30 ms·
This is an odd thing to see widely published. I'm at a company that had a rather detailed negative article written about us, and we were warned about it interna
by avolcano 6y ago
This is an odd thing to see widely published. I'm at a company that had a rather detailed negative article written about us, and we were warned about it internally shortly before it was published, after the reporter had contacted us with details and questions. However, we didn't go public with a reaction until after it was out, since it seemed rather pointless to respond to something that hadn't been published yet, especially when we hadn't even seen it in full.
It is odd to me that they would preemptively go loud on this, drawing attention to a story that might not even get that much traction. It seems like it would have been much easier to just let that story go out and respond with a simple "We've investigated this before and dispute the claims, except for these few unfortunate stories we can confirm happened, and here's how we will prevent them in the future." What on earth do they gain with a preemptive memo like this? Are they really scared of their employees leaking this? Would anyone even pick up a story of "someone's about to publish a bad article about Coinbase"?
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago> It is odd to me that they would preemptively go loud on this "This is gonna be really bad, so we need to get out in front of it." That's what it sounds like to me.
- unityByFreedom 6y agoSince we're all hip to this strategy these days, I have the same feeling as GP.
- 3327 6y agoThats exactly what it is. Hey dad, the cops Are gonna knock on the door and arrest me so heads up.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- theanarcrist 6y agoI suspect part of the motivation is to scoop the reporter's own story as a passive aggressive reprisal. It also serves to reduce the chance of future reporters on negative topics to talk directly to Coinbase since they've already showed they're willing to break stories before they publish.
- peteretep 6y agoTheir PR agency is asleep at the wheel; there's no way this doesn't amplify the story
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gabereiser 6y agoStreisand effect
- galaxyLogic 6y agoYes isn't this a rather common strategy, "Be pro-active, not reactive". When the actual story comes out it is not such a big news any more, because it is not news any more. First impressions often last, so now the first impressions is that the story is fake. So even if their response does amplify the story, it might amplify a good story rather than a bad one. So go even so far as to say "all publicity is good publicity"
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago> When the actual story comes out it is not such a big news any more, because it is not news any more. Why not? I was never going to read said article. Now I am, based on this post, alone. This was never going to be headline news. > First impressions often last, so now the first impressions is that the story is fake. Except my first impression is that it is real, not fake, based on this response, because companies lie all the damn time. I imagine many don't believe in company PR at all.
- 6y ago
- bra-ket 6y agoI don't know the details of the story, but the thing is with baseless accusations of 'racism' is that it's a perfect slander, one can never prove innocence once proclaimed guilty.
- ntsplnkv2 6y agoLuckily we have journalism and can see what these people claim. Perhaps the article has substance, perhaps it doesn't. One thing I do know - I would not have read this article had it not been for this post by Coinbase.
- bra-ket 6y agoUnfortunately journalism is primarily used as a political tool these days, almost anything you read has an agenda.
- taauji 6y agoSusan Flower's allegations ultimately led to the firing of Uber's CEO
- an_opabinia 6y ago> As Brian shared with the ColorBlock ERG this morning, we don’t care what The New York Times thinks. Yeah, if this is the level of maturity that’s in charge, it doesn’t matter if these execs personally discriminate against their black employees. They’re donezo.
- person1234 6y ago> As Brian shared with the ColorBlock ERG this morning, we don’t care what The New York Times thinks. The most important thing we care about is you, our employees, and what you think. Should probably share the whole quote and not just cherry pick.
- lacker 6y agoIt is odd to me that they would preemptively go loud on this, drawing attention to a story that might not even get that much traction. It's hard for me to imagine an NYT story getting less traction than a Coinbase post, though. So is this really drawing attention to the story? Maybe this is just drawing more attention to Coinbase's version of the story, rather than the NYT's version. Basically, if you're going to end up publishing a counterargument to an upcoming news story, why not publish the rebuttal first? Maybe the tradition of waiting for a bad newspaper article, then immediately publishing a rebuttal, is an artifact of the olden days when there were no corporate blogs and social media, when there was no way to bring attention to a pre-rebuttal.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fatbird 6y agoEveryone who has read this and then reads the NYT story will do the latter with the former in mind. As much as possible, they're anticipating what the story will reveal and getting their objections on the record so that a reader can't help but view the story's assertions in light of the responses they've already read. Moreover, getting in front of this means adopting a stance of openness and transparency that, in itself, seems quite laudible. As a PR strategy, this is good work, especially for a company that's already raised its profile on these topics earlier in the year. Whether it's cynical PR strategy or sincere crisis management is left for the reader to decide.
- Aunche 6y agoMaybe it's to warn pre-IPO investors so they don't all panic sell when the article drops?
- apexalpha 6y agoIt seems their reasoning is explained partly in the FAQ at tho bottom: We provided several written, on-the-record statements to The Times. We have no control over whether and how The Times uses those statements (in whole or in part) in the story. Given this, we decided to make our email to employees and FAQ publicly available to provide additional facts and context.
- defertoreptar 6y agoAnti-Streisand effect? This article "spoils" the surprise of NYT's article. I don't think it's odd, and it's probably the best they could've done if all the people responsible really no longer work there.