Elon Musk and How Not to Handle a PR Crisis

It does not matter who you think is winning or losing this argument. The point this post makes is sound: unless you're sure that Musk is crushing Broder in the eyes of a disinterested prospective Tesla customer, Musk harmed Tesla more than he helped it.<p>His response took a bad review and turned it into front-page news in a way that would not have happened if Tesla's response hadn't been combative.<p>The reason the author wrote this post is to educate you, startup founders, that Musk's tactic was dumb. Tesla will survive it; Musk can afford to pick fights that raise awareness of Tesla's negatives. But you probably can't afford that for your own company.<p>You can respond to this post with yet another 10,000 word thread about who's more credible, Musk or Broder, but to do so is to miss the core point of the post.

I really think this is the most important learning from this whole debacle.<p>Broder ran into a edge case in electric car behavior (though it's arguable just <i>how</i> edgy it is), his Tesla support people made the wrong calls, and he himself appeared to be intent on testing the accuracy of Tesla's range estimates. It's really a perfect storm of fuckupery on all sides combined with a chilly winter storm - there was no way to win this one.<p>What bothers me, however, was how quickly Musk leapt to accusations of fraud. Let's be clear: accusing a reporter of one of the longest-running and staunchest institutions of journalism in the country of outright fraud is generally classified as a <i>Big Fucking Deal</i>. You don't do it lightly - and in this case it seems like the judgment was more than premature.

Is it true that Broder is winning the argument?<p>That was not my impression, but I haven't read everything yet.

I think a large part of the issue with Broder's experience boils down to communication. It's tempting to believe in some kind of objective reality when it comes to communication, but communication has two very subjective sides:<p>1) What the speaker has said<p>2) What the listener has understood<p>A very good teacher knows how to assess #2 in a continuous feedback loop. Unfortunately, one's sensitivity to this feedback is greatly diminished over the phone. This often results in outcomes where the speaker and the listener have very different accounts of what was communicated.<p>After reading all of the back and forth, the only conclusion I can reach is that Broder didn't have any ill intentions,and Tesla staff tried to help him, but the outcome still wasn't good.<p>The actions Broder took didn't allow him to reach his goals. You may hold an opinion as to whether he was too conservative/liberal with his approach to charging and efficiency management. You might hold an opinion as to whether or not he properly interpreted Tesla's advice, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. He didn't make it to where he was headed, and his trip goals was pretty typical.<p>Broder strikes me as a pretty "normal" person. He doesn't seem biased toward or against the car. He seems rather indifferent, which is how many American drivers feel about their cars. If Tesla's pitch is that this car is "just as good" as a gasoline car, then they've clearly over-pitched.<p>Whether Elon Musk wants to admit it, the Model S does require considerations that we're not used to making with gasoline powered cars. Making 1 hour pit stops to "refuel" every 200 miles has a pretty serious impact on trip times when compared to a gasoline powered car that can stretch to 300 miles between fill-ups and can be back on the road in 10 minutes.<p>A good tact at this point might be to realign their message with the car's capabilities and offer an olive branch to Broder. He seems ready to accept it.

This article pretty much sums up my response to this whole mess. The person responsible for PR at Tesla must be tearing their hair out. Potential customers might take a look at this exchange and wonder if Tesla will treat them the same way.

Probably what Elon Musk is doing is not the best for the company short term. But I really admire this guy strength and determinism.<p>Following a PR perfection tactic of "avoiding conflict" we are getting used to being constantly lied by the media. The federal reserve and other central banks lie to us("thinking on our own good"), the politicians also do it as a routine.<p>They are constantly measuring popularity and asking propaganda experts about "what they have to say" in order to manipulate the audience.<p>It is refreshing. He is alive. He could lose but he is going to fight.

May be because of this incident, future reviewers or journalists will need to be more thoughtful with what they write (esp tech stuff, where logging data is possible). Everyone knows how social media changes the landscape, but this really blew up - everyone I know is talking about it and Tesla and electric cars isn't anything new.<p>I agree it's not a good idea for a startup to be as combative as Tesla. But in this case, I think Musk did good for Tesla - ie: Even CNN is riding the wave.

I think people are pretty much utterly confused at this point. Perhaps this was by design, and Elon thought to heed the adage "if you can't convince them, confuse them".<p>People who like the NYT/dislike Musk side against Tesla, and vice versa.<p>Elon Musk definitely did not close the case, and to that point he did not handle it well. But there are facts, and there is PR, and it's still unclear to which degree the facts are on Musk's side.

Most people here aren't thinking "Evil Genius" thoughts. Who wins or loses the argument is irrelevant. The fact remains Tesla will command headlines for months, whereas if this had never happened, Tesla's "range tests" would be met with yawns at best. Now, every range test is a new opportunity to re-hash the argument, commanding mass attention and headlines.

Public memory is short(how many remember the Top Gear review of model S now?). In few months people will forget about this episode. This may have negative short term impact(or may be not) on sales of Tesla cars/shareprice. But from Tesla's point of view, they got the following:<p>1) another test case, which they may not have accounted for, and they will use this to make future improvements<p>2) wide publicity, which may seem negative at this point, but lot more folks know now that it is possible to think of driving in electric cars outiside your city limits (it may not seem to have works as planned in this case), but nevertheless it is a possibility. CNN did another test ride, which again is more publicity.<p>Overall I see this as a net plus for Tesla in the long term.

For all the people criticizing Musk, rembember, all advertising is good advertising.<p>&#62; "The debate has driven a lot of people to Broder's initial review"<p>And that's exactly what Elon wanted. Lets say 100 people read that review. 80 out of that believed the article, because they only read a one sided opinion. Now, Elon responded, a big fight and sensation came out of the story, brought 1000 people into the discussion, and since they heard both sides, assume its a fifty-fifty. Do the math.<p>Obviously the numbers are hypothetical, but I am pretty drunk (it's friday night, yo), but you can catch my drift.<p>I would love to see Musk and Tesla (not the guy, RIP, the band) succeed.

Wrong, the original article had a "journalist" that has a history of not liking EV. There is plenty of examples of Journalists that was able to actually drive the car without problems. There is plenty of owners that can attest to the car actually working as intended.<p>It's really really simple, if you don't charge your mobile phone don't expect it to last. Same goes for you car. And since everyone knows how it works with a mobile phone they should be able to see that a Journalist that doesn't charge the car isn't telling the whole story but he has an agenda.

Huh did no one notice CNN proving musk right and NYT to be lying ?

What's the old adage? There's no such thing as bad press?

Rubbish. For most of the general public outside of the tech elite, nobody knows anything about electric cars. They're a curios novelty that simply do not enter into the discussion when choosing a car. This controversy has actually put Tesla and electric cars on the map for an enormous number of people. This is the exact kind of global publicity that is worth billions of dollars of marketing money.<p>While the impression itself is not necessarily positive, the controversy involved here means that a potential buyer will do a tiny bit of research, which has a chance to lead to a purchase. People who already were planning to buy from Tesla would not be swayed by this controversy at all, as they would probably have sided more with Musk's remarks after already convincing themselves the car was sensible.<p>This entire saga is a huge win for Tesla. I actually saw mention of it in a local newspaper which has never reported on Tesla before now.

Each his own opinion... As soon as Broder published the first report I warned you guys here about how smelly that was. Just like Top Gear's first review of the Tesla was "faked": they were all too happy to film themselves pushing a fully working Tesla as if it was empty.<p>Broder was obviously way too happy to publish that picture of a Tesla being towed away.<p>Car journalists are liers. They do lie. And then they lie more. And eventually they lie even more.<p>I don't think that a journalist who hates Porsche 911 (one of the Top Gear guy) should be allowed to test 911 just as I don't think that guy who hates electric cars (Broder) should be allowed to test an electric vehicle.<p>They'll lie and then they'll play on words and say: "Oh but I didn't say <i>that</i>, hence I didn't lie".<p>His last paragraph of his "answer" to Elon Musk is a perfect example. Musk says Broder was deliberately driving in a place where there was no easy access to a charging station. Yet Broder focuses on the fact that during their phone call Musk did apologize and offer to do a second test. But he's not addressing the fact that Musk clearly writes out that Broder did purposefully pick a spot where he couldn't easily charge the car. You know why? Because Broder was all too happy to publish that picture.<p>Ask this question to Broder: did it make you feel good to publish that picture of a (supposedly) empty Tesla needing assistance?<p>The answer is yes. He may lie about it. He'll probably say he doesn't give a shit. But the truth is he liked it so much.<p>That guy isn't worthy of being a journalist.<p>You know what? F^ck the NYT and f^ck Broder.<p>Tesla: you don't need these intellectually dishonest clowns to become very succesful.<p>I wish you the best. And your log data makes me want to buy one of your cars. Thanks for that marvel of engeenering.

As a TSLA shareholder, I couldn't agree more.