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.<p>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"?
> Let’s keep focused on building an amazing company together; we are hitting amazing new records on users, volume and revenue, and we have so much great work to do together.<p>Ignore any potential negativity, everything we do is great, all that matters is revenue, nothing bad ever happens hear, blah blah blah. Don't focus on the bad part, those are all lies!<p>The NYTimes article isn't released so I can't comment on the substance there, but this quote struck out to me, and makes me less likely to believe Coinbase.<p>EDIT: Adding this to clarify for later readers, apparently the above quote I took from the post has been removed from the main post.
Seems like someone at NYT wasn’t happy with Coinbase’s recent rejection of the politicization of the workplace (<a href="https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-company-af882df8804" rel="nofollow">https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-comp...</a>)
I have to wonder to what extent this is just punishment from the establishment for Coinbase’s recent rejection of political activism in the workplace. Of course we will need to see the article from the NYT first before drawing any conclusions, but the timing is pretty suspicious; this implies that the NYT more or less launched this project immediately after that announcement went out.
> We are committed to maintaining an environment that is safe, supportive and welcoming to employees of all backgrounds.<p>These are inexpensive words said by every company. I feel that most companies, after uttering them, don't actually do anything to follow through.
Wonder how they think / thought that this will play out?<p>That internal email is nothing but "NYT bad" and what seems like pretty cheap promises... if you have to send those to your employees in the first place.<p>Then I don't think it will help Coinbase itself much with the potential backlash of a NYT story with what seems like multiple employees coming out including receipts that will get published.<p>And it doesn't seem really helpful for employees to defend themselves from some potential inquiries/harassment either?<p>And then there is the Streisand effect...
Well, the whole press release / internal email smells of a company desperately trying to spin what they expect to be a very, very bad article. But this line jumped out at me twice:<p>> To be specific: Although the story will likely allege that a number of Black employees and contractors referenced in the story filed complaints with the company, only three of these people filed complaints during their time at Coinbase.<p>This is the kind of thing that really leads me to distrust everything Coinbase is saying. Reading between the lines, I imagine that the complaints workers claim to have filed were ignored by management at some level of the process, or not filed on the right paperwork or something.<p>And so Coinbase can probably claim on a technicality “they didn’t file a complaint.”<p>But being “technically correct” is only what you reach for when you don’t have any other leg to stand on. It’s a really telling move that they repeated this line multiple times.<p>I’m speculating, obviously. The article isn’t out. But this isn’t my first rodeo, and this kind of corporate speak isn’t new. This kind of desperate spin only serves to underscore the fundamental truths of whatever the NYT is going to publish.<p>Otherwise... why bother dignifying it with such a response?
Lies are countered with facts, not generic dismissals. The post is textbook PR pointing to some unspecified inaccuracy which is supposed to cast doubt on the substance of the story. Then self-investigation and self-exoneration. Every company trying to cover up wrong doing writes the same thing.
As many of my HR friends have said (I’m sure most of you have heard this too, HR is in the business of protecting the company and not the employees.<p>I’ve been at plenty of startups and have witnessed people doing the right thing or rocking the boat and being let go. I myself have been in that boat for reporting sexual harassment on behalf of a friend/peer at work who was too afraid to report the manager. I caught the heat from it and was let go over that.<p>This is going to be an interesting who said what and what really happened in the next few days.
I think the specific pre-emptive denial of claims by specific ex-employees reads as righteous and dismissive. Who knows what is going to be published in the final version? They later state that only 2 of the four claims were investigated by third parties.<p>"likely quote three former Coinbase employees and a former contractor by name, and include photos of some of them....The story will likely imply that Black employees were discriminated against during this process; this is false."
I thought I was on Coinbase... and then I wondered why there were some completely ridiculous ads at the bottom of the page.<p>Is this company so cheap they can't even build themselves a website?
A lot of people are talking about the PR considerations of this, but I think there's an important factor that should be noted. There's been a growing perspective in SV, particularly among executives and VCs, that traditional media outlets are competitors to the tech industry rather than neutral reporters on it.<p>And lot of the puzzling aspects here make a lot of sense when seen in that context. This is exactly the kind of response you'd expect if, say, you discovered some famous short seller were going to release a report on you.
It's really really hard to prove your not racist. If anyone has any clue as how to do so, please share.<p>They could have waited until the story was published I guess to share this statement, but publishing it preemptively makes sense too I believe (it's an always open entity that is incredibly easy to switch away from).<p>But truly, when you get accused of racism, what can you even do?
I don't think any response they could make would change anyone's mind about anything.<p>They've taken a stance that has generated a polarized response, and people are going to respond to any and all problems that arise at the company based on their now-existing polarization.<p>I don't exempt myself from that.
I'm fairly certain Coinbase is a leading target for Bill Ackman's SPAC ($PSTH), so this is interesting timing for all here. Coinbase is likely particularly sensitive to negative stories and possible regulatory action right now.
> We are committed to maintaining an environment that is safe, supportive and welcoming to employees of all backgrounds<p>I don’t think this is compatible with dismissing the struggle for human dignity in America as “politics”
"There is no such thing as bad publicity", eh? You can count on NYT to publish any story at the intersection of Silicon Valley and Racial Justice, so a story about Coinbase itself won't be a big deal since public will forget it in 5 minutes. But by proactively publishing this blog post, Coinbase seems to be extending the news cycle around this.
In an HN thread the other day someone mentioned Coinbase as a positive example of a company that decided to separate employee political activism from the workplace (which IMO is the only rational option unless you like volunteering for lose-lose landmine situations).<p>As soon as I saw NYT in the I assumed it would something along those lines. It’s not clear what the grievances were yet so I’ll hold back judgement for now.<p>There are always consequences to trying to run an apolitical as. It’s always seems easier to just give in, especially on the surface layer, with the social media grievance machine, but upholding values through out your company is worth the effort. Not being racist should be common sense by now. Engaging in political campaigns is another matter.
>Overall, we expect the story will paint an inaccurate picture that lacks complete information and context, despite our best efforts to fact-check details of the story with the reporter.<p>Probably the most important line from this; those that have been through it before know it better than anyone. Likely best to apply healthy levels of skepticism to <i>both</i> parties.
Disappointed as a customer to see this nyt-is-bad preemptive pr defense and no substance action, as I guess as fits their mission statement, than a critical assessment of flaws etc. and description of improvements they’ll make going forward.