On September 30th， according to MyDrivers， a small phrase in the lower right corner of the promotional poster for the Xiaomi 17 Pro， proclaiming it the “King of Backlight Photography，” has recently become a focal point of public scrutiny.
“King of Backlight Photography is a product design goal.” This is the exact phrase that has ignited widespread discussion.
The primary reason for the fervent debate stems from a common sentiment of being misled， akin to a “bait-and-switch” tactic.
So， is this phrase merely a play on words?
During a livestream yesterday evening， Luo Yonghao， a prominent figure， voiced his support for Xiaomi， stating that the small text on the poster represents a common industry malpractice and is not unique to Xiaomi.
Luo Yonghao asserted that many are using this issue to criticize Xiaomi， but in reality， this is a widespread industry practice， not an invention of Xiaomi. He emphasized that “regardless of who it affects， if this round of discussion leads to the entire industry abandoning such practices， I believe it would be a positive development.”
Furthermore， some netizens have uncovered similar small print from other manufacturers， all stating “aiming to become xxx.” Given Xiaomi’s current significant market presence and attention， this issue has been amplified immensely.
Why would Xiaomi engage in such a practice? A benevolent interpretation suggests that after rigorous testing， Xiaomi genuinely believes the Xiaomi 17 Pro’s backlight photography capabilities are indeed top-tier， theoretically deserving of the “king” title. It’s likely that terms like “Backlight Master” or “Backlight Nemesis” were considered， but “King of Backlight Photography” was deemed necessary to truly convey its performance.
However， using such superlative terms might violate advertising laws. By labeling it a “design goal” in fine print， they aim to circumvent legal repercussions.
This strategy， often referred to as “large text for attention and small text for disclaimer，” involves using prominent claims to attract traffic and sales， while employing miniscule text to mitigate legal risks.
Is this solely Xiaomi’s fault? No， it reflects a broader industry lamentable practice.
Digital influencer @i冰宇宙 (Ice Universe) noted that small text annotations like “final effects are subject to the actual product” or “design goal” have long been commonplace across various industries. This practice extends beyond mobile phones and electronics to advertisements for automobiles and real estate， indicating a deeply ingrained issue.
So why has Xiaomi’s case escalated to such a degree? Simply put， it’s because it’s Xiaomi， with its high visibility and massive traffic， making any minor issue prone to trending topics.
However， our criticism should not be directed solely at one company. Instead， we should address this industry-wide “say one thing， hide another” marketing approach. By employing visually striking imagery and captivating language for impact， they then rely on minuscule text to absolve themselves of responsibility. This practice， in essence， depletes the overall credibility of the industry.
We should seize this opportunity to encourage all businesses to reform their promotional strategies， clearly and openly disclosing all necessary information.
The images or anticipated results presented in advertisements should strive to be as close as possible to the user’s actual experience. Even if it means a slower or more modest approach， it would be far more trustworthy than relying on fine print to skirt regulations.
This is the direction that truly warrants serious attention and collective improvement.
The author believes that when deep-seated industry “bad habits” encounter increasingly discerning consumers， an eruption of controversy is an inevitable outcome.
This also signifies that some era-old marketing strategies are due for a “change.”
