Reading Stats

In this May 2017 speech on 'How to Build a High-End Brand and Commercial Value', Li Xiang emphasizes product management over technical skill, stressing the importance of clear, measurable goals and focused problem-solving. He advocates prioritizing user value ( measured by time and money spent) over subjective experience and the "sense of superiority, value, and security" framework for product standards.

It's a real pleasure to be here with all of you today, both in person and online, to share some of my personal insights and experiences in product and business over the past fifteen years.

Let's get down to business. First, I want to talk about products. When the organizers invited me to speak, I gave it some serious thought and felt it was important to share some of my ideas with everyone.

Over the past two years, during this wave of entrepreneurship and the "Internet Plus" era, a very unhealthy phenomenon has emerged: a large number of people who don't understand products at all have occupied a lot of media space, talking about the ways of entrepreneurship and products, always mentioning "experience." I think this has seriously misled many people, leading to a record high failure rate for startups in the past two years. A lot of capital has been invested, but very few truly successful companies have emerged, which has had a terrible impact on the efficiency of society as a whole.

So, what exactly is a product? I think many people encounter difficulties with this first question. What is a product? This is a question everyone should be thinking about. Does a product refer to a function, an experience, or does it reflect some kind of ability we have?

Based on my past entrepreneurial experience, I believe that when we build a company, a service, an app, a website, a function, or even write an article, they are all products. The demands and abilities they ultimately require of us are the same.

More broadly speaking, product capability is not a technical skill, but a very important management skill. This may be different from what everyone understands. Because the most important thing about products is really management, not professional skills. When we treat products as a professional skill, all sorts of "experiences" and so-called "showing off" will appear. Things that could be done in one step are forced into six or seven steps, and this kind of inefficiency will happen one after another.

Therefore, understanding what a product is, is our most important point.

Next is an interactive session. I would like to ask everyone here, what do you think are the main reasons for not being able to make good products? We have listed four points: A. Poor user experience; B. Insufficient marketing funds; C. Incomplete product functions; D. Inconsistent product goals.

After the interactive session, I would like to discuss a very critical question: what is the first step of a product? I have found that many entrepreneurs and product people often lack this crucial first step. Without this step, all subsequent efforts may be in vain.

The first step of a product is to set clear and measurable goals for the problem to be solved. Why do we do this? Because when developing a product, if there is no clear goal, all participants will think about the problem from different perspectives. Everyone sees a different world. I often see some failed startups where, until they collapse, the dozens of people on the team are thinking about different worlds. Everyone thinks they are doing it for the good of the company, but they never discussed what the company's common goal is, let alone the product. We often see product teams arguing endlessly about whether the experience is good or bad, whether the function is good or bad, but they never communicate the goals that the product should achieve.

Let me give you an example. In 2008, I was the CEO of Autohome, and we merged with another automotive website – Che168. After the merger, we found a big problem: although the number of employees of the two websites was similar, the efficiency gap was more than ten times different. During the merger, the first issue we discussed was that everyone should have a common goal and vision after the merger. I was in charge of the merger of the two companies, and I asked the senior executives and colleagues of Che168: "What is the goal of Che168?" They unanimously replied that it was "to become the most influential automotive website." I then asked: "What do you mean by 'most influential'?" At this time, the answers varied. Some said it was to become the most professional, some said it was to be the most appealing to manufacturers, and others said it was to make users feel good and have good evaluations of us. I said that everyone's understanding of the goal is completely different, how can this goal be implemented in daily work? When faced with choices, do we protect users, protect customers, or protect the so-called influence? There is no standard at all.

At that time, Autohome had only one very simple goal: to become the most visited automotive website. The standard for measuring visits is PV (page views). If you ask all our employees, everyone's answer is the same: we are working for the same goal every day. At this time, the goal truly played its role.

A very interesting phenomenon is that people often have problems when setting goals, and one of the main reasons is greed. Many times, we originally only wanted to solve one problem, but we always hope to solve four or five problems through one process, taking care of more people, and the result is often that nothing is done well, leading to low organizational efficiency. This is even more true in terms of products. If you ask a product what problem it wants to solve, it may say that it wants to solve A, B, and C. I think this is simply nonsense. This is like a new company doing seven new ecosystems at the same time, unless it is a god, it is impossible to succeed.

When the product has an accurate goal, the biggest benefit is that everyone on the team thinks about the problem in the same world. This is crucial. After everyone is in the same world, the next important thing is to define a standard for the product. When everyone works in the same world and the same standard, the efficiency and results will be completely different.

What is the standard of a product? I simply define it as three keywords: sense of superiority, value, and security. Security determines whether users will abandon or not buy your product; the sense of superiority will become word-of-mouth and spread the brand outward; and the most core of which is value. What is value? It is what you want to solve the user's problem. What problems do you want to help customers solve? This is the value to be realized. For example, the courier company we are most familiar with, SF Express, its value is to deliver goods to users as quickly as possible, which is very simple and direct, and the user's measurement standard for this is also very simple. The value of Autohome is to help users buy and use cars, which is equally simple and clear.

After having the basic standards, we face another big challenge: how to measure this standard? How to measure the value of users? Some people say that value is an experience, and some people say that value is all kinds of ethereal things. But in fact, for users, there are only two criteria for measuring value: whether users are willing to pay time and money for you. We often see many people talking about product experience, showing off all kinds of cool screenshots, the interface is also very beautiful, and some people leave comments praising "it's great." But what's even more terrible is that although you say it's great, cool, and attractive, you simply won't use it, or even have the interest to use it, let alone buy it. I think this is the worst result of a product.

Around 2008, we hired a recent college graduate as a product manager, who later became our product director and head. At that time, he proposed a very "anti-human" theory, which we have been using to this day: when making products, only talk about value, not experience. Why? Because everyone's requirements for experience are completely different. To give the simplest example, the iPhone has only one Home button, while Android phones generally have three buttons. I ask a question: tell me which experience is better? Who can prove which experience is better? There is no reason at all. Moreover, this so-called experience can basically be adapted to in ten minutes. Because I use both iPhone and Android, I don't think there is any essential difference between these two experiences, and I can quickly adapt. Therefore, we spend a lot of time on the so-called experience, but ignore the value.

How to measure value? It's actually very simple, just look at whether users are willing to pay time and whether they are willing to spend money to buy. Many people say that time is easy to calculate, just look at the number of visits or the statistical usage time; income is also very simple, just look at the total revenue or profit to measure. But these are all post-event measurements, "after the fact." How to measure before the event? This is the biggest challenge.

In fact, measuring before the event is not that difficult, it's just that everyone is using the wrong research methods. When we ask consumers about their needs or listen to the market, its most important role is to provide us with options for product functions and needs, but this is by no means the final decision. If we directly copy the user's needs, the product will become very bad.

So, how do we choose the features that will truly translate into a valuable product? One simple approach is to gather 5 to 10 people from different departments within the company. List all the options, including those they personally believe are worthwhile. Then, ask them to individually select and rank the features based on two criteria: which features would they personally spend time using, and which features would they personally pay for? After everyone has ranked their choices, the top one to three features become the core characteristics of the product, and the rest are eliminated. The logic is simple: if you wouldn't use or buy it yourself, why would you expect consumers to?

Let me share a more concrete example from my time at Autohome. I believe one of the biggest problems in the Chinese automotive industry is the generally poor quality of products. Manufacturers often overload their vehicles with features, neglecting the most crucial aspects. Therefore, whenever we hire new employees in the automotive division, I take them through a simple exercise on how to create a good car. I start by asking them if they consider themselves capable of developing a good product. They usually say yes. Then, I pose a challenge: imagine we have an extra 10,000 yuan in BOM (Bill of Materials) cost. Where would you allocate it? I have everyone in the room brainstorm, and the results often fill an entire whiteboard. This is because I'm asking an open-ended question, not a closed one. Someone might suggest air suspension, another might want a color-changing panoramic sunroof, while others might propose adding massage seats or 22-inch wheels. Everyone's ideas can fill the board. I explain that this is how they used to approach product development: asking people around them and potential customers for their needs and then simply following their suggestions. However, you'll eventually discover that the best-selling colors for your cars are still black, white, silver, and gray. Even with two or three dozen configurations available, only two or three actually sell well. A lot of time is wasted on inefficient processes. For example, to offer two or three dozen configurations, a manufacturer might need to find four different suppliers for a single seat, conducting tests that can take up to three years. In contrast, focusing on just one seat configuration with one supplier could reduce testing time to a year and significantly improve the entire supply chain and quality control.

Next, I ask them the following question, which gets to the heart of product development: if you were the customer and had an extra 10,000 yuan to spend, which of these features would you choose? The answers quickly converge: over 90% of the employees would choose to invest the money in the interior, opting for the car with the best interior. I then ask them: if we look at the cars in the same price range and segment, do the vehicles with the best interiors also have the highest sales? We find that this is almost always the case. It's because making substantial differences in exterior design has become challenging, but there's still a lot of room for improvement in interior design. For example, in the competition between the BMW 5 Series, Audi A6, and Mercedes-Benz E-Class, the previous generation BMW 5 Series was the clear leader in sales because it directly incorporated the interior design of the BMW 7 Series, while the previous generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class used the interior design of the Mercedes-Benz C-Class. As a result, the BMW 5 Series could sell up to 15,000 units in a month at its peak, while the previous generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class could only sell two or three thousand units, even with a 100,000 yuan discount. However, the current generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class has undergone a significant transformation. Not only does it require a premium to purchase, but its monthly sales also exceed 10,000 units because it directly incorporates the interior design of the Mercedes-Benz S-Class. When we examine any segment, including compact SUVs and sedans, the top-selling models invariably have the best interiors.

This is the biggest problem Chinese automakers face: they know they would personally choose a car with the best interior, yet when they manufacture cars, they invest the least in interior design. It's hard to imagine that the interior cost of a 100,000 yuan car is less than 2,000 yuan. They would rather spend 2,000 yuan on interior design or later offer a 20,000 yuan discount in the market than invest an extra two or three thousand yuan to improve the interior. This is a classic example of the huge gap between "customer needs" and the final "product." We also observe that employees at most Chinese car manufacturers share a common trait: they rarely purchase the vehicles they produce.

So, how do we create a good product? We actually have standards for both pre-production and post-production. When everyone on the team is on the same page and shares the same standards, you'll find that the team's value and efficiency are greatly enhanced. Autohome accounts for over 60% of the traffic on automotive websites, yet we have fewer product managers than any other website, and most of them are university graduates we've trained ourselves. They don't possess specialized product skills, but they have a strong product sense – a management ability – that enables them to effectively coordinate operations, product development, and technology teams to achieve goals. This allows everyone to easily see the same vision, share the same understanding, and enables each individual to maximize their different professional skills. Everyone feels involved and contributes value. I believe this is very meaningful.

Last night at ten o'clock, our CTO and I discussed how to measure user value. He strongly agreed with the two standards I previously proposed – time and money – and believed they were easy to measure. However, he suggested adding a new standard: emotion. I initially found this a bit surprising. How do you measure emotion? Later, he found a great way to measure it. Emotion is actually word-of-mouth, the genuine feeling users have after using the product. When users develop an emotional connection with a product, they will spread the word wholeheartedly. Therefore, the effectiveness of dissemination on social media and search engines can serve as an effective way to measure emotion, and it's also a way to measure brand strength.

Although I didn't mention the emotion dimension earlier, I want to share it with you here. Let's review the product standards we discussed earlier: a sense of superiority, value, and security. I have a question for everyone: I believe the products and brands we personally prioritize all meet these three characteristics. Let's try it out.

Everyone can name a brand they personally prefer. Take Apple, for example. What is Apple's value? Great design and ease of use. This is its typical value. What is Apple's sense of security? When the virus incident occurred a few days ago, did Apple users care? No. Does Apple pop up a lot of useless windows? No. Using Apple is very worry-free, and that's its sense of security. What is Apple's sense of superiority? When friends get together for dinner, Apple phones can be placed on the table instead of being tucked away in pockets.

Consider SF Express, my favorite courier company. Does SF Express meet these three characteristics? SF Express's value is to deliver goods to users as quickly as possible. We usually prefer to use SF Express's next-day delivery service. We know that SF Express even has its own air freight company to guarantee shipping efficiency. What is SF Express's sense of security? SF Express has the lowest loss rate. What is SF Express's sense of superiority? All the slightly more expensive products on Taobao will be marked with "SF Express Shipping." When companies send documents to each other, if they use SF Express, you will feel that this company is good; if they use a third-rate courier company, especially when you open the envelope and the seal suddenly breaks, your feeling about this company will be greatly reduced.

Every product and company we use can actually satisfy these characteristics, including WeChat. WeChat's value is the fastest and most convenient way to communicate. WeChat's sense of security is its high level of security. There won't be messy things, and there are no junk ads (unless your friends or Moments have a lot of micro-businesses). WeChat's sense of superiority is that when you go out to play, you will see many people "showing off" their children, travel, etc. in Moments. This psychology of showing a sense of superiority in front of friends is very interesting.

Every excellent product we use meets these characteristics. Everyone often talks about how to build a brand, but what exactly is a brand? In brand building, security is a basic need and is not very suitable for brand building, while the sense of superiority and value almost demonstrate the ultimate in brand. The most effective way to convey a brand is to use the sense of superiority and value.

This is for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, consult a professional.

This is a great speech by Li Xiang. Here's the third part, translated into natural, fluent English, keeping in mind the tone of a tech CEO:

Take Moutai, for example. How is its sense of superiority conveyed? What is its value? Its value lies in the fact that its brewing process uses multiple layers of technology, resulting in an exceptionally smooth taste. Consider Hermes, a brand favored by women. Almost all of its advertisements showcase its bags in an aspirational setting, often carried by top celebrities like Victoria Beckham. Its value lies in the use of crocodile leather and the finest French hand-stitching, providing users with the best products among all bags. The approach of the sports brand Under Armour is to show you many top athletes using its products, creating a sense of aspiration and making you feel that you can be just like these outstanding athletes when you put them on. This is the so-called sense of superiority. However, it still does not forget to convey its value, namely the use of very good breathable materials, avoiding the feeling of pure cotton clothing sticking to the body after exercise, both a sense of superiority and real value. I think this is an effective way to convey brand value.

Many people make mistakes in the direction when conveying a brand. A careful observation will reveal that all your favorite brands convey value in this way. Including Apple. Apple's early advertising had serious problems, namely, it did not convey value, nor did it convey a sense of superiority. For example, some of the advertisements during the Jobs era, such as "Think different," etc., after watching them, the biggest feeling is "cool," but you can't find any connection with yourself. You think Apple is cool, but this has nothing to do with you. However, since Apple changed "Apple Computer" to "Apple," its entire advertising strategy has undergone a huge change. It always shows a scene that you yearn for. Although Apple phones are suitable for all ages, its advertisements are always used by young people or children, not old people, although Apple is one of the most elderly-friendly phones. Why? Because everyone wants to be young. On the other hand, Apple either emphasizes its design or emphasizes its very valuable functions in its advertisements, as simple as taking pictures and music, without other unnecessary content, because this is the real value that the product brings to users. At this time, you will feel that the people in the advertisement are what you aspire to, and whether it is taking pictures, music, or excellent design, they are all what you want to buy, and this matter is closely related to you. I think that in addition to inventing many new products, Apple's change in brand display is also worthy of our attention.

Next, I would like to share with you my experience of founding Autohome. In fact, it is not as profound as everyone imagines. In 2004, I decided to enter a new field. The car was just one of the three alternative projects at that time. The reason why I chose the automotive field was because in 2004, the PCPOP website I was doing was the third in the industry, but the entire computer market was declining significantly, the peak of growth had passed, and the industry pattern had been determined. Many times, I worked hard for 14 hours a day, while the industry leader only needed to work 8 hours, and the gap between us was still getting bigger and bigger. From the initial land enclosure to later going to other people's homes to grab land, the difficulty is completely different. I was very tired of the status of "third in the millennium," so I have been looking for new areas, hoping to be the first.

At that time, we chose three areas: tourism, real estate, and automobiles, because we believed that these were all big industries. We first investigated the tourism industry. The best at that time was Ctrip. However, in 2004, people did not use mobile phones and Ctrip Apps to book air tickets like they do today, but mainly booked at the airport through the cards they issued or by calling the 400 phone number. We analyzed Ctrip's core competitiveness: having a call center of several thousand people. At that time, our company had only more than one hundred people in total. Managing a call center of several thousand people was neither my strength nor what I was willing to do, so we did not have this competitiveness, so we gave up the tourism industry.

We then investigated the real estate industry. The best at that time was SouFun.com, which had businesses in dozens of cities across the country. Because buying a house is different from buying a mobile phone in the past, each house is an independent product, and there will be no second one in the world. Even if Vanke does a good job, if there is no project in Beijing, it has nothing to do with you. Therefore, it is difficult to serve the whole country through a basic service, and it must go deep into every place. This is SouFun.com's core competitiveness: opening many branches and stations across the country. At that time, the personnel they used for branch stations exceeded one thousand people. For us at that time, managing so many branch stations and branches was completely unimaginable, because we were just a simple Internet company. Although I will talk about it later, we later had a very good method based on opening branch stations, but at that time, we had no such ability at all, so we believed that there was no chance to defeat SouFun.com, so we also gave up the real estate field.

Finally, we investigated the automotive field. I think this field is very good, it is simply tailor-made for us. Because the car market at that time was a seller's market, in 2004, no car needed to be sold at a discount, and you needed to pay a premium to buy a car. At that time, the most familiar was the Honda Accord, which was sold at a premium from the time it was launched to the time it was discontinued, with a minimum premium of 30,000 yuan and a maximum premium of 50,000 yuan. At that time, after any 4S store opened, a Honda 4S store could recover its cost in one year. And if you open a Honda store again today, you may not be able to recover the cost in ten years. The market at that time was that Accord and other models generally had a premium of thirty or forty thousand yuan. This brings a benefit: this market has not really exploded, and the explosion period is the best time to establish a market position.

On the other hand, we analyzed car products. Cars and the IT products I used to make are very similar except for the larger size. They are all standardized products. That is to say, a BMW 3 Series you see in Beijing is no different from what you see in Shanghai, Shandong, and Hebei. It is a very standard product. When I used to make IT websites, I had to make 19 types of standard products, including printers, laptops, monitors, desktops, and mobile phones. The complexity of a car is only equivalent to the complexity of a mobile phone. As an entry point for the Internet, this is too easy.

Third, we investigated the competitors. How were the competitors doing at that time? I said a rather arrogant thing at the time: all the car websites at that time were "garbage." You can search for it, and many people have scolded me, because these people do nothing every day, just publish the manufacturer's press releases and upload the pictures provided by the manufacturer, without any competitiveness. When we were making IT websites, we worked hard for thirteen or fourteen hours a day, fighting in the red sea. I think it is simply incredible if we can't win against these people.

Therefore, we found a huge market that will grow and undergo tremendous changes in the future. At the same time, this product is what we are good at, and we firmly believe that we can win in the next few years, so we entered the automotive field without hesitation, although we had no resources or financing at that time. After a period of basic construction, we released Autohome in June 2005.

After releasing Autohome, we officially began to think about how to make products. The first product we made was called the product library. The appearance of the product library that everyone sees on car websites today, including how the pictures are placed and how the configurations are arranged, was invented by us in 2005. Today, the product libraries of all car websites are very similar to Autohome.

At that time, we saw a huge pain point and market demand: most consumers at that time were buying their first car, unlike today when everyone is changing cars. There were also very few 4S stores at that time. There may have been only two Honda stores in Beijing, but now there are more than twenty. When you buy your first car, you will encounter a problem: you only have time on weekends, and then you take a taxi to the scattered 4S stores to see the car, or take the bus, because everyone has no car, and the 4S stores at that time were relatively remote, so it was actually very difficult for everyone to go to the store to see the car, and many people found that there were no sample cars when they arrived at the store, and they made a trip for nothing.

This is a great speech by Li Xiang. Here's the last part, translated into natural, fluent English, keeping in mind the tone of a tech CEO:

We came up with a solution: could we make it easier for users to browse cars at home than visiting a 4S store? At that time, you could also view cars online, but to give the simplest example, the pictures that these car websites initially put online were all official pictures provided by the manufacturers. When you buy a car, what you see are official pictures, just like seeing a photoshopped photo when you go on a blind date. It's not real and there is no sense of security.

So the first thing we did was to go to the 4S store to take detailed photos and encode each car, take photos, classify them in the database, and then upload them to the Internet. We can even do it so that the cars that users see in the store are not as detailed as what they see on our website, because we will meticulously photograph every key, every space and every cup holder.

On the other hand, users also care about the configuration of the car, because cars have different configurations, such as whether there are sunroofs, airbags, ESP, etc. We also entered all the instructions in each 4S store into the website, which is convenient for users to find. Moreover, we not only entered it on the website, but also did another very important thing, which you can't do when you go to a 4S store: I can let you compare different cars. Because some people don't just choose one car, but choose between Passat, Accord and Camry, or between Polo and Palio at that time. They need to go to different stores to see the cars for comparison, which is very difficult and almost impossible. On our website, you can compare every car, cars of different brands, as well as their configurations, pictures and any detail. Because buying a car at that time was different from today. At that time, a user's decision cycle to buy a car might be about a year, because it was too important for him.

Therefore, the demand for the product library at that time was like drinking a glass of water after walking in the desert for a few days. Therefore, we quickly used less than half a year, and the entire traffic quickly entered the top five among more than 100 car websites. The products we make give users a sense of security, because all the information is real; it makes users feel the value, replacing them from running around in 4S stores; it also gives users a sense of superiority. Because I later met many people, even many old professors, who said that Autohome brought them a lot of fun. They said that they liked Accord, their wives liked Camry, and their sons liked Magotan. They compared them together every day based on the data of Autohome, and finally decided which car to buy, which became a lot of fun for them, and they were also willing to recommend this website to everyone around them. This is the sense of superiority that the product brings to users. This is the first stage we did.

Next, we entered the second stage. We initially went to the 4S store to take pictures of cars because we didn't have any resources from car manufacturers, and they simply ignored us. However, as our traffic increased, car manufacturers began to contact us主动, hoping that we would write articles, and 4S stores also hoped that we would report more content.

How to write a good article has become a new challenge. We believe that articles are still products and should also meet the three characteristics of security, value and superiority. Before Autohome started writing articles, all car websites either published press releases or wrote them very professionally, such as describing the interior space in millimeters and describing the performance in kilowatts. This is meaningless to most consumers, except to prove that their IQ is low, it does not have any other effect.

We changed this way and described it in a language that any user can understand. For example, when explaining the interior space, we will tell users that a person with a height of 1.75 meters sits in the car, and there is a fist and a few fingers of legroom, and a few fingers of headroom. Anyone can easily understand the size of the interior space. So much so that later people would use "a few fists" to gesture the size of the space when they were looking at cars at auto shows or 4S stores, which is exactly a way we invented at that time. We hope that any consumer can understand everything about cars in the simplest way without thinking too much.

When describing the cup holder, we will not describe it in centimeters, but will tell users whether this cup holder can hold Coca-Cola or Pulse. In this way, users who like to drink Pulse will know whether this car is suitable for them. We use this method to make it very easy for users to understand and completely gain a sense of security. We also provide very effective value, and each article will clearly tell users whether this car is worth buying, instead of vaguely saying that several cars are worth buying. If users compare several cars on Autohome, we will definitely tell them which car is the most worthwhile to buy. If a car has dozens of configurations, we will also tell him which configuration is the most worthwhile to buy. This is the real value.

Finally, it is the sense of superiority. Users are still confused after reading articles on other car websites, and cannot clearly introduce car knowledge to their friends. But after reading the articles on Autohome, users can easily introduce them to their friends and become "car experts" in the eyes of their friends, because they can easily get this knowledge here.

Therefore, we also made the articles have the same sense of security, value and superiority. Until today, we still adhere to this approach. And most of our competitors are still desperately showing off how professional they are in their articles, but instead make users feel insecure. After reading it, they either feel that they are mentally retarded or that the article editor is mentally retarded.

When we started writing articles like this, it took about half a year, and by the middle of 2005, the traffic entered the top three, and almost no promotion costs were spent. By the end of 2006, we became the first among all car websites, and we also spent almost no money.

In the third stage, we continued to look for opportunities to become the number one in terms of traffic. We found that all car websites at that time had a common feature: they did not update on weekends. At that time, users would spend a lot of time on the Internet on weekends to view and select cars. Therefore, we decided to provide updates on weekends as well, just like providing water in the desert, and users would not be picky at all. We decided to go to work on Saturdays to update some content, and release some content regularly on Sundays.

This update strategy has been brought to the extreme. We analyzed what time of the day users would read the updates, and then released articles, forum recommendations, and product library updates on time. This brings a sense of security to users, and they know that they can see updates on our website every day, and the time is fixed. We have persisted for ten years, and many websites have followed suit, but eventually gave up.

This approach has brought user stickiness, and they know that they can find valuable content here every day, and thus generate a sense of superiority. They can feel our intentions and therefore prefer to use Autohome. By the end of 2006, our traffic became the first, which was much earlier than our initial target of the end of 2008. This number one position has continued to this day.

This is our method of making products. It is very simple and unpretentious. It is based on management and methodology, rather than specifically guiding everyone what functions to do every day. We use this method to train a group of young people and let them complete these tasks themselves. Although our traffic is far ahead, the number of our product managers is the least among all car websites, and the products released are also the least, but almost every product is very successful. Many websites are constantly revising their versions, but instead make users feel unfamiliar and uneasy.

I think we have been misled too much by some public opinions in the past two years. I hope to share this simple and effective way with you to do products correctly and cultivate product talents. The sharing about products is over here.