Why Brands Keep Insulting Their Own Customers

Two scenes

Scene one. You walk into the kitchen, pick up a cleaver, and smash a garlic clove. The blade breaks. You go to the brand, and the brand tells you: this cleaver cannot smash garlic. You were using it wrong.

Scene two. You have been driving for more than a decade, and you prefer a certain steady, mature design. A new EV maker holds a launch event, and the person on stage calls that aesthetic "old geezer taste." The room laughs.

Two scenes, two brands, one problem. They were supposed to serve you, but they chose to educate you. And the way they educated you was to make you feel that you were wrong.

Zhang Xiaoquan's cleaver cannot smash garlic. This is not a technical mystery. It is a disconnect between product definition and kitchen common sense. In Chinese kitchens, smashing garlic with a cleaver does not require market research. It is muscle memory. When users hear "this cleaver cannot smash garlic," their first reaction is not "I learned something new." It is "Are you kidding me?" If the follow-up communication carries even a hint of "the problem is that you used it wrong," what users hear is a lecture.

Xpeng's launch event mocking the "old geezer aesthetic" is not a communication slip either. There is nothing wrong with trying to look younger. There is nothing wrong with a brand wanting to shed an old image. But labeling or mocking existing users, or a certain aesthetic preference, is not education. It is an insult to identity. Users will not become younger because they were laughed at. They will only remember you because they were offended.

What these two cases share is this: the brand treated "educating customers" as a marketing KPI and turned a launch event into a lecture.

Education is not a sin

Educating customers is not a sin.

New categories need education. Electric vehicles need to explain charging logic. Smart homes need to explain connected scenarios. Skincare needs to explain ingredients and tolerance. When done well, this kind of education lowers the user's cognitive cost and helps the user make better decisions.

The problem is not education. The problem is the purpose and attitude behind it.

Effective education puts user interest first: I am telling you this so that you avoid pitfalls, waste less money, and use the product better. Ineffective education puts brand superiority first: I am telling you this so that you admit I am sophisticated, I have taste, and I understand life.

The former is service. The latter is a lecture.

Zhang Xiaoquan's problem is not that it wanted to teach users "knives should be specialized." You can launch a specialized knife. But you cannot let the main product fail in a basic scenario. You can explain the product's boundaries, but you cannot make users feel that "the one who is wrong is you."

Xpeng's problem is not that it wanted to look younger. A brand can have a point of view. But it cannot divide users into "those who get me" and "old geezers." Marketing can select an audience. It cannot humiliate one.

To judge whether a piece of education is valid, ask three questions.

First, does the user have to buy? For essential consumer goods, do not start with education. Start by reducing friction and respecting habits. Users are going to buy anyway; their decision logic is "within my budget, choose something that looks right, feels reliable, and does not make me uncomfortable." If you make them uncomfortable, they will switch.

Second, does the education bring user benefit? New categories, safety boundaries, and complex functions can be taught. Aesthetic superiority and lifestyle contempt cannot. The former helps users save money and trouble. The latter helps the brand flatter itself.

Third, does the education belittle the user? Once users feel "you are saying I am tacky, stupid, or old," it is no longer education. It is offense. The memory left by offense is a negative asset.

Education is fine. Do not act like a teacher. A brand can have values. It cannot be condescending.

Pleasing customers is not a cure either

"Pleasing customers" sounds safe. Done badly, it is also a trap.

Some brands understand pleasing customers as hiring attractive female product managers and attractive female PR managers so that customers "find the brand pleasing to the eye." This is close to the logic of hiring car-show models: grab attention in the short term and create visual goodwill.

But the "pleasing to the eye" of a consumer product is never accomplished by a face. Users buy cleavers, cars, phones, and services. They do not buy exhibition-hall atmosphere. Any one of these four missing, and a pretty face will not save you: product experience, honest pricing, reliable service, and communication that is not awkward.

Treating appearance as a tool for pleasing customers also objectifies people and obscures professional competence. The core competence of a product manager is defining products, understanding scenarios, and balancing cost and experience. The core competence of a PR manager is judging risk, organizing communication, and maintaining trust. If these abilities are covered by the "attractive woman" label, the ultimate losers are the brand and the person involved.

What users want is not "you show yourself to me." It is "you understand me." Attention can be grabbed by appearance. Trust can only be accumulated through professionalism and honesty.

So the question is not whether attractive women can be product managers. The question is whether the brand is selecting professional competence or selecting a tool for pleasing. If it is the latter, it is inefficient and undignified.

The classroom problem

Many marketing managers, regardless of gender, do have the "educating customers" disease. The blame cannot be placed entirely on university marketing programs.

Marketing courses certainly teach STP, the 4Ps, consumer behavior, brand equity, channel management, data analysis, and communication strategy. They do not only teach "educating customers." The problem is that many courses and cases lean toward communication creativity and brand narrative, while lacking training in product, sales, channels, data, and P&L.

Students easily learn "I need to project values." They do not learn "will users actually buy this selling point?" They easily learn "a brand needs personality." They do not learn "will this personality increase friction in the purchase?"

As a result, when some people enter companies, they understand marketing KPIs as "generate volume," "create buzz," and "educate the market." They forget the first principles of marketing: understand demand, create value, manage exchange, and maintain relationships.

Marketing as a major is not the original sin. The original sin is the marketing person who only knows communication and lacks user perspective and business common sense. A STEM background has an advantage in product understanding. A sales background has an advantage in customer feeling and closing deals. But they also need to add consumer behavior, brand logic, and data skills. Marketing majors can also be strong. The key is whether they have been trained as user advocates rather than brand lecturers.

So the statement "do not hire a single marketing or communications graduate" is emotionally understandable but logically too broad. What you cannot hire is the marketing attitude that treats customers as students and itself as the teacher, regardless of major.

What to hire for

Instead of worshipping marketing majors, brands should look at three abilities.

First, user perspective. Can the person clearly explain who the user is, in what scenario the product is used, what the user fears most, what annoys the user most, and why the user buys you rather than someone else? If not, no amount of slogans will help.

Second, business common sense. Does the person know cost, price, channel, gross margin, repurchase, and conversion? Marketing actions ultimately have to land on the business. Without this knowledge, the proposals are self-indulgent.

Third, communication judgment. Can the person explain complex issues simply and communicate the brand's position clearly without offending users, belittling users, or flattering itself? Judgment is not innate. It is beaten into people on the business battlefield.

STEM graduates with some writing ability often have an advantage in product understanding. People from sales who want to move into marketing often have customer feeling. Marketing majors who fill in product and data capabilities can also be strong. The key is not the major label. It is whether the person has been trained by commercial reality.

Marketing departments fear "not being able to write slogans" less than "only being able to write slogans." They fear "not understanding communication" less than "only understanding communication."

Four questions

Brands do not have to mechanically choose between pleasing and educating. A more practical framework is four questions.

First, is this essential consumption or meaning consumption? For essential goods, please first. For meaning consumption, you can educate, but education must still bring user benefit.

Second, does the user have to buy? If they have to buy, reduce friction first. Only optional consumption deserves a brand proposition.

Third, does the education bring user benefit? Education that brings benefit is service. Education that brings superiority is a lecture.

Fourth, does the education belittle the user? Once users feel mocked, judged, or ranked, it is not education. It is offense.

Below that, there is another bottom line: marketing can select an audience, but it cannot humiliate an audience. A brand can have values, but it cannot turn values into a trial of users.

Serve first, express second

Many brands have turned "educating customers" into a marketing KPI, turned launch events into lectures, and turned brand expression into a chain of identity contempt. This is a real problem.

The cure is a return to business common sense.

Please first: understand demand, respect habits, and do not make users uncomfortable. Then educate: teach only what is valuable to users, and do not act like a teacher.

Marketing is not about educating users. It is about reducing the user's cost of choice. A brand is not about lecturing users. It is about creating value for users. A brand can have a point of view, but the premise is respect. Users can be educated, but the premise is service.

What should be fired is not the marketing major. It is the marketing attitude that treats customers as students and itself as the teacher. What should be cultivated is not people who can educate customers, but people who understand users, understand business, and understand judgment.

The highest level of marketing is not making users feel "you know more than I do." It is making users feel "you understand me."