Elon Musk and How Not to Handle a PR Crisis
linkedin.com
linkedin.com
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.
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.
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.
The CNN ride comes off as a cheap PR stunt now.
The "long game" was already lost when Musk proved himself incapable of handling a non-glowing review. There was a way for Tesla to spin this favorably and talk about their technological advancements (talk about the weather and how you should charge it in the cold, how technology in the car ensures that it will start after being in the cold overnight) but instead Tesla decided to go for the sensationalist angle.
As many have discussed at length in other threads, the Broder account wasn't "sensationalist". It in fact is corroborated to a great extent by Musk's data.
If Musk gave a civil reply acknowledging what happened without making it sound like a fake, we wouldn't have this conversation days later.
There were some differences with my ride and the one from the New York Times. The weather for mine was about 10 degrees warmer. And I did mine in one day; the reviewer from the Times split it into two.
And the CNN author has some of the same concerns in the end, although not the same output:
On Thursday, I took the same drive -- and I made it to Boston, though not without some anxiety that I would run out of juice.
..
Looking back on the trip, it would be even easier if Tesla would install one of their fast-charging Superchargers along the New Jersey Turnpike.
By responding so fast, Musk essentially changed the story from "Tesla car on flatbed" to "Tesla car on flatbed might have been faked." Obviously the latter is better for Tesla.
This can work because interest in stories tails off over time. Far fewer people are going to bother to read Broder's rebuttal, than heard about the controversy through a third-party news source (most of whom will not bother to write detailed follow up stories).
In addition, Tesla has a lot of fans, and there is value in taking a bold stand to fire up the troops. Look at how vociferously people have defended Tesla here on HN. And we are definitely the target audience for Tesla.
It's functionally the same as "Tesla is shit, since they are slow to deliver their products and there is a huge backlog" "No, we're shipping a lot of cars" "No, you're not" "Yes we are".
Even if you don't believe Tesla now, it's pretty clear that the supercharger issue will be resolved in a year or so (which is before you'd get a Tesla if you ordered it today). People are becoming aware of the free unlimited lifetime supercharger thing who wouldn't have, otherwise.
Making a big PR case out of an easily-fixed issue, as long as customers can see it is going to be easily fixed, is a viable tactic.
"Oh no, Apple products are horrible, because they don't support ____" "New announcement: Apple now supports ____"
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.
That was not my impression, but I haven't read everything yet.
TL;DR: stock price says... meh.
I'm usually on the side of not talking back to reviewers of your work, having read that advice over and over in essays and articles by wise authors and other creative types. In this case, though, everyone I've spoken to in person about this is convinced that Broder was just trying to tell the most entertaining story; Musk, given his accomplishments, naturally has higher credibility than Broder. It's a point in Broder's favor that all the people I've spoken with about this are technical types, who might be predisposed to side with Musk, but those are also the sort of people most likely to be swayed by actual hard data, which only one side of this argument has provided.
He would have been way better off by simply saying there were inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the review than going nuclear by screaming out "FAKE!"
I also found myself looking for similar articles, wondering if indeed the car really does have problems or is it just poor publicity.
I found this article which linked to the original NYT article as well as Musk's rebuttal:
http://jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-s-is-the-world-s-most-ex...
The best way to avoid MORE negative PR is too simply ignore the bad PR you are getting. Had Musk simply said, "Eh, whatever, it was a bad review, I know what my cars are capable of." and left it at, people wouldn't care. Once you start defending your product so vigorously, it makes it seem like maybe there is something to the claims and negative reviews.
The perspective may also be a good way to become aware of your own groupthink.
Most people heard about it in passing on cable news or in a single newspaper story. All they will remember is that the Tesla CEO accused the NY Times of faking a car review.
That was further than I would have gone with it, FWIW, so I don't think I was leading him to the conclusion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> "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.
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).
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.
Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to include that in your review of the phone?
Review http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5224618 (the comments to the original post) for a more detailed criticism
But I'm tempted to say that "of course" that the replay went out flawlessly and the car still had close to 100 miles left.
Broder hates electric vehicles and want that technology to fail: he clearly just wanted soooooo badly to put that picture of the Tesla being towed. You could tell it was fishy from the split-second that picture happened.
Now, interestingly, the logs and Musk's response just show how much he knows about its technology and its cars and how well they've been conceived.
This one is going to end up being a major win for Tesla (and Musk).
I've got a Porsche 911 Carrera and, honestly, I've been tempted by the Tesla roadster. But now seeing what Musk wrote, all these logs and his explanation I just want to buy a Tesla sedan.
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.
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.
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.
In various forums with Tesla owners in similar climate conditions, people agree with Broder's observations. He didn't "lie" about what happened. It's something they noticed as well.
Now you can carp on petty points like him using common sense, but when a car company lets you test drive a car and they give advice, you should follow said advice. I understand crying foul if he did something ill-advised, but Musk did not refute the fact that they gave him what seems to be poor advice. And I don't blame Broder for following what Tesla said, even if it ended up with a picture of a Tesla being towed away.
I'm very surprised Tesla hasn't released the call logs, to be honest. And I suspect, if you saw them, you would agree that Broder's actions are in line with what Tesla told him while he was in the car
"And your log data makes me want to buy one of your cars. Thanks for that marvel of engeenering."
P.S: I recommend you read some of the comments here. The data is in-line with Broder's account.
This is active disagreement over whether Broder was cleared to make that last trip. Musk says it was obviously no, Broder says yes.
That is a very simple way of resolving this. And completely within Tesla's and Musk's ability (and if Broder really was authorized to do so, he'd let them release the call logs)
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?
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").
> If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)
Didn't they (Top Gear) win the libel suit?
Edit: http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2012/02/23/tesla-libel... seems to indicate they did.
There seriously cannot be any credibility lent here, regardless of anything else Top Gear did or did not do.
When you say "deliberately driving in a place where there was no easy access to a charging station", are you referring to Broder choosing to use the Milford CT Supercharger station, or the choice of an East Coast route?
Because if you are referring to the former, the Milford station is the only choice along the route if your ride is restricted to Supercharger networks (as was the entire basis of the article): http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
If you are referring to the idea to test drive the car along the Northeast Corridor relying on only Supercharger stations, the idea was proposed by Tesla to the New York Times.
Why not? You're depriving your company of getting the best PR possible: A positive review from a reviewer that is known to hate your stuff.
You can't get that story if you don't let people who you don't like get in a review. And a negative review from a reviewer who's biases are widely known won't hurt at all.