3 ms·

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

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.

rriepe 6y ago
I'm not normally one to stand in the way of vitriolic hyperbole, but we were talking about "no comment" vs what was actually said. I am on the "no comment would have been worse" team. Please don't sign me up for any other teams, especially not the child-killers, thanks.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  Sure, and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in your take on what is a better PR move. I'm certainly not a PR expert. I'm just speaking as a brand consumer, and the tone of the response (public fight with CPSC vs statement of concern and a promise to investigate) speaks loudly to me about how much they care about the underlying issue. Of course, the actions matter more to me in the long run. Regardless of what they say today, what they do over the next 6-18 weeks matters the most. But as far as statements go, I feel like an expression of sympathy, concern, and a desire to investigate the issue would be better in my book.
numpad0 6y ago
Boom, now they’ve eliminated “toxic customer” critical of the brand out of the equation. This is such a horrible line of thought, but if their founders and investors don’t go actually personally financially and/or physically punished from being morally corrupt, that is only a good thing for the company!

rriepe 6y ago

I'm not normally one to stand in the way of vitriolic hyperbole, but we were talking about "no comment" vs what was actually said. I am on the "no comment would have been worse" team. Please don't sign me up for any other teams, especially not the child-killers, thanks.

ncallaway 6y ago
Sure, and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong in your take on what is a better PR move. I'm certainly not a PR expert. I'm just speaking as a brand consumer, and the tone of the response (public fight with CPSC vs statement of concern and a promise to investigate) speaks loudly to me about how much they care about the underlying issue. Of course, the actions matter more to me in the long run. Regardless of what they say today, what they do over the next 6-18 weeks matters the most. But as far as statements go, I feel like an expression of sympathy, concern, and a desire to investigate the issue would be better in my book.

numpad0 6y ago

Boom, now they’ve eliminated “toxic customer” critical of the brand out of the equation. This is such a horrible line of thought, but if their founders and investors don’t go actually personally financially and/or physically punished from being morally corrupt, that is only a good thing for the company!