More suspicion (is the letter real?) and blame (sane person would never do this) followed by more passive aggressive denial (we are aware of a tangential situation and are addressing it - to hell with your comments, letter boy). Then boasting - 3B in cash, we are doing just great!<p>How many times the above strategy has worked for someone in as precarious position as RIM?
I'm thinking about the response I'd choose if I were in one of the CEO seats at RIM, and I'm not sure I could have improved on this response. As noted, it's kind of content free and does not acknowledge any responsibility. But RIM had to make SOME short-term press release response that communicates the company strengths. No response would carry risk of a strong negative press and social media response.<p>At the same time, I'm not sure they could have clearly addressed any of the specific criticisms in the open letter, for fear of prematurely revealing company strategies and plans. (And don't give me a line about how companies need to be more open; every company with any competition has to be ever vigilant about that, for competitive and other reasons.) Note also that they didn't claim any of the specific criticisms were invalid.<p>(Well, actually maybe they could have toned down the FUD on the source in the first paragraph a bit. But I think they had to include some of it, frankly; unless/until a RIM exec publicly claims responsibility, none of us know for sure it's from who it claims it is.)
Gotta love how there's no author of the blog post. Just signed "Research In Motion". And "Filed in: News."<p>And they didn't like how the author of that letter was anonymous? Seems to be company policy. No faces.
I don't understand why they think they need to respond at all. And then they are not even responding to all the points. They just repeat their mantra that they knew what they are doing at it will all be good soon.
The only positive way to respond to a letter like that is to go out and do it. A press release reiterating the same old lines isn't going to solve anything; addressing concerns internally and releasing real products should be their response.
There is a fundamental business reality however that following an extended period of hyper growth (during which RIM nearly quadrupled in size over the past 5 years alone), it has become necessary for the company to streamline its operations in order to allow it to grow its business profitably while pursuing newer strategic opportunities.<p>So basically they're saying they're taking a break from innovating and will spend a little while just cleaning up shop. Do they not realize they can't just rest on their laurels while the rest of the industry leaves them behind? Take a look at Nokia!
The complaint:<p><i>but unfortunately the culture at RIM does not allow us to speak openly without having to worry about the career-limiting effects</i><p>The response:<p><i>it is particularly difficult to believe that a “high level employee” in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a constructive manner</i>
The original letter emphasized that RIM is too corporate and that that's stifling innovation and progress at the company. So what does RIM do? Fire off a press release that extols the virtues of and attempts to justify that bureaucracy.<p>/Facepalm
My guess how a fail like this happens- Executive team has an investor relations (PR) firm on retainer. IR firm sees "Open Letter" as a PR crisis, pulls page from crisis management playbook and opts to respond immediately. Responds in investor-speak. Flops with audience who elevated the letter to a PR crisis in the first place- the internet/consumer. Social media fail.
RIM has $3 Billion in cash? I guess I'm not that surprised, but that's quite a bit of "help us get back on our feet money." With some clear direction (which they may or may not get from their current executives) they could definitely regain some of their previous market.<p>The more competition the better, and having another player in the mobile space can only improve things for the consumer (and the enterprise).
What this teaches us, is that Bush's "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is a valuable idea. Every company should have a bi-law which states it will <i>not</i> respond to public letters. This letter, even though it got the point across, is heavily damaging to the brand.
This response is meaningless. Any public company will say the same jargon to reassure their shareholders but I will put money down that internally RIM executives are dwelling on the letter and taking action.
Disappointing to see RIM be so dismissive of a heartfelt and honest open letter by someone who (high level RIM employee or not) obviously cares a lot about RIM and took substancial amount of time to express his thoughts.
RIM's action to the open Letter:
<a href="http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/30/rim-agrees-to-consider-splitting-ceo-chairman-roles/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBoyGeniusReport+%28BGR+%7C+Boy+Genius+Report%29&utm_content=Twitter" rel="nofollow">http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/30/rim-agrees-to-consider-splitti...</a><p><i>RIM and NEI Investments Announce Withdrawal of Shareholder Proposal; RIM Committee to Review Matter Raised by Proposal<p>Waterloo, ON -<p>Research In Motion Limited (“RIM”) (Nasdaq: RIMM; TSX: RIM) and Northwest & Ethical Investments L.P. (“NEI Investments”) announced today that, following discussions between them, NEI Investments has decided to withdraw its proposal that was to be considered at the RIM Annual General Meeting. The proposal asked that RIM’s Board of Directors adopt a policy that divides the role of Chair and CEO, and that RIM have an independent Chair. The parties have agreed that RIM’s Board will establish a Committee of independent directors whose mandate will generally be to (i) study the appropriate balance between an independent lead director or chair with full and exclusive authority customarily held by such an office holder, (ii) determine the business necessity for RIM’s Co-CEOS to have significant Board level titles to assist their selling and other responsibilities with certain large customers in overseas markets, and (iii) propose and provide a rationale for a recommended governance structure for RIM, which will include clarifications of the Co-CEOs and Chair roles, as well as the Board’s mandate. The Committee will consult with NEI Investments in developing the specific terms of reference for this mandate and before it issues its report by January 31, 2012. The Board will publicly respond to the recommendations of the Committee within 30 days.<p>As a result, the proposal will no longer be presented at the Annual General Meeting and no vote will be taken on the proposal at the meeting. RIM and NEI Investments are pleased to have reached an agreement on this matter, and these important issues of corporate governance will receive further consideration at the RIM Board level</i>
RIM prefers to merely adress their shareholders on this issue, while the smart move would have been to include some lingo addressing their customers and the valid concerns raised in the 'open letter'. This won't work in the long run.
Given that the purpose of the first paragraph (and almost half the post) was to passive-aggressively attack the letter writer, it's no surprise that the writer did not engage management directly.<p>The second paragraph basically said "all is well!"<p>Ah. Well.
I love RIM - they're the gift that doesn't stop giving for my new Tumblr <plug><a href="http://corporatebs.tumblr.com/</plug>" rel="nofollow">http://corporatebs.tumblr.com/</plug></a>; :)