
Elon Musk and How Not to Handle a PR Crisis - brkumar
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130215030225-7070331-elon-musk-and-how-not-to-handle-a-pr-crisis
======
tptacek
It does not matter who you think is winning or losing this argument. The point
this post makes is sound: unless you're sure that Musk is crushing Broder in
the eyes of a disinterested prospective Tesla customer, Musk harmed Tesla more
than he helped it.

His response took a bad review and turned it into front-page news in a way
that would not have happened if Tesla's response hadn't been combative.

The reason the author wrote this post is to educate you, startup founders,
that Musk's tactic was dumb. Tesla will survive it; Musk can afford to pick
fights that raise awareness of Tesla's negatives. But you probably can't
afford that for your own company.

You can respond to this post with yet another 10,000 word thread about who's
more credible, Musk or Broder, but to do so is to miss the core point of the
post.

~~~
ajross
There's an argument about the "long game" though. The point of marketing isn't
to get customers money right now, that's what "sales" is about.

If you believe (FWIW: I do, but let's please not get back into that here) that
Broder's review was sensationalized nonsense essentially intended to spin
every minor glitch into a negative story, then what this hissy fit did is make
sure, by making an example out of Broder and his editors, that all the _other_
journalists out there don't try the same thing.

Basically, Musk is trading some instantaneous bad press for fairer press in
the future (which is sort of already happening, c.f. the CNN ride yesterday
which contradicts Broder and certainly wouldn't have happened without the
controversy). That may or may not be a net benefit, but it's a more subtle
analysis than the "did he harm more than help" one you are arguing for.

~~~
tptacek
I don't believe Broder's review was nonsensical, which probably accounts for
why I don't subscribe to the idea that this was a smart long-term strategy for
Musk, but I understand why reasonable people think that. However, Musk can
afford to play long games with PR. Most startups can't.

Regarding reviews in particular: I've done a bunch of them at previous
companies, and I think the average first-time founder on HN would be very
surprised to learn how subjective and relationship-based they are. I once
"won" a bakeoff review for a product I was managing, only to "lose" it later
in the week when the reviewer wrote a followup story about improvements in the
runner-up. The net effect was negative; it turned us into the de facto runner
up.

Most tech product reviews are much more subjective than this Tesla review. You
have to have a lot of traction in the market for an important review to
revolve around simple "speeds and feeds" issues like how much mileage your
vehicle gets. Pissing off reviewers is almost always going to be a losing
strategy, even when you're right.

------
potatolicious
I really think this is the most important learning from this whole debacle.

Broder ran into a edge case in electric car behavior (though it's arguable
just _how_ edgy it is), his Tesla support people made the wrong calls, and he
himself appeared to be intent on testing the accuracy of Tesla's range
estimates. It's really a perfect storm of fuckupery on all sides combined with
a chilly winter storm - there was no way to win this one.

What bothers me, however, was how quickly Musk leapt to accusations of fraud.
Let's be clear: accusing a reporter of one of the longest-running and
staunchest institutions of journalism in the country of outright fraud is
generally classified as a _Big Fucking Deal_. You don't do it lightly - and in
this case it seems like the judgment was more than premature.

~~~
jbellis
This is the level of modern public discourse. "Romney lied" or "Obama lied"
was what you probably heard most in headlines last year, even though in most
cases the discrepancy was more along the lines of Broder lowering the
temperature twenty minutes after he thought he did.

------
alexdevkar
Is it true that Broder is winning the argument?

That was not my impression, but I haven't read everything yet.

~~~
stcredzero
Seems like reddit is very pro Elon, to the point of many wondering when Broder
will get fired. I wonder if there's an old media/new media divide here?

~~~
cremnob
The divide is between people who have been following this story critically and
those that haven't. Most of reddit and many people here have been suggesting
he's an oil industry shill that was determined to see the car fail, but they
were already looking to side with Elon.

~~~
VonGuard
Yeah, but for those casuals just peaking in, I think there's also an immediate
divide between the media and the tech community. The invective here was very
much pro-Elon right off the bat, and hasn't favored Border since. But all the
other coverage I see in the journalism community is entirely pro NYT.

~~~
cremnob
Perhaps. I work in finance, I'm not a programmer or 'hacker' at all. So I
constantly feel like an outsider to this community, and especially when
stories like this pop-up that really highlight the groupthink.

~~~
stcredzero
_> highlight the groupthink_

The perspective may also be a good way to become aware of your own groupthink.

------
bradleyland
I think a large part of the issue with Broder's experience boils down to
communication. It's tempting to believe in some kind of objective reality when
it comes to communication, but communication has two very subjective sides:

1) What the speaker has said

2) What the listener has understood

A very good teacher knows how to assess #2 in a continuous feedback loop.
Unfortunately, one's sensitivity to this feedback is greatly diminished over
the phone. This often results in outcomes where the speaker and the listener
have very different accounts of what was communicated.

After reading all of the back and forth, the only conclusion I can reach is
that Broder didn't have any ill intentions,and Tesla staff tried to help him,
but the outcome still wasn't good.

The actions Broder took didn't allow him to reach his goals. You may hold an
opinion as to whether he was too conservative/liberal with his approach to
charging and efficiency management. You might hold an opinion as to whether or
not he properly interpreted Tesla's advice, but it doesn't change the facts of
the matter. He didn't make it to where he was headed, and his trip goals was
pretty typical.

Broder strikes me as a pretty "normal" person. He doesn't seem biased toward
or against the car. He seems rather indifferent, which is how many American
drivers feel about their cars. If Tesla's pitch is that this car is "just as
good" as a gasoline car, then they've clearly over-pitched.

Whether Elon Musk wants to admit it, the Model S does require considerations
that we're not used to making with gasoline powered cars. Making 1 hour pit
stops to "refuel" every 200 miles has a pretty serious impact on trip times
when compared to a gasoline powered car that can stretch to 300 miles between
fill-ups and can be back on the road in 10 minutes.

A good tact at this point might be to realign their message with the car's
capabilities and offer an olive branch to Broder. He seems ready to accept it.

~~~
jlgreco
> _Whether Elon Musk wants to admit it, the Model S does require
> considerations that we're not used to making with gasoline powered cars._

Admit it? Have they ever _denied_ it? It is an electric car, you need to
charge it. Charging it takes longer than filling it with gas. Everybody who
thinks they are being profound or daring for pointing this out is frankly just
being obnoxious.

------
geargrinder
This article pretty much sums up my response to this whole mess. The person
responsible for PR at Tesla must be tearing their hair out. Potential
customers might take a look at this exchange and wonder if Tesla will treat
them the same way.

------
forgottenpaswrd
Probably what Elon Musk is doing is not the best for the company short term.
But I really admire this guy strength and determinism.

Following a PR perfection tactic of "avoiding conflict" we are getting used to
being constantly lied by the media. The federal reserve and other central
banks lie to us("thinking on our own good"), the politicians also do it as a
routine.

They are constantly measuring popularity and asking propaganda experts about
"what they have to say" in order to manipulate the audience.

It is refreshing. He is alive. He could lose but he is going to fight.

------
justjimmy
May be because of this incident, future reviewers or journalists will need to
be more thoughtful with what they write (esp tech stuff, where logging data is
possible). Everyone knows how social media changes the landscape, but this
really blew up - everyone I know is talking about it and Tesla and electric
cars isn't anything new.

I agree it's not a good idea for a startup to be as combative as Tesla. But in
this case, I think Musk did good for Tesla - ie: Even CNN is riding the wave.

------
kmfrk
I think people are pretty much utterly confused at this point. Perhaps this
was by design, and Elon thought to heed the adage "if you can't convince them,
confuse them".

People who like the NYT/dislike Musk side against Tesla, and vice versa.

Elon Musk definitely did not close the case, and to that point he did not
handle it well. But there are facts, and there is PR, and it's still unclear
to which degree the facts are on Musk's side.

------
__--__
Most people here aren't thinking "Evil Genius" thoughts. Who wins or loses the
argument is irrelevant. The fact remains Tesla will command headlines for
months, whereas if this had never happened, Tesla's "range tests" would be met
with yawns at best. Now, every range test is a new opportunity to re-hash the
argument, commanding mass attention and headlines.

------
sunjain
Public memory is short(how many remember the Top Gear review of model S now?).
In few months people will forget about this episode. This may have negative
short term impact(or may be not) on sales of Tesla cars/shareprice. But from
Tesla's point of view, they got the following:

1) another test case, which they may not have accounted for, and they will use
this to make future improvements

2) wide publicity, which may seem negative at this point, but lot more folks
know now that it is possible to think of driving in electric cars outiside
your city limits (it may not seem to have works as planned in this case), but
nevertheless it is a possibility. CNN did another test ride, which again is
more publicity.

Overall I see this as a net plus for Tesla in the long term.

~~~
brown9-2
On the other hand, if people do not have much of an impression on the car
company or Elon Musk, this type of episode could cement an unwelcome
impression in their mind.

For instance, if you didn't have any impression of Top Gear before their Model
S review, how do you feel about them months later after learning of what they
did?

------
friendly_chap
For all the people criticizing Musk, rembember, all advertising is good
advertising.

> "The debate has driven a lot of people to Broder's initial review"

And that's exactly what Elon wanted. Lets say 100 people read that review. 80
out of that believed the article, because they only read a one sided opinion.
Now, Elon responded, a big fight and sensation came out of the story, brought
1000 people into the discussion, and since they heard both sides, assume its a
fifty-fifty. Do the math.

Obviously the numbers are hypothetical, but I am pretty drunk (it's friday
night, yo), but you can catch my drift.

I would love to see Musk and Tesla (not the guy, RIP, the band) succeed.

~~~
corresation
_For all the people criticizing Musk, rembember, all advertising is good
advertising._

That is not and has never been true.

The all-electric car has a serious stigma of being a risky proposition where
you're always tossing the die. This article cements that opinion, as does
Musk's counter arguments (everything is great, apparently, if you turn off the
heat, drive so slow you'll get driven off the road, and avoid anywhere that is
cold. Also know every charging station and be prepared to spend hours at
each).

------
kjeldsendk
Wrong, the original article had a "journalist" that has a history of not
liking EV. There is plenty of examples of Journalists that was able to
actually drive the car without problems. There is plenty of owners that can
attest to the car actually working as intended.

It's really really simple, if you don't charge your mobile phone don't expect
it to last. Same goes for you car. And since everyone knows how it works with
a mobile phone they should be able to see that a Journalist that doesn't
charge the car isn't telling the whole story but he has an agenda.

~~~
brown9-2
And what if tech support of the manufacturer of the mobile phone is telling
you to take certain steps to extend the life of the battery that ultimately
are incorrect and fail?

Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to include that in your review of the phone?

------
debian69
Huh did no one notice CNN proving musk right and NYT to be lying ?

~~~
brown9-2
Repeating someone's experiment but changing several of the variables
(temperature, overnight stop versus all-in-one-day) does not refute the
experiment.

~~~
lutusp
> Repeating someone's experiment but changing several of the variables
> (temperature, overnight stop versus all-in-one-day) does not refute the
> experiment.

That depends. If the stress on the car's battery is the same, but the driver's
behavior with respect to charging is different, then the new experiment may
have important things to tell us.

And remember -- in science, there are no failed experiments. A replication
effort that doesn't produce the same result as the original experiment is
still a useful result.

~~~
brown9-2
Right, but not having the car parked in a lot overnight in very cold weather
would seem to be a very different type of stress in the CNN run.

~~~
lutusp
Yes, true, which means we have a new data set, and if we're careful in our
analysis we may discover why the new data differs from the old. Therefore it's
a successful experiment.

------
marknutter
What's the old adage? There's no such thing as bad press?

~~~
ultramundane8
Yes, and supposedly "any publicity is good publicity." Let's not assume
there's a lesson to be learned at all unless we know how it affects Tesla's
bottom line.

------
RyanZAG
Rubbish. For most of the general public outside of the tech elite, nobody
knows anything about electric cars. They're a curios novelty that simply do
not enter into the discussion when choosing a car. This controversy has
actually put Tesla and electric cars on the map for an enormous number of
people. This is the exact kind of global publicity that is worth billions of
dollars of marketing money.

While the impression itself is not necessarily positive, the controversy
involved here means that a potential buyer will do a tiny bit of research,
which has a chance to lead to a purchase. People who already were planning to
buy from Tesla would not be swayed by this controversy at all, as they would
probably have sided more with Musk's remarks after already convincing
themselves the car was sensible.

This entire saga is a huge win for Tesla. I actually saw mention of it in a
local newspaper which has never reported on Tesla before now.

------
martinced
Each his own opinion... As soon as Broder published the first report I warned
you guys here about how smelly that was. Just like Top Gear's first review of
the Tesla was "faked": they were all too happy to film themselves pushing a
fully working Tesla as if it was empty.

Broder was obviously way too happy to publish that picture of a Tesla being
towed away.

Car journalists are liers. They do lie. And then they lie more. And eventually
they lie even more.

I don't think that a journalist who hates Porsche 911 (one of the Top Gear
guy) should be allowed to test 911 just as I don't think that guy who hates
electric cars (Broder) should be allowed to test an electric vehicle.

They'll lie and then they'll play on words and say: "Oh but I didn't say
_that_ , hence I didn't lie".

His last paragraph of his "answer" to Elon Musk is a perfect example. Musk
says Broder was deliberately driving in a place where there was no easy access
to a charging station. Yet Broder focuses on the fact that during their phone
call Musk did apologize and offer to do a second test. But he's not addressing
the fact that Musk clearly writes out that Broder did purposefully pick a spot
where he couldn't easily charge the car. You know why? Because Broder was all
too happy to publish that picture.

Ask this question to Broder: did it make you feel good to publish that picture
of a (supposedly) empty Tesla needing assistance?

The answer is yes. He may lie about it. He'll probably say he doesn't give a
shit. But the truth is he liked it so much.

That guy isn't worthy of being a journalist.

You know what? F^ck the NYT and f^ck Broder.

Tesla: you don't need these intellectually dishonest clowns to become very
succesful.

I wish you the best. And your log data makes me want to buy one of your cars.
Thanks for that marvel of engeenering.

~~~
jcroll
You fanboys' response to this is so laughable and such a good example that
there truly is less and less a difference between this community and reddit
with each passing day. So Musk makes rockets that go into outer space, is it
so unfathomable that he might also make a shitty car?

~~~
jlgreco
For values of "shitty" that include "runs out of power when it runs out of
power"?

By all reasonable accounts it is a very nice car. What this is all about is
allegations of dishonest journalism and bad PR. Who exactly is saying the car
is shit?

~~~
tedunangst
Are the accounts reasonable because they say it's a very nice car or is it a
very nice car because reasonable accounts say so?

~~~
jlgreco
It is a very nice car because reasonable accounts have said so.

The limitations of the battery technology, primarily the long time to charge,
are acknowledged by everybody as far as I can tell, and emphasized by most.
Most reviewers have nevertheless not found the car to be "shit" because of
that. Hell, not even Top Gear called the Roadster shit (and I, unlike Musk,
would classify the Top Gear review of the Roadster as "reasonable").

~~~
jcroll
WHy are they reasonable and NY Times is not?

~~~
jlgreco
Did the NYT review conclude the car was "shit"?

~~~
jcroll
No, at least they certainly did not use that word however it was a negative
review. Let me rephrase: Why is the NY Time review "unreasonable" because it
was negative?

------
notdrunkatall
As a TSLA shareholder, I couldn't agree more.

