Looking at XPeng from the "Lao Deng" Controversy: What Hurdles Does the Organization Still Need to Cross to Bring Technology to the Masses

A young product manager teased the management team with the internet slang "laodeng" (a derogatory term referring to elderly people) at a press conference and later issued an apology. The company's vice president came forward to explain, emphasizing that this was an internal joke and continued to support her to appear on stage. If this incident is only described as "Young people lack a sense of propriety", it will easily shift the problems of an entire company onto a single individual. If we rashly assert that "XPeng does not respect consumers", the communication controversy will be expanded into a verdict against the whole enterprise.

The truly noteworthy part of this turmoil is that it exposed a problem that is usually hidden inside enterprises: How can an enterprise confirm that the users it understands are the real users in the market? This question is especially critical for XPeng. It not only aims to bring intelligent technology to more ordinary car buyers, but also exports technology to global automotive enterprises, and is advancing physical AI businesses such as robots. The same set of technologies can support all these directions, but there is no universal answer for how products can be established, how value can be proven, and how trust can be built when facing different customers.

The "laodeng" controversy provides an observation opportunity. It cannot prove that there is any systematic failure in XPeng's organization, but it is sufficient for us to check along public evidence which parts of the company's product, operation and organization have been connected, and which parts still need to be verified.

I. What deserves more attention than the sentence on stage is the pre-existing communication theme off the stage

First, put the incident back on the timeline. On October 15, 2026, XPeng MONA L05 held its pre-sale press conference. Etta, the product manager, used expressions including "laodeng" in her explanation, and the controversy emerged afterwards. On October 22, she publicly apologized and explained that what she wanted to criticize was the rigid design thinking, and the relevant words were originally used as jokes inside the team. There is a detail that is easy to ignore: the day before the press conference, the official account of XPeng MONA had already used the topic "How can a large five-seat vehicle for young people have the old-fashioned vibe" in its public posts; in the same period, automotive media also recorded the relevant interior publicity slogans.

This fact changes the responsible unit for analysis. We do not have internal scripts and approval records, so we cannot assert that every sentence was designed by the management, let alone describe the controversy as a confirmed hype. But we can at least confirm that: This kind of expression has the background of previous brand communication, and cannot be completely attributed to an employee using the wrong words on the spot.

By October 24, Vice President Yu Tao responded, stating that the relevant title was aimed at several internal leaders and did not refer to external users, and said that Etta would still participate in subsequent press conferences. This explanation answered one question: Who was the speaker originally referring to. The public also had an additional question: Why did a brand choose to express aesthetic differences in this way?

Both can be true at the same time. The employee may really have no intention of attacking consumers, and some audiences may really feel uncomfortable. The internal managers who were teased do not mind, which cannot represent all the people who heard this sentence in public. Our view is that internal jokes rely on shared experiences to be understood, while public expressions bear consequences by the language itself. People familiar with the team know who is joking with whom and the relationship behind the tone; people who come into contact with the brand for the first time only have that sentence in their hands. Once the press conference is cut into short video clips, the background is removed, and the most eye-catching title will remain.

Therefore, what enterprises need to check is how the internal context is brought into public expression, and why the content that was originally intended to prove "understanding young people" leads to another kind of understanding. This also explains why the analysis should separate employee protection from expression responsibility. The company can stop personal attacks based on appearance, age and other factors, support young employees to continue to stand on the stage, and at the same time admit that the communication wording is worth adjusting. Protecting people and verifying whether a set of expressions is effective are two things that can be carried out in parallel.

II. XPeng has grown up, but the nature of growth is changing

To understand this turmoil, we cannot only look at online emotions, but also see what business stage XPeng is in. In 2025, XPeng delivered 429,445 vehicles, a year-on-year increase of 125.9% compared with 190,068 units in 2024. This is not an enterprise without market verification; it has experienced a remarkable scale expansion. But reaching a new level of scale does not mean that the original growth mode can be continuously reused. In the second quarter of 2026, XPeng delivered 103,295 vehicles, a year-on-year increase of about 0.1%; total revenue reached 19.74 billion yuan, with a comprehensive gross margin of 20.7%, automotive gross margin of 12.1%, and a net loss of 1.34 billion yuan. The gross margin of services and other businesses reached 75.1%.

There are at least three judgments that need to be analyzed separately. The year-on-year sales volume being almost flat does not contradict the sequential recovery. The improvement of comprehensive gross margin can also happen at the same time as the profitability pressure of the vehicle business. The higher gross margin of the service business does not mean that the company as a whole has made a profit. Mixing these calibers together, it is easy to come up with two inaccurate stories: One is that "XPeng has fully entered the profit harvest period", and the other is that "XPeng's operation has fully deteriorated".

Looking at the latest delivery: in the third quarter of 2026, XPeng delivered 118,390 vehicles, a sequential increase of 15%; calculated based on 116,007 units in the same period of the previous year, the year-on-year increase is about 2.1%. 41,256 units were delivered in September. A more accurate description is that: XPeng is still recovering growth, but has entered a stage of testing growth quality under a high base. At this stage, the value brought by a new car needs to be checked along a longer chain: How many new customers it attracts; whether these customers come from other brands; whether the transaction relies on higher discounts; whether the vehicles can be delivered on schedule; whether after-sales costs and user recommendations support the next round of growth.

The popularity of the press conference is only at the entrance of this chain. This is also the most common analytical error in this incident: taking hot search as the business result. Discussion volume cannot directly prove the failure of communication, let alone prove the damage to sales. At present, we do not have the data of net orders, unsubscription reasons and effective lead conversion before and after the controversy, so we cannot fill in this cause and effect. The really useful question for managers is: Does the enterprise have the ability to distinguish between content that makes people discuss and reasons that make people decide to buy? If both are measured by the same set of indicators, the communication team may pursue a seemingly good result, while sales and product teams have to bear another result.

III. "Cars for young people" must be implemented in real living conditions

MONA's choice of young users has a clear product logic. According to the pre-sale information released by XPeng, the pre-sale price of L05 starts from 169,800 yuan, providing two power options: pure electric and extended-range, focusing on large five-seat space, expanded storage, comfortable seats and intelligent experience. These configurations and positioning at least show that it tries to put budget, practicality and personalized expression into the same product. The problem is that youth is only a demographic feature, which cannot independently explain car purchase choices.

For young people, having a fixed parking space and home charging conditions will change their power choice; whether it is their first car will change their risk perception; living alone, living with a partner and having children will change their space demand; paying by themselves and getting family support will change their decision-making process. The explanatory power of these conditions may be higher than the familiarity with the same internet slang. Therefore, the participation of young teams in product definition can indeed bring important value: it is easier to discover usage scenarios ignored by senior managers, more daring to challenge conventional designs, and more familiar with the expression habits of some users. But youth only provides an entry for observation, and research provides the basis for judgment.

Letting employees represent young users is the starting point for putting forward hypotheses. To turn this hypothesis into a product decision, we still need to answer: Who are the observations from, who are missed in the samples, what price are users willing to pay for the demand, and whether the function will be used for a long time. For example, to verify the value of the expanded storage interface, we can check the loading scenarios, usage frequency and user modification behaviors. Its value does not need to be proved by negating the aesthetic of another group of people.

Product positioning requires trade-offs. Limited costs cannot satisfy all preferences, and there is no need for enterprises to make everyone like the same car. But making trade-offs in functions is a different business action from labeling people with different preferences in expressions. The former helps to concentrate resources, while the latter may add unnecessary communication costs. A more convincing youth-oriented approach is to tell users: how this space can accommodate their equipment, how this seat supports their lunch break, and how this energy replenishment plan adapts to their lives. Such language is still valid even across age groups. It pushes the statement "We are the same kind of people as you" to "We know your problems and can solve them specifically".

IV. XPeng's old topic: How to turn engineering capabilities into choices that users can easily make

If we look back along the relationship between products and users, XPeng has an experience worth re-reading. In September 2022, after the G9 was launched, the official community clearly acknowledged that it received user feedback about the high difficulty and high cost of configuration selection, and adjusted the naming logic, price and configuration within two days. The value of this official statement is that it described the problem very specifically: The capabilities that the enterprise has already developed have not been delivered to users in a way that is easy enough to understand.

The richer the technical solutions are, the easier it is for enterprises to generate internal rationality: each version has its reason, each optional installation has its cost, and each naming corresponds to engineering differences. The task faced by users is very simple: Which one should I buy, why, and will I regret it after buying? Turning the complete engineering explanation into a clear choice for purchase requires an independent layer of capabilities. It involves product definition, configuration combination, pricing, store explanation and delivery commitment, and cannot be entirely handed over to a single sentence at the press conference.

In January 2023, XPeng announced that Wang Fengying would serve as president, with responsibilities covering product planning, product matrix and sales system. This arrangement at least shows that the company once assigned the connection between products and sales to a person in charge with automotive industry experience in the formal organizational division of labor. We cannot attribute all the subsequent growth to one person, nor can we erase these adjustments just because of today's turmoil. But putting the two time points together raises a continuously valid question: How can the internal language used by enterprises to judge products be stably converted into language that users can understand and accept?

The public feedback in 2022 focused on configuration selection, and the controversy in 2026 focused on communication expression. They are not the same thing, and we cannot conclude that the same set of organizational failures have occurred repeatedly. What can be migrated is the inspection method: What does the enterprise think it has made clear, what has the user actually received, and is there any evidence to check the gap in between? If this layer of capability is strengthened, the judgment of the product team will be more easily reusable by the sales team; if it is weakened, the stores may constantly need to explain for the headquarters, and the public relations team will constantly supplement background information for the internal context. The maturity of the organization can be observed from whether this explanation cost has decreased.

V. The same XPeng is facing three different customer commitments

The complexity of XPeng today also lies in the fact that it can no longer be understood only with the logic of a complete vehicle retailer. In March 2026, the Volkswagen Group announced that the first jointly developed model ID.UNYX 08 of the two parties had rolled off the production line. This means that the technical cooperation has reached mass production nodes, not just a letter of intent for cooperation. In October, He Xiaopeng introduced XPENG AI ENGINEERING in Paris and announced that it would open intelligent vehicle technology cooperation to global partners. The company is also advancing physical AI directions such as robots; the commercial maturity of these directions needs to be tested separately and cannot replace each other.

If we break it down by customer commitments, XPeng is handling three tasks at the same time. For car buyers, it needs to prove that a car is worth buying, durable, and the service can be sustained. For automotive enterprise partners, it needs to prove that the technology can be integrated into other people's products, delivered according to milestones, and get long-term support. For new business customers, it needs to prove that the new capabilities can complete specific tasks and the unit economy is valid. These tasks may share chips, models, software and engineering experience, but have different acceptance methods.

Ordinary families will not automatically reduce their concerns about maintenance, value retention or energy replenishment just because of a technical cooperation agreement. Automotive enterprises will not lower their requirements for development progress, intellectual property rights and engineering quality just because the press conference has a youthful atmosphere. This difference has left traces in the revenue and gross profit structure. Calculated according to the original accounts of the second quarter financial report, "Services and Others" accounted for about 13.7% of revenue, contributing about 49.6% of gross profit. However, this account includes technology R&D services, spare parts and other projects, and cannot all be counted as software revenue; the company also stated that the revenue growth of technology R&D services involves the achievement of key project milestones.

The meaning of this set of data should be understood cautiously but fully. It shows that in addition to being installed in its own vehicles, technical capabilities have also begun to realize value through other forms; it also reminds us that the confirmation rhythm of project-based revenue is different from the continuous R&D investment. Therefore, what XPeng needs to test in the next stage is whether technology reuse can continuously generate economic returns: How many vehicle models and how many customers the same investment serves; whether the cooperation can be expanded; whether the delivery can be repeated; whether the engineering support cost is controllable.

Shared R&D capabilities will bring scale effects; mixed business responsibilities may distort business judgment. The complete vehicle business should be responsible for automotive gross margin, terminal transaction and delivery, the technical service business is responsible for contracts, acceptance and continuous cooperation, and the exploratory business is responsible for phased verification and resource consumption. It is difficult to answer these questions at the same time with a total revenue figure or an AI narrative. This also makes brand expression undertake more complex tasks. XPeng can have different styles on different products, but the group level still needs a stable commitment: Respect customers, clarify capability boundaries, and be responsible for delivery.

VI. Organizational youthfulness depends on who can use evidence to change decisions

In this incident, "Young people dare to joke with their bosses" was used to explain the team culture. It may indeed reflect the relaxed relationship, but relying solely on this point cannot evaluate the decision-making method. The more distinctive question is: Can young product managers change an established configuration after getting evidence? Can they request a redo when user research finds that the publicity claim is not valid? Can sales feedback that a certain explanation confuses customers push the headquarters to make adjustments? These actions involve budget, schedule, commitment and responsibility, which are closer to the core of organizational operation than titles.

By studying public recruitment information, we can also see XPeng's requirements for this connection capability. Its overseas product marketing manager position lists user research, positioning and pricing, launch execution and public opinion management in the same responsibility chain; the robot product manager position requires converting models, engineering and user experience into verifiable indicators. The job description cannot prove that these capabilities have been effectively operated, but at least it reminds us that the analysis cannot stop rashly at the conclusion that "XPeng has no user awareness". What needs to be further verified is: between existing positions, can evidence flow, and can differences affect decisions.

Taking this press conference as an example, what is worth reviewing is not the general statement of "be careful what you say in the future", but several specific mechanisms: Whether the communication theme has been tested by target users and adjacent groups; who is responsible for the early warning of different understandings; how the product leader, brand leader and final release person divide their work; after the controversy occurs, how user feedback enters the next round of product and expression adjustment.

We do not have these internal materials, so at present we can only put forward diagnostic questions and cannot give an organizational medical record. The truly valuable youthfulness is to give people who are closer to new needs the opportunity to change resource allocation based on evidence and assume corresponding responsibilities. Such a mechanism can not only protect new voices, but also avoid taking age as a kind of correctness that does not need to be tested.

VII. After repairing the relationship, it is also necessary to check whether the business has improved

If we design follow-up actions for this incident from a business perspective