3 ms·

"Bezos has been completely transparent about his philosophy" I don't know if this is transparency as much as controlling the narrative and preempting and spinn

by larrys 12y ago

"Bezos has been completely transparent about his philosophy" I don't know if this is transparency as much as controlling the narrative and preempting and spinning potential criticism. Rhetoric. This is often done in marketing whereby you take a disadvantage and turn it into an advantage in the buyers mind. "Sure we charge more because we take the time to hand craft ..." instead of "we can't afford the same people and machinery and distribution to make our product cheaper and widely used ....

jdbernard 12y ago
He made the following statements in the very first shareholder letter back in 1997 [1]: We will continue to make investment decisions in light of long-term market leadership considerations rather than short-term profitability considerations or short-term Wall Street reactions. When forced to choose between optimizing the appearance of our GAAP accounting and maximizing the present value of future cash flows, we’ll take the cash flows. We aren’t so bold as to claim that the above is the “right” investment philosophy, but it’s ours, and we would be remiss if we weren’t clear in the approach we have taken and will continue to take. He said he was going to do this from the beginning. You can call that spin if you want, but when you consistently do what you said you were going to do it seems more accurate to call it transparency. Not saying that Amazon hasn't leaned on the PR machine from time to time, but at least on this issue they have been pretty clear and consistent from the beginning. [1]: http://benhorowitz.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/amzn_shareholder-letter-20072.pdf http://benhorowitz.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/amzn_sharehol...
- larrys 12y ago
  I first thought that perhaps spin wasn't the right word maybe it is (I just looked this up). From this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28public_relations%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28public_relations%29 I see this: "Bernays was able to help tobacco and alcohol companies use techniques to make certain behaviors more socially acceptable in the 20th-century United States. " I don't think that the fact that it was said at the start makes that much of a difference. I think you can spin in advance as well as in retrospect. In a sense he has been able to manage expectations the same way a high school student (who also plays football) might tell Dad "ok I will try out for the team like you want me to but I play sports keep in mind that my grades may suffer". Then when he gets mediocre grades he reminds his parents that he warned them. Or band or any extracurricular activity.
  - jdbernard 12y ago
    From that link: While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. That is the core of my understanding of the term "spin". Every conversation has a frame of reference, a shared context within which it is communicated. Somebody has to frame that context, and I don't see anything wrong with trying to be proactive about framing the context, as long as you do so in a way that is not disingenuous, deceptive, or manipulative. Controlling the narrative is not necessarily "spin" in this sense. It may be just seeking the truth. In fact, I have a hard time finding a better description of integrity in action that doing what you explicitly said you would do. How can you get any more straightforward than that? The fact that it was said at the start makes all of the difference. It means that anybody who got into a relationship with Amazon knew at the beginning what kind of company they would be from an investment perspective. Amazon was setting out specifically to avoid misleading or deceiving anybody. Even the kid in your example is not putting a spin on anything. He is being transparent and honest, not disingenuous or deceptive. To work within that analogy, as a parent I would have said that his attitude was unacceptable, because part of a parent's job is to teach and help their child learn how to make responsible choices. I would encourage the child that I think they can excel at both and that I won't accept a cop-out. If they really couldn't do both, then I would tell them I appreciate their honesty and make them drop sports. The same should be true for Amazon. If people really had a problem with Amazon's approach, they should not have bought stock in the first place, after Amazon told them plainly how they were going to operate. That's exactly the point: the parent knows ahead of time and can make a decision with full and accurate knowledge of the situation. People knew up front that Amazon would continue to invest the profits back into the business. If people still choose to invest, they have no right to claim they were deceived or manipulated, because Amazon was clear from the beginning. How is that "disingenuous, deceptive, or manipulative?"

by larrys 12y ago

jdbernard 12y ago

He made the following statements in the very first shareholder letter back in 1997 [1]: We will continue to make investment decisions in light of long-term market leadership considerations rather than short-term profitability considerations or short-term Wall Street reactions. When forced to choose between optimizing the appearance of our GAAP accounting and maximizing the present value of future cash flows, we’ll take the cash flows. We aren’t so bold as to claim that the above is the “right” investment philosophy, but it’s ours, and we would be remiss if we weren’t clear in the approach we have taken and will continue to take. He said he was going to do this from the beginning. You can call that spin if you want, but when you consistently do what you said you were going to do it seems more accurate to call it transparency. Not saying that Amazon hasn't leaned on the PR machine from time to time, but at least on this issue they have been pretty clear and consistent from the beginning. [1]: http://benhorowitz.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/amzn_shareholder-letter-20072.pdf http://benhorowitz.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/amzn_sharehol...

larrys 12y ago
I first thought that perhaps spin wasn't the right word maybe it is (I just looked this up). From this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28public_relations%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28public_relations%29 I see this: "Bernays was able to help tobacco and alcohol companies use techniques to make certain behaviors more socially acceptable in the 20th-century United States. " I don't think that the fact that it was said at the start makes that much of a difference. I think you can spin in advance as well as in retrospect. In a sense he has been able to manage expectations the same way a high school student (who also plays football) might tell Dad "ok I will try out for the team like you want me to but I play sports keep in mind that my grades may suffer". Then when he gets mediocre grades he reminds his parents that he warned them. Or band or any extracurricular activity.
- jdbernard 12y ago
  From that link: While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. That is the core of my understanding of the term "spin". Every conversation has a frame of reference, a shared context within which it is communicated. Somebody has to frame that context, and I don't see anything wrong with trying to be proactive about framing the context, as long as you do so in a way that is not disingenuous, deceptive, or manipulative. Controlling the narrative is not necessarily "spin" in this sense. It may be just seeking the truth. In fact, I have a hard time finding a better description of integrity in action that doing what you explicitly said you would do. How can you get any more straightforward than that? The fact that it was said at the start makes all of the difference. It means that anybody who got into a relationship with Amazon knew at the beginning what kind of company they would be from an investment perspective. Amazon was setting out specifically to avoid misleading or deceiving anybody. Even the kid in your example is not putting a spin on anything. He is being transparent and honest, not disingenuous or deceptive. To work within that analogy, as a parent I would have said that his attitude was unacceptable, because part of a parent's job is to teach and help their child learn how to make responsible choices. I would encourage the child that I think they can excel at both and that I won't accept a cop-out. If they really couldn't do both, then I would tell them I appreciate their honesty and make them drop sports. The same should be true for Amazon. If people really had a problem with Amazon's approach, they should not have bought stock in the first place, after Amazon told them plainly how they were going to operate. That's exactly the point: the parent knows ahead of time and can make a decision with full and accurate knowledge of the situation. People knew up front that Amazon would continue to invest the profits back into the business. If people still choose to invest, they have no right to claim they were deceived or manipulated, because Amazon was clear from the beginning. How is that "disingenuous, deceptive, or manipulative?"