71–80 of 139 posts
Jokes aside, this is a good thing for our industry - if I wanted to argue to right-size a PR department I now have a clear example to point to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Why do we need journalists?" The same reason we need them for any other set of reasons: To do full-time work investigating different angles of current events and to provide, often, a less-biased report on things. Of course, eliminating PR =/= eliminating journalists, so this comment is off the tracks anyway.
So, are they doing this job?
That's a hugely broad question. Many are.
Also read the linked jalopnik post that sparked the top elecktrek post. It's informative and funny. https://jalopnik.com/teslas-pr-department-hasnt-responded-to...
That's absolutely traditional PR for an automaker. "Arranging test-drive promotions" means deciding who is eligible for test drives, viewing what is published on YouTube, and deciding if the person will be eligible next time. Even if no words are spoken/written to the YouTubers beyond logistics for the test drive, it is effectively PR.
It's telling they are keeping the most lucrative PR, video product promotion. It sounds like they mainly don't like dealing with the business press. But their investor relations department is going to end up picking up at least some that burden (even if just in the form of ignoring questions). Tesla still has to disclose quarterly earnings figures and its executives will still conduct calls around those earnings releases. They may only allow questions from financial analysts but any member of the public can listen in.
Good for them. Why do we need a biased filter (journalists) between customer and company.if it is damage recovery journalists and their employers can be easily bought for cash.in this world of direct communication it would be childish to assume papers and journalists are still relevant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not original commenter, but for one thing, all the emissions being saved by Teslas being electric? Tesla sold the credits to Fiat/Chrysler so their cars can have higher emissions: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/teslas-sale-of-environmental... My math is wonky, does that mean on average, a Tesla is just as polluting as a Fiat/Chrysler car?
I'm not sure I understand your point. Tesla was awarded tradeable regulatory credits. They didn't have any use for them, so they sold them. I suppose they could have just sat on them and refused to sell. There are valid criticisms around the environmental cost of building electric vehicles. There are also valid criticisms of the regulatory environment that Tesla operates in. I'm not convinced, though, that it makes s…
The regulatory credit trading scheme is effectively the same as a system under which the government imposes extra taxes on FIAT/Chrysler while giving Tesla a tax break. Should Tesla refuse to take that tax break because the money is coming from FIAT/Chrysler?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because trust, I seen yesterday some customer reporting a dangerous Tesla quality issue on reddit and it was "attacked" by fanboys and strong evidence was requested. If a journalist would like to report this problem then you would probably like Tesla to have some competent person to respond but seems you prefer the "Tesla did not responds to journalists anymore". Btw I am referring to this post https://www.reddit.com…
You know what else is dangerous? An inner circle kabal that can destroy anyone with an allegation that will get retracted 6 months later. A group of people beyond any control and that suffers no consequences. Maybe also a group of people that understands only doublespeak at this point. I have not love for EM, but at least he is in a position in which he can stand against their attacks.
My only idea why you would do that is if you anticipate a lot of bad press so then your strategy is to label it as "fake news" or "shorting" and label critics as puppets and videos that show problems as deep fakes.
Let me know why do you think this is a good idea though.
P.S. I can enumerate random stuff some journalists did wrong, and bad/evil things companies did wrong, and horrible things marketing/PR done ... is not a proof to find some unrelated example, there needs to be some logic to it.
Good for them. Why do we need a biased filter (journalists) between customer and company.if it is damage recovery journalists and their employers can be easily bought for cash.in this world of direct communication it would be childish to assume papers and journalists are still relevant
Yeah we should get our Tesla information from the unbiased source that is Elon Musk!
Good for them. Why do we need a biased filter (journalists) between customer and company.if it is damage recovery journalists and their employers can be easily bought for cash.in this world of direct communication it would be childish to assume papers and journalists are still relevant
On the same thought, why do politicians talk to journalists either? For example Trump doesn't trust them... so why does he talk to them at all? Why not just stop inviting the press in? Why not just present your own releases direct to consumer/elector via your website and social media?
1. You can't do without some press coverage, because you want to sell to people who aren't already superfans.
Toyota sold 10.7 million cars in 2019 and has 803,000 Twitter followers. If their message only appears on Twitter, the vast majority of their customers and potential customers will not see it.
Of course, the press might find your tweets and report on them, but:
2. Given that you want press coverage, having friendly relations with the press is a good thing.
3. If you're a company, the status quo that you're generous with review units and access, and journalists aren't very rigorous or probing in their reviews, is just fine with you.
Wait, reddit is shutting down??
It's exactly what I thought when I read the headline