Tesla Motors is a cool little company.
The Silicon Valley-based firm designs, makes, and sells electric cars. Their newest model—the Tesla Model S—came out last year, and is available for a cool $57,000 (more if you opt for a version with better battery life).
If you’ve heard of the Model S, it’s probably due to a spat that Tesla Motors got into with The New York Times last week. The car company had agreed to let a Times reporter, John Broder, drive one of its cars from Washington, D.C. to Milford, Connecticut.
The resulting story—which documented a flawed car with limited range—infuriated the car company’s CEO, Elon Musk.
Mr. Musk took to Twitter and his blog and lambasted the New York Times story, calling it “fake” and accusing the reporter of sabotage. That set off a chain of “he said/she said” recriminations, with the New York Times responding and Tesla counter-responding. It’s a fascinating story; Poynter has a great summary of the spat here.
But there was one part of Musk’s response that leapt off the page to me like a blaring siren (I bolded those lines). He wrote:
“When Tesla first approached The New York Times about doing this story, it was supposed to be focused on future advancements in our Supercharger technology. There was no need to write a story about existing Superchargers on the East Coast, as that had already been done by Consumer Reports with no problems! We assumed that the reporter would be fair and impartial, as has been our experience with The New York Times, an organization that prides itself on journalistic integrity. As a result, we did not think to read his past articles and were unaware of his outright disdain for electric cars. We were played for a fool and as a result, let down the cause of electric vehicles.”
Wait…they pitched a reporter from arguably the most influential newspaper in the world and didn’t think to read his past articles? They “assumed” The New York Times would be impartial? They weren’t aware of the reporter’s “outright disdain for electric cars?” Whose fault is that? Musk’s peeved response makes him sound like a student who turned his homework in two weeks late but is still pissed that the professor gave him a “D.”
Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk
In The Media Training Bible, I dedicate two pages to the basic research you should conduct before any interview. That section reads, in part:
“First, search for examples of the reporter’s work. Many news organizations make their archives available online for little or no cost. It’s worth whatever nominal fee the news organization might charge to gain access to a reporter’s body of work.
Use search engines such as Google or Yahoo to conduct free research online, and review the reporter’s social media pages and those of the news organization for which he or she works. Read several of the reporter’s stories, paying closest attention to those related to your topic, to get a sense of the journalist’s tone and approach. You’ll quickly get a feel for whether the reporter is a fair arbiter or may employ tactics that will cast your company in a bad light.”
Perhaps John Broder shaded the story to support his initial hypothesis. But Tesla initiated the coverage, failed to do its basic due diligence, and is unhappy with the result. And now, they’re paying the price of its own amateurish mistake.
Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.
Photo credits: Steve Jurvetson, Brian Solis
February 18th, 2013 at 10:05 am
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but Erik Wemple has discredited the “Broder hates electric cars” theory.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/02/14/tesla-v-new-york-times-did-reporter-have-disdain-toward-electric-cars/
Convincing people that Broder has it in for electric cars is key to Tesla’s argument — otherwise, what was his motive for the negative review?
February 18th, 2013 at 10:14 am
Thanks for the comment and the link, Craig.
At best, Tesla has muddied the waters and called the reporter’s motives into question. At worst, he’s picked a fight with a newspaper that buys its ink by the barrel and has the resources to sustain a prolonged fight.
February 18th, 2013 at 10:45 am
I think, too, that this is a classic case of CEO hubris, fueled by a driven, Type A personality accustomed to achieving at a very high level. He likely took the review as a personal affront, which explains why he and not his PR team led the counterarguments with The New York Times. This is a cautionary tale for PR pros, as well, in that sometimes even the best of us are unable to contain the actions of a particularly narcissistic client.
February 18th, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Excellent point, Brad. The “we didn’t know Broder had written negatively about electric cars in the past” does smack of poor due diligence and IMO goes hand in hand with Musk overplaying his PR hand by calling the review “fake” – as in being as baldly predestined as a professional wrestling match – a bad PR overreach.
I think Mr. Musk’s primary mistake is not that he called out Broder for his genuinely dubious, questionable review,but he did so with the oafish rage of a guy in a barfight and not with the calm, self-confident finesse of a martial arts expert.
For example, the NYT opinion piece by Margaret Sullivan, “Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test.” includes an extended commentary by Roger Wilson of Falls Church, Va., which amounts to an excellent near-final PR draft that would’ve been a much more productive response to Broder’s review.
If Mr. Musk responded with such level of restraint yet cool decisiveness, sprinkled with the right level of detail from the car logs, he would have successfully “jiu-jistued” Mr. Broder’s iffy review flat on its back. And then he would have left it wide open for OTHERS to raise Broder’s past history of biased writing on electric cars, and to speculate on Broder’s ‘true motives.’
I hope Mr. Musk will trust his PR team to manage any future dodgy reviews along these lines next time. Doing so will yield less short term personal gratification, but long term, he’ll be VERY glad he did.
February 18th, 2013 at 11:55 pm
Hi Brad, enjoyed your point of view and post on Tesla. I agree with Mike that Musk handled his response awkwardly. Bruised egos don’t generate much sympathy, but the car logs provided the perfect way to at least question the results of the test drive. the good news is that social media allows a company to respond correctly to many support audiences. The key is to respond intelligently using available social media channels. There’s still an opportunity for Tesla to reinforce it’s reputation if it’s not handled by the CEO whining about it. In this case, a stand off looks like a win in raising key questions about the test drive integrity.
February 19th, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Of course the lack of due diligence in checking out the reporter was a factor, and I’m not sure of NYT policy, but with many media, you don’t get to pick and choose who does the story on your product or company. They have assignment editors who do that. And stories can get reassigned even if your pitch was to a specific reporter, due to workloads etc. So, as they say – best laid plans – the company could have done due diligence and pitched a specific reporter based on this research, but that’s no guarantee he or she will be the reporter assigned.
February 19th, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Duncan,
You’re absolutely right. Due dilligence isn’t a guarantee, but it certainly increases your odds. Even if the story had been reassigned, Tesla would have been able to research the new reporter and decide whether or not to proceed with the story.
Thank you for reading and commenting!
Brad
February 19th, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Not the first time Musk has taken out the daggers for the NYT:
http://gawker.com/5213238/sarah-lacy-is-the-interviewer-elon-musk-was-looking-for
February 19th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
Great catch, Greg. Thank you for leaving the link. Seems this may be Musk’s standard operating procedure.
February 20th, 2013 at 7:59 am
Brad, while I don’t think it was intended, the end-result to the spat has been unprecedented positive coverage for Tesla that included drives by CNN and CNBC recreating the Broder drive without a hitch (pun intended!) and a stock price that is up 6% since the flap began. I wonder whether a more finessed response by Musk and his team would have resulted in this kind of coverage…
Evan
February 20th, 2013 at 11:44 am
Evan,
I’ve wondered the same thing. You may be right. But it’s one hell of a risky strategy, and one that could have been handled without the tone of a spurned ex-lover.
Thanks for commenting!
Brad