Yonghao's war of words with Wang Ziru" since 214:

One year has passed, and the sound of the waves remains the same.

comment is to restrain your feelings; To pursue ideals, we must recognize that reality is not 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, but not spontaneously? What is a good name?