4 ms·

> Asked for a response, a spokesperson for Peloton, Jessica Kleiman, told Insider that the company was "disappointed that CPSC is mischaracterizing the situatio

by ohazi 6y ago

> Asked for a response, a spokesperson for Peloton, Jessica Kleiman, told Insider that the company was "disappointed that CPSC is mischaracterizing the situation." The hubris... The only correct response would have been something along the lines of "we have no comment at this time." The job is to communicate that you are aware of an issue, that you are investigating, and/or that you are cooperating. If you want to lobby for favorable treatment from regulators, hire an external lobbying firm to do it quietly, don't get into a public flame war with the CPSC. How are PR/spokespeople for high profile companies still making these kind of amateur hour mistakes in 2021? Isn't the public record absolutely littered with comments like these that just made the company look worse?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 6y ago
Most people aren't as Machiavellian as your typical armchair industry analyst would suppose. If you accuse a board that their product is killing children, would you expect them to think "we better make sure our PR department covers this up as effectively as possible," or would you expect indignation and denial?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- oivey 6y ago
  I would expect “we’re investigating this issue and/or taking corrective action” because that’s the actually empathetic thing to do when a child has died and others have been injured. No PR department should be putting out knee jerk reactions. It’s their job not to. That their reaction is to deflect blame doesn’t bode well for them making an effort to address the problem. Peloton is not even just deflecting blame here. They are accusing the government of basically lying.
  - HenryBemis 6y ago
    They want to avoid a re-call and installation of a $100 unit with an extra $100 labour cost (because bye-bye profit margin). Also, the second they (themselves - Peloton) admit that "our product killed a kid and we knew of this risk, and we chose risk acceptance and when with it anyway - because you know.. profit margin" their company is dead. They got one chance, to prove that "everyone else is crazy, and please buy more Pelotons with pathetic ads". They can take the high-road that has a 50-50 (?) chance to doom them, or make them the top responsible company. What we can do is stop buying their products, until they either make them safer, or see them go bust (and spend the extra $50-100-200 and buy safer products).
    - kzrdude 6y ago
      It must be pretty hard to make that choice for an employee of the company. Lie about the death of the kid or not? Another reminder that we need to make space for using ethics at work, and not just doing whatever the company thinks is best. A company as a legal person is basically a sociopath (if it were a person).
      - graerg 6y ago
        > The boy was not breathing and had no pulse and survived with significant brain injuries, the report said. Peloton said the boy was expected to fully recover, according to the report. The PR machine is in full "there is no war in Ba Sing Se" mode.
        HenryBemis 6y ago
        Cool reference!!! Thank you!
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    > we’re investigating this issue and/or taking corrective action Who says they haven't? I mean, isn't that the exact claim they're making when they say the CPSC has mischaracterized the situation? That they've investigated the issue and determined that the CPSC's stance is incorrect?
- azernik 6y ago
  Of course most people aren't that Machiavellian. That's why you hire professional PR people, who a "spokesperson" presumably is. Their job is to be that cool cucumber when things go wrong.
rriepe 6y ago
You're off here by millions and millions of dollars. This case is worth much, much more in the court of public opinion to Peloton than in actual court. People generally agree with the first version of the story they hear. In 2021, saying "no comment" (instead of this equally say-nothing statement that at least shapes the narrative) is just handing that opportunity away. Thirty years ago, "no comment" could buy you some time and you could present your case later in primetime (or whatever you could land) to lots of first-time impressions. In 2021, it's almost always a stupid thing to say from a PR standpoint (I'm sure some lawyers would still love it) because everything is always-on and there's almost no element of timing aside from burying stories on Friday.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Blaming parents of the kid who your machine just killed, while mentioning that you know this happens from time to time, is worse than "no comment".
  - PurpleFoxy 6y ago
    A treadmill is a dangerous piece of equipment. Almost all of them have ways a child could seriously hurt themselves on while it’s running. Parents should be expected to keep their kids out of the room while it’s in use.
    - rriepe 6y ago
      > A treadmill is a dangerous piece of equipment. Exactly. The only thing that's different now is it's a dangerous piece of equipment with a popular brand name. The people who are upset about this are going to be really upset when they find out treadmills have regularly been killing a few people a year for decades. And they're one of the less deadly pieces of workout equipment!
- ncallaway 6y ago
  Dunno about this. If they had said they were concerned about the issue, and investigating the matter I'd be happy to consider their brand again. Getting into a public fight with the CPSC completely taints my view of their brand. Peloton is pretty much entirely crossed off my list of products I would consider because of their response. I mean, they _did_ get their denial into my first read of the story, but they did it in a way that seems far more brand damaging than a noncommittal expression of concern. Peloton is now, to me, the brand that doesn't really care if they kill children.
eli 6y ago
correct answer is to apologize, acknowledge the problem, and outline a solution.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Not in a world with lawyers it isn’t
  - eli 6y ago
    Letting the lawyers make strategic decisions is a choice.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      Sure, it's also a choice for companies not to donate millions of dollars to buy malaria nets in Africa. Admitting responsibility in as litigatious an environment as the US is essentially throwing away money, with less public benefit than the malaria nets.
      - eli 6y ago
        You assume the immediate legal problem is more important than the PR and regulatory problem. I don’t think it is.
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  Acknowledging the problem means a very very costly recall when it’s easier and not entirely unrealistic to just instruct the customers to keep their kids away from the product while it’s in use.
  - eli 6y ago
    If the problem can’t be mitigated absent a recall then yeah that’s what should be done. They may well end up facing an involuntary recall, which will make this PR strategy seem especially short sighted.

by ohazi 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

whatshisface 6y ago

Most people aren't as Machiavellian as your typical armchair industry analyst would suppose. If you accuse a board that their product is killing children, would you expect them to think "we better make sure our PR department covers this up as effectively as possible," or would you expect indignation and denial?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
oivey 6y ago
I would expect “we’re investigating this issue and/or taking corrective action” because that’s the actually empathetic thing to do when a child has died and others have been injured. No PR department should be putting out knee jerk reactions. It’s their job not to. That their reaction is to deflect blame doesn’t bode well for them making an effort to address the problem. Peloton is not even just deflecting blame here. They are accusing the government of basically lying.
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  They want to avoid a re-call and installation of a $100 unit with an extra $100 labour cost (because bye-bye profit margin). Also, the second they (themselves - Peloton) admit that "our product killed a kid and we knew of this risk, and we chose risk acceptance and when with it anyway - because you know.. profit margin" their company is dead. They got one chance, to prove that "everyone else is crazy, and please buy more Pelotons with pathetic ads". They can take the high-road that has a 50-50 (?) chance to doom them, or make them the top responsible company. What we can do is stop buying their products, until they either make them safer, or see them go bust (and spend the extra $50-100-200 and buy safer products).
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    It must be pretty hard to make that choice for an employee of the company. Lie about the death of the kid or not? Another reminder that we need to make space for using ethics at work, and not just doing whatever the company thinks is best. A company as a legal person is basically a sociopath (if it were a person).
    - graerg 6y ago
      > The boy was not breathing and had no pulse and survived with significant brain injuries, the report said. Peloton said the boy was expected to fully recover, according to the report. The PR machine is in full "there is no war in Ba Sing Se" mode.
      - HenryBemis 6y ago
        Cool reference!!! Thank you!
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > we’re investigating this issue and/or taking corrective action Who says they haven't? I mean, isn't that the exact claim they're making when they say the CPSC has mischaracterized the situation? That they've investigated the issue and determined that the CPSC's stance is incorrect?
azernik 6y ago
Of course most people aren't that Machiavellian. That's why you hire professional PR people, who a "spokesperson" presumably is. Their job is to be that cool cucumber when things go wrong.

rriepe 6y ago

You're off here by millions and millions of dollars. This case is worth much, much more in the court of public opinion to Peloton than in actual court. People generally agree with the first version of the story they hear. In 2021, saying "no comment" (instead of this equally say-nothing statement that at least shapes the narrative) is just handing that opportunity away. Thirty years ago, "no comment" could buy you some time and you could present your case later in primetime (or whatever you could land) to lots of first-time impressions. In 2021, it's almost always a stupid thing to say from a PR standpoint (I'm sure some lawyers would still love it) because everything is always-on and there's almost no element of timing aside from burying stories on Friday.

alisonkisk 6y ago
Blaming parents of the kid who your machine just killed, while mentioning that you know this happens from time to time, is worse than "no comment".
- PurpleFoxy 6y ago
  A treadmill is a dangerous piece of equipment. Almost all of them have ways a child could seriously hurt themselves on while it’s running. Parents should be expected to keep their kids out of the room while it’s in use.
  - rriepe 6y ago
    > A treadmill is a dangerous piece of equipment. Exactly. The only thing that's different now is it's a dangerous piece of equipment with a popular brand name. The people who are upset about this are going to be really upset when they find out treadmills have regularly been killing a few people a year for decades. And they're one of the less deadly pieces of workout equipment!
ncallaway 6y ago
Dunno about this. If they had said they were concerned about the issue, and investigating the matter I'd be happy to consider their brand again. Getting into a public fight with the CPSC completely taints my view of their brand. Peloton is pretty much entirely crossed off my list of products I would consider because of their response. I mean, they _did_ get their denial into my first read of the story, but they did it in a way that seems far more brand damaging than a noncommittal expression of concern. Peloton is now, to me, the brand that doesn't really care if they kill children.

eli 6y ago

correct answer is to apologize, acknowledge the problem, and outline a solution.

whimsicalism 6y ago
Not in a world with lawyers it isn’t
- eli 6y ago
  Letting the lawyers make strategic decisions is a choice.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Sure, it's also a choice for companies not to donate millions of dollars to buy malaria nets in Africa. Admitting responsibility in as litigatious an environment as the US is essentially throwing away money, with less public benefit than the malaria nets.
    - eli 6y ago
      You assume the immediate legal problem is more important than the PR and regulatory problem. I don’t think it is.
PurpleFoxy 6y ago
Acknowledging the problem means a very very costly recall when it’s easier and not entirely unrealistic to just instruct the customers to keep their kids away from the product while it’s in use.
- eli 6y ago
  If the problem can’t be mitigated absent a recall then yeah that’s what should be done. They may well end up facing an involuntary recall, which will make this PR strategy seem especially short sighted.