After Didi’s ＂scold＂, more pragmatic actions are needed

　Didi has recently been quite "attentive", launching a complain program of "Chattering Didi", which is self-deprecating, self-deprecating, mutual tearing, "red-faced sweating", which has attracted a lot of laughter and applause. The president, Ms. Liu Qing, personally "went to the grassroots" and worked as an operator to respond to users’ complaints. The funny and warm feelings are combined, and while adding points to Didi, there are also voices of doubt.

In the public video, Liu Qing asked Didi executives to go to the first-line experience operator when they were promoted. From her personal experience, the professionalism is debatable. Grassroots customer service is a variety of cooperation work. If this can represent Didi’s customer service level, it will actually increase users’ concerns. We can’t say this is a "show", but professional people do professional things. Even if executives come to answer the phone as customer service, can they reap real problems? The key is that on-the-job customer service strictly implements relevant systems.

Look at the complain link again. The selected roles are talk show stars, luxury car stars, drivers, and product manager representatives. Is this user sample down-to-earth and can it represent the voice of the majority? In response to specific questions: the price increase of taxis, take "riding a bicycle will pass by the fruit store to buy expensive cherries" to prove that taxis are more cost-effective; the big data kill problem, the response is "You have only driven a few times, are we familiar with you?"; the estimated price error problem, take the black car price "darker" as a comparison; the customer thinks that the navigation detours far and insists on his own direction, which boils down to the passenger’s "will to ride a bicycle".

For another example: passengers can’t get a taxi, and the product manager attributed the root cause to limited transportation capacity, "I can’t do it". The problem is that behind the limited transportation capacity, is it a regulatory problem in various places? Or is it a problem with the platform? In a business, if there is demand, there will be supply. Who doesn’t make money? If the reflection is not deep, the problem is difficult to solve.
　
Didi allows users, drivers, and staff to "make a big noise" and figure out the problem in complaining, ridiculing, and speculating. This is a good thing.After all, it opened the door to facing the problem directly, but the problem was that the on-site answers were more hesitant, which closed the door to solving the problem again.

Therefore, many netizens have questioned,Is this spending money to scold, or whitewashing and boasting?

Looking at the scope of the problems discussed in this Roast, it is generally limited to shallow levels such as long queuing time, opaque price, inaccurate positioning, inaccurate navigation, and stingy taxi coupons.Safety is rarely discussed.Finally, Liu Qing’s sentence "On security issues, we are not joking" ended hastily. Judging from the effect of solving the problem, this kind of open dialogue seems to "address only the symptoms but not the root cause of the issue". On the surface, it is lively. If you think about it carefully, there is no real solution to the fundamental problem.

For travel, it’s not about how fast you run, but how stable you run without "rolling over". Users don’t necessarily demand how perfect the app is.What matters more is that the service is cost-effective and safe.A correct understanding of the problem is the prerequisite for correcting the problem later.

Some people think that it is difficult to travel, and it is inherently difficult, and they are too harsh on Didi. Many people commute to get off work and travel without Didi. We are patient with service improvement and innovation. As a "breaker", we must have a great responsibility.

Self-blackening is a good starting point, don’t keep "blackening".Liu Qing also realized that "users always think that Didi is cheating people". We have seen too many examples of companies "humbly admitting their mistakes and not changing their lives", such as telecommunications harassment, bidding rankings, big data push… After many companies fall into a crisis, they either pass the problem on to temporary workers to take the blame, or directly attack the media to spread rumors, or hide and be an "ostrich". Didi has chosen a good way to dare to scold, and now it needs more pragmatic actions, otherwise scolding is equivalent to scolding in vain.