6 ms·

This ongoing spat can't be good in the long term for Amazon's image. Wouldn't it of been easier if Amazon had been a bit humble and say: "Yes, things are not pe

by Saad_M 11y ago

This ongoing spat can't be good in the long term for Amazon's image. Wouldn't it of been easier if Amazon had been a bit humble and say: "Yes, things are not perfect, we will try and make it better for our employees." Rather than fighting it out in public with a newspaper.

bambax 11y ago
Carney should be fired (my guess is, he will be). His entire job is to try and make sure that kind of snafu never happens, or if it happens, to make it go away as quietly as possible. He worked with the reporters about this story for six months, and a very bad article was produced. He probably feels a little betrayed, and must have endured quite his share of head washing from Bezos. But now, two months later, he should really try to change the conversation; instead he's throwing former employees under the bus and revealing personal details about them, to make up for failures that are mostly his own. He's really doing a terrible job.
- CaptainZapp 11y ago
  He worked with the reporters about this story for six months, and a very bad article was produced. He probably feels a little betrayed But the guy was a damned reporter himself. He should know all the tricks of the trade and moreover, he should know that a reporter is never your friend. She's after the story and if you're in the way: tough luck! That said. You may be totally right. But such a reaction due to a bad case of bruised ego from a reporter is hard to fathom. [edit : fixed syntax]
- pinewurst 11y ago
  This is an interesting demonstration that rising to an elevated role is no proof of competency. Carney became a "brand" by working as press secretary, but seems grievously out of his depth actually having to do damage control; something that high-end PR usually handles with nonchalance.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  How autonomous is he? I suspect he's just doing Bezos' dirty work here. I mean, right after this Bezos bizarrely pulled Chromecast from Amazon because his firesticks aren't selling, but claimed it was because of "consumer confusion." He also refuses to allow the Prime Video app to use Chromecast in any way. That's on top of getting a beating for his Fire Phone, which was laughed straight into the bargain bin. Amazon is run by a something of a meglomaniac and everyone knows it. Carney is just collecting a paycheck, imo, and knows this response is a bad idea. I think its obvious Amazon wants to be a tech giant like MS or Google but simply can't pull it off. This NYTimes piece just made hiring a lot harder for them, right or wrong. Bezos must be livid, especially since everyone has cloud services now, many of which make AWS look poor in comparison. What's Amazon's big claim to fame today? Being an online retailer and e-book seller? That's not tech powerhousing, that's just sales.
mbreese 11y ago
I can't see how this is good for Amazon in anyway. Going on the offensive like this in a PR battle doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look brash. A little humility would go a long way for their reputation. I thought Bezos's response at the time was the right one - "That's not the Amazon I know". It is still defensive, but not overly antagonistic. I'm frankly very surprised that their head of PR is going this direction. I would have thought that he would have known better. This direct conflict with the Times is not helping.
- electic 11y ago
  One way to look at it is that maybe they want to take the hit now and fight the fight? It might discourages any future journalist from thinking they can write a story and expect Amazon not to try and discredit them. Secondly, as a potential candidate of a finite ecosystem of engineers, I do not forget. To have them put out facts from their files, while messy, at least puts doubt about me ever working there.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Company vs 'the press' usually does not end well for the company, they can fight all they want but they are not in control of what gets written about the fight and journalists as a group tend to look down on companies trying to control the media reporting on them, especially if there is plenty of corroborating evidence for that which is reported (and some of that is echoed right here in this thread). Amazon has a problem. By failing to recognize it and act on it and trying to squelch the bad news they make the problem a (potentially much) larger one.
    - CaptSpify 11y ago
      Additionally, giving a company bad press is usually good business for the press. Especially in a place like Seattle, where Amazon is not thought of highly in the first place.
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      I definitely agree with you, and just want to mention another wrinkle that Amazon could be, inadvertantly, ripping into a large tear. Like you note, they might be able to discredit a few people willing to speak on the record, but if the problem alleged by the article is true, in principle, there potentially are more and more people who would be willing to come forward. People with 'squeakly clean' records. People who might even share more damning things that they've just simply moved on from so they can continue their careers. Or, to toss out an allegory, it's one thing to step on a few ants, it's another to stomp on their nest.
deskamess 11y ago
Exactly this... I cannot believe he reopened this can of worms. While not forgotten the mental imprint of the original article was tailing off... and he brings it all up to the surface again. I would be furious if I was part of PR.
librvf 11y ago
> Wouldn't it of been easier if Amazon had been a bit humble and say: "Yes, things are not perfect, we will try and make it better for our employees." Rather than fighting it out in public with a newspaper. No, probably not. Although humility seems like the sensible approach for decent people, a newspaper that has published a deliberately biased hit piece against you is not decent people. The Times declared war on Amazon, not the other way around. If Amazon apologizes, the Times will merely use that as ammunition in their next hit piece. Amazon knows NY Times is going to attack them no matter what they do or say. If Amazon makes any admission of guilt, the Times will simply use that as ammunition in the next hit piece. > Rather than fighting it out in public with a newspaper. Here's the thing: when you call something a "newspaper," especially in this context, you're giving them a privileged status. This privileged status comes because people expect newspapers to behave with journalistic integrity. We give them status because we trust them to do their research and make reasonable efforts to maintain objectivity and be intellectually honest. If even a portion of Amazon's criticisms are true, it is clear that the NY Times, in publishing this article, violated the journalistic standards that earned them the status we accord to them. If the NY Times is deliberately trying to promote narratives about Amazon rather than doing research and reporting objectively, honestly, and factually with reasonable attempts to minimize bias and maximize credibility; then it's not only imperative that Amazon stand up to them, but it's imperative that you do, too.
junto 11y ago
Indeed. The Barbara Streisand effect... The NYT must be loving this. So many ad impressions on their site over this. Amazon's PR are doing a god awful job putting this to bed. Amazon should just release a statement that says: "Amazon is a large global company employing thousands of people in a variety of locations and teams. We do not deny that there may have been situations where employees have worked long hours under difficult circumstances. This is part and parcel of working for a company that lives on the cutting edge of technology, in a highly competitive business. We are striving to make changes that improve the working hours of our employees and their conditions, in order to reduce stress and improve the health and well-being of our most valuable asset." There, job done. That's how you do PR. Good PR isn't about defending yourself when you perceived as being wrong; it is about showing humility, regardless of whether you are actually wrong or not. People can believe what they want and you can't change that, but (at a minimum), you can distance yourself from a specific action or incident, by demonstrating that you are but human, and whether or not people like or dislike you, at least you are perceived to be making an effort to change for the better.
potatolicious 11y ago
There's a lot of pressure internally, I think, to refute the whole thing and go into full-denial mode. After all, Amazon's culture got this way for a reason - and it's not by taking complaints seriously, admitting to cultural failures, and making real substantive change. So, background, I'm an ex-Amazonian, converted from internship to full-time along with a few dozen others, so we all kept in touch on FB. Nearly all of us are gone now - nearly all of us left within 2 years, a few have stayed on as long-term Amazonians. When the NYT article first hit it was kind of a weird sight. Among the (legion of) ex-Amazonians the response has been pretty universally "yeah I recognize the Amazon in this article". Among the (few) current Amazonians the response was universally "all lies! slander! hit piece! yellow journalism!". The gap was startling - every single one of these long-term Amazonians knew many ex-employees, some they called friends, who left disgruntled and unhappy, and yet here they are insisting that the whole thing was a pack of lies. Odd to say the least, but lines up with what I saw myself internally when I was there - criticism of Amazon's culture was always met with overt hostility and vehement denial on the internal mailing lists that discussed such things. It never seemed like an environment where change could take root simply because no one was willing to own the failures to begin with. Bezos made some conciliatory gestures, but I'm personally skeptical - even if he's serious about change, the rest of his company isn't.
- machinshin_ 11y ago
  having been inside another companys' RDF, i can totally understand that. you don't always understand how bad everything else when you're living it day to day.
pjc50 11y ago
"we will try and make it better for our employees." They won't say that because someone might try to hold them to it. Even admitting there is a problem might spark an internal revolt or a hiring problem.
Perdition 11y ago
If the leadership was mature and introspective enough to do that these problems wouldn't exist.

by Saad_M 11y ago

bambax 11y ago

Carney should be fired (my guess is, he will be). His entire job is to try and make sure that kind of snafu never happens, or if it happens, to make it go away as quietly as possible. He worked with the reporters about this story for six months, and a very bad article was produced. He probably feels a little betrayed, and must have endured quite his share of head washing from Bezos. But now, two months later, he should really try to change the conversation; instead he's throwing former employees under the bus and revealing personal details about them, to make up for failures that are mostly his own. He's really doing a terrible job.

CaptainZapp 11y ago
He worked with the reporters about this story for six months, and a very bad article was produced. He probably feels a little betrayed But the guy was a damned reporter himself. He should know all the tricks of the trade and moreover, he should know that a reporter is never your friend. She's after the story and if you're in the way: tough luck! That said. You may be totally right. But such a reaction due to a bad case of bruised ego from a reporter is hard to fathom. [edit : fixed syntax]
pinewurst 11y ago
This is an interesting demonstration that rising to an elevated role is no proof of competency. Carney became a "brand" by working as press secretary, but seems grievously out of his depth actually having to do damage control; something that high-end PR usually handles with nonchalance.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
How autonomous is he? I suspect he's just doing Bezos' dirty work here. I mean, right after this Bezos bizarrely pulled Chromecast from Amazon because his firesticks aren't selling, but claimed it was because of "consumer confusion." He also refuses to allow the Prime Video app to use Chromecast in any way. That's on top of getting a beating for his Fire Phone, which was laughed straight into the bargain bin. Amazon is run by a something of a meglomaniac and everyone knows it. Carney is just collecting a paycheck, imo, and knows this response is a bad idea. I think its obvious Amazon wants to be a tech giant like MS or Google but simply can't pull it off. This NYTimes piece just made hiring a lot harder for them, right or wrong. Bezos must be livid, especially since everyone has cloud services now, many of which make AWS look poor in comparison. What's Amazon's big claim to fame today? Being an online retailer and e-book seller? That's not tech powerhousing, that's just sales.

mbreese 11y ago

I can't see how this is good for Amazon in anyway. Going on the offensive like this in a PR battle doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look brash. A little humility would go a long way for their reputation. I thought Bezos's response at the time was the right one - "That's not the Amazon I know". It is still defensive, but not overly antagonistic. I'm frankly very surprised that their head of PR is going this direction. I would have thought that he would have known better. This direct conflict with the Times is not helping.

electic 11y ago
One way to look at it is that maybe they want to take the hit now and fight the fight? It might discourages any future journalist from thinking they can write a story and expect Amazon not to try and discredit them. Secondly, as a potential candidate of a finite ecosystem of engineers, I do not forget. To have them put out facts from their files, while messy, at least puts doubt about me ever working there.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Company vs 'the press' usually does not end well for the company, they can fight all they want but they are not in control of what gets written about the fight and journalists as a group tend to look down on companies trying to control the media reporting on them, especially if there is plenty of corroborating evidence for that which is reported (and some of that is echoed right here in this thread). Amazon has a problem. By failing to recognize it and act on it and trying to squelch the bad news they make the problem a (potentially much) larger one.
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    Additionally, giving a company bad press is usually good business for the press. Especially in a place like Seattle, where Amazon is not thought of highly in the first place.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    I definitely agree with you, and just want to mention another wrinkle that Amazon could be, inadvertantly, ripping into a large tear. Like you note, they might be able to discredit a few people willing to speak on the record, but if the problem alleged by the article is true, in principle, there potentially are more and more people who would be willing to come forward. People with 'squeakly clean' records. People who might even share more damning things that they've just simply moved on from so they can continue their careers. Or, to toss out an allegory, it's one thing to step on a few ants, it's another to stomp on their nest.

deskamess 11y ago

Exactly this... I cannot believe he reopened this can of worms. While not forgotten the mental imprint of the original article was tailing off... and he brings it all up to the surface again. I would be furious if I was part of PR.

librvf 11y ago

> Wouldn't it of been easier if Amazon had been a bit humble and say: "Yes, things are not perfect, we will try and make it better for our employees." Rather than fighting it out in public with a newspaper. No, probably not. Although humility seems like the sensible approach for decent people, a newspaper that has published a deliberately biased hit piece against you is not decent people. The Times declared war on Amazon, not the other way around. If Amazon apologizes, the Times will merely use that as ammunition in their next hit piece. Amazon knows NY Times is going to attack them no matter what they do or say. If Amazon makes any admission of guilt, the Times will simply use that as ammunition in the next hit piece. > Rather than fighting it out in public with a newspaper. Here's the thing: when you call something a "newspaper," especially in this context, you're giving them a privileged status. This privileged status comes because people expect newspapers to behave with journalistic integrity. We give them status because we trust them to do their research and make reasonable efforts to maintain objectivity and be intellectually honest. If even a portion of Amazon's criticisms are true, it is clear that the NY Times, in publishing this article, violated the journalistic standards that earned them the status we accord to them. If the NY Times is deliberately trying to promote narratives about Amazon rather than doing research and reporting objectively, honestly, and factually with reasonable attempts to minimize bias and maximize credibility; then it's not only imperative that Amazon stand up to them, but it's imperative that you do, too.

junto 11y ago

Indeed. The Barbara Streisand effect... The NYT must be loving this. So many ad impressions on their site over this. Amazon's PR are doing a god awful job putting this to bed. Amazon should just release a statement that says: "Amazon is a large global company employing thousands of people in a variety of locations and teams. We do not deny that there may have been situations where employees have worked long hours under difficult circumstances. This is part and parcel of working for a company that lives on the cutting edge of technology, in a highly competitive business. We are striving to make changes that improve the working hours of our employees and their conditions, in order to reduce stress and improve the health and well-being of our most valuable asset." There, job done. That's how you do PR. Good PR isn't about defending yourself when you perceived as being wrong; it is about showing humility, regardless of whether you are actually wrong or not. People can believe what they want and you can't change that, but (at a minimum), you can distance yourself from a specific action or incident, by demonstrating that you are but human, and whether or not people like or dislike you, at least you are perceived to be making an effort to change for the better.

potatolicious 11y ago

There's a lot of pressure internally, I think, to refute the whole thing and go into full-denial mode. After all, Amazon's culture got this way for a reason - and it's not by taking complaints seriously, admitting to cultural failures, and making real substantive change. So, background, I'm an ex-Amazonian, converted from internship to full-time along with a few dozen others, so we all kept in touch on FB. Nearly all of us are gone now - nearly all of us left within 2 years, a few have stayed on as long-term Amazonians. When the NYT article first hit it was kind of a weird sight. Among the (legion of) ex-Amazonians the response has been pretty universally "yeah I recognize the Amazon in this article". Among the (few) current Amazonians the response was universally "all lies! slander! hit piece! yellow journalism!". The gap was startling - every single one of these long-term Amazonians knew many ex-employees, some they called friends, who left disgruntled and unhappy, and yet here they are insisting that the whole thing was a pack of lies. Odd to say the least, but lines up with what I saw myself internally when I was there - criticism of Amazon's culture was always met with overt hostility and vehement denial on the internal mailing lists that discussed such things. It never seemed like an environment where change could take root simply because no one was willing to own the failures to begin with. Bezos made some conciliatory gestures, but I'm personally skeptical - even if he's serious about change, the rest of his company isn't.

machinshin_ 11y ago
having been inside another companys' RDF, i can totally understand that. you don't always understand how bad everything else when you're living it day to day.

pjc50 11y ago

"we will try and make it better for our employees." They won't say that because someone might try to hold them to it. Even admitting there is a problem might spark an internal revolt or a hiring problem.

Perdition 11y ago

If the leadership was mature and introspective enough to do that these problems wouldn't exist.