5 ms·

I am surprised at PR Silicon Valley companies are doing these days. First it was Facebook and now Tesla. They keep trying to avoid responsibility by blaming som

I am surprised at PR Silicon Valley companies are doing these days. First it was Facebook and now Tesla. They keep trying to avoid responsibility by blaming someone other than themselves. How hard is to just say "we are looking into it" and do a comprehensive test before making a statement.

skwirl 9y ago
What if Tesla isn't responsible? I assume you don't expect them to sit quietly for a year+ while they are ravaged in the media in that case. What is the correct course of action? I feel like some of the criticism of tech companies has gone from thoughtful to kneejerk lately.
- greedo 9y ago
  The correct course of action is to follow the NTSB guidelines for participating in a probe, and to not continually attack the accident victim in the press. Tesla could survive this accident easily if they handle it properly. Keep mishandling it, and Tesla could be in a world of hurt.
- djur 9y ago
  The standard corporate PR response in cases like this is along the lines of "we are cooperating fully with the investigation and will have no further statement on the incident until the investigation has concluded, pursuant to regulation such-and-such". Not only does that keep them in compliance, it also starves the media of new stuff to report on. What Tesla has done is the worst of both worlds -- it puts them at odds with regulators, and it helps sustain the story.
- azernik 9y ago
  Yes. They should do that. Your car gets in a crash, you sit tight and wait for the NTSB to make absolutely sure what the cause was. If you can't take the heat, get out of the safety-critical industry.
leggomylibro 9y ago
You might be surprised at how many people happily buy into the PR statements, taking them as genuine expressions of intent. I was talking with someone just yesterday about Zuckerberg's Congressional hearings. They don't know a whole lot about technology or the internet, but are generally thoughtful and good at what they do. What do you think their view was? 'Good on him for taking responsibility and apologizing - he seemed sincere and reasonable. I feel much better about the whole thing.' I'm getting better at biting my tongue, but I wanted to suggest that I had a bridge to sell them.
LoSboccacc 9y ago
they already looked into it. this is the third crash caused by car following lines instead of avoiding obstacles. their comprehensive statement is 'this is a know defect, just hold the wheel and correct the autopilot when it happens.' for example: http://bgr.com/2017/03/02/tesla-crash-video-texas/ http://bgr.com/2017/03/02/tesla-crash-video-texas/
mschuster91 9y ago
They have no other choice than trying to deflect stuff as far away from them as possible. Even the tiniest admission of possible guilt could be used to extract irrational "damages" in a class action or ordinary court case. The US has a problem with corporate denial PR? Then the US should go and fix the ridiculous laws that allow for 2.7M $ awarded damages for a cup of spilled hot coffee! As long as it is possible (and usual) that companies have to pay way outsized damages, that won't change. Consumer safety suffers as a consequence.
- gamblor956 9y ago
  There's no need to fix that law. The woman in that case was severely burned by a coffee cup that was scaldingly hot[1], and the McDonalds location knew that but didn't care. The law worked as intended: McDonalds implemented safety protocols to prevent similar injuries in the future. [1] She suffered third degree burns and required months of skin grafts. Contrast this with Tylenol, which when confronted with the sales of tampered bottles, launched a PR campaign that is still widely regarded as the only proper way to address a safety crisis. In a nutshell: (1) don't blame the victims, (2) take full responsibility to fix things even if it's not your fault, and (3) carry out that plan to fix things.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Yeah, that level of burn happen when you spill normally hot coffee on you and can't move away. That particular lawsuit was bad and so was it's result. Sometimes courts get it wrong, like for example in this case.
    - gamblor956 9y ago
      No, that court got it right. That woman was seriously injured by McDonald's negligence above and beyond a simple coffee burn. If you spill coffee on you today, it's just hot and painful. That's because the woman in the McDonald's case spilled the coffee on herself and suffered third-degree (i.e., permanently scarring and disfiguring) burns. As a result of the settlement, McDonalds lowered the temperature of the coffee so that it would no longer maim people.

skwirl 9y ago

What if Tesla isn't responsible? I assume you don't expect them to sit quietly for a year+ while they are ravaged in the media in that case. What is the correct course of action? I feel like some of the criticism of tech companies has gone from thoughtful to kneejerk lately.

greedo 9y ago
The correct course of action is to follow the NTSB guidelines for participating in a probe, and to not continually attack the accident victim in the press. Tesla could survive this accident easily if they handle it properly. Keep mishandling it, and Tesla could be in a world of hurt.
djur 9y ago
The standard corporate PR response in cases like this is along the lines of "we are cooperating fully with the investigation and will have no further statement on the incident until the investigation has concluded, pursuant to regulation such-and-such". Not only does that keep them in compliance, it also starves the media of new stuff to report on. What Tesla has done is the worst of both worlds -- it puts them at odds with regulators, and it helps sustain the story.
azernik 9y ago
Yes. They should do that. Your car gets in a crash, you sit tight and wait for the NTSB to make absolutely sure what the cause was. If you can't take the heat, get out of the safety-critical industry.

leggomylibro 9y ago

You might be surprised at how many people happily buy into the PR statements, taking them as genuine expressions of intent. I was talking with someone just yesterday about Zuckerberg's Congressional hearings. They don't know a whole lot about technology or the internet, but are generally thoughtful and good at what they do. What do you think their view was? 'Good on him for taking responsibility and apologizing - he seemed sincere and reasonable. I feel much better about the whole thing.' I'm getting better at biting my tongue, but I wanted to suggest that I had a bridge to sell them.

LoSboccacc 9y ago

they already looked into it. this is the third crash caused by car following lines instead of avoiding obstacles. their comprehensive statement is 'this is a know defect, just hold the wheel and correct the autopilot when it happens.' for example: http://bgr.com/2017/03/02/tesla-crash-video-texas/ http://bgr.com/2017/03/02/tesla-crash-video-texas/

mschuster91 9y ago

They have no other choice than trying to deflect stuff as far away from them as possible. Even the tiniest admission of possible guilt could be used to extract irrational "damages" in a class action or ordinary court case. The US has a problem with corporate denial PR? Then the US should go and fix the ridiculous laws that allow for 2.7M $ awarded damages for a cup of spilled hot coffee! As long as it is possible (and usual) that companies have to pay way outsized damages, that won't change. Consumer safety suffers as a consequence.

gamblor956 9y ago
There's no need to fix that law. The woman in that case was severely burned by a coffee cup that was scaldingly hot[1], and the McDonalds location knew that but didn't care. The law worked as intended: McDonalds implemented safety protocols to prevent similar injuries in the future. [1] She suffered third degree burns and required months of skin grafts. Contrast this with Tylenol, which when confronted with the sales of tampered bottles, launched a PR campaign that is still widely regarded as the only proper way to address a safety crisis. In a nutshell: (1) don't blame the victims, (2) take full responsibility to fix things even if it's not your fault, and (3) carry out that plan to fix things.
- watwut 9y ago
  Yeah, that level of burn happen when you spill normally hot coffee on you and can't move away. That particular lawsuit was bad and so was it's result. Sometimes courts get it wrong, like for example in this case.
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    No, that court got it right. That woman was seriously injured by McDonald's negligence above and beyond a simple coffee burn. If you spill coffee on you today, it's just hot and painful. That's because the woman in the McDonald's case spilled the coffee on herself and suffered third-degree (i.e., permanently scarring and disfiguring) burns. As a result of the settlement, McDonalds lowered the temperature of the coffee so that it would no longer maim people.