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.
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.
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.
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.
There's an argument about the "long game" though. The point of marketing isn't to get customers money right now, that's what "sales" is about.
If you believe (FWIW: I do, but let's please not get back into that here) that Broder's review was sensationalized nonsense essentially intended to spin every minor glitch into a negative story, then what this hissy fit did is make sure, by making an example out of Broder and his editors, that all the other journalists out there don't try the same thing.
Basically, Musk is trading some instantaneous bad press for fairer press in the future (which is sort of already happening, c.f. the CNN ride yesterday which contradicts Broder and certainly wouldn't have happened without the controversy). That may or may not be a net benefit, but it's a more subtle analysis than the "did he harm more than help" one you are arguing for.
I don't believe Broder's review was nonsensical, which probably accounts for why I don't subscribe to the idea that this was a smart long-term strategy for Musk, but I understand why reasonable people think that. However, Musk can afford to play long games with PR. Most startups can't.
Regarding reviews in particular: I've done a bunch of them at previous companies, and I think the average first-time founder on HN would be very surprised to learn how subjective and relationship-based they are. I once "won" a bakeoff review for a product I was managing, only to "lose" it later in the week when the reviewer wrote a followup story about improvements in the runner-up. The net effect was negative; it turned us into the de facto runner up.
Most tech product reviews are much more subjective than this Tesla review. You have to have a lot of traction in the market for an important review to revolve around simple "speeds and feeds" issues like how much mileage your vehicle gets. Pissing off reviewers is almost always going to be a losing strategy, even when you're right.
"the CNN ride yesterday which contradicts Broder and certainly wouldn't have happened without the controversy"
The CNN ride comes off as a cheap PR stunt now.
The "long game" was already lost when Musk proved himself incapable of handling a non-glowing review. There was a way for Tesla to spin this favorably and talk about their technological advancements (talk about the weather and how you should charge it in the cold, how technology in the car ensures that it will start after being in the cold overnight) but instead Tesla decided to go for the sensationalist angle.
As many have discussed at length in other threads, the Broder account wasn't "sensationalist". It in fact is corroborated to a great extent by Musk's data.
If Musk gave a civil reply acknowledging what happened without making it sound like a fake, we wouldn't have this conversation days later.
I think he's trading bad press now for no press in the future. Musk has now established that he's going to go after anyone that makes a negative review about the car. So why bother dealing with Tesla and Musk if something goes wrong, when you can go review cars from just about every other manufacturer and not have to deal with it?
I don't understand why you treat the CNN ride as if it refuted what the NYT did, since it was not the same experiment:
There were some differences with my ride and the one from the New York Times. The weather for mine was about 10 degrees warmer. And I did mine in one day; the reviewer from the Times split it into two.
And the CNN author has some of the same concerns in the end, although not the same output:
On Thursday, I took the same drive -- and I made it to Boston, though not without some anxiety that I would run out of juice.
..
Looking back on the trip, it would be even easier if Tesla would install one of their fast-charging Superchargers along the New Jersey Turnpike.
I disagree with the article because Tesla is a famous brand, and the New York Times has enormous readership. This story was going to have legs no matter what Musk did.
By responding so fast, Musk essentially changed the story from "Tesla car on flatbed" to "Tesla car on flatbed might have been faked." Obviously the latter is better for Tesla.
This can work because interest in stories tails off over time. Far fewer people are going to bother to read Broder's rebuttal, than heard about the controversy through a third-party news source (most of whom will not bother to write detailed follow up stories).
In addition, Tesla has a lot of fans, and there is value in taking a bold stand to fire up the troops. Look at how vociferously people have defended Tesla here on HN. And we are definitely the target audience for Tesla.
Interest in the story will tail off over time, but Musk made himself look whiny and childish. That won't change even if his claims are fully substantiated.
I disagree, because the problem is ultimately down to density on the charging stations, which is a short term issue.
It's functionally the same as "Tesla is shit, since they are slow to deliver their products and there is a huge backlog" "No, we're shipping a lot of cars" "No, you're not" "Yes we are".
Even if you don't believe Tesla now, it's pretty clear that the supercharger issue will be resolved in a year or so (which is before you'd get a Tesla if you ordered it today). People are becoming aware of the free unlimited lifetime supercharger thing who wouldn't have, otherwise.
Making a big PR case out of an easily-fixed issue, as long as customers can see it is going to be easily fixed, is a viable tactic.
"Oh no, Apple products are horrible, because they don't support ____" "New announcement: Apple now supports ____"
Whether or not it was a good idea for Musk to respond to the review is almost aside the point. It seems as though that is just a part of his nature. If he wasn't the type of CEO who would respond like that, he likely would also not be the type of CEO who could run SpaceX and Tesla.
Not applicable. Musk is doing the opposite, instead of suppressing information, he's making it public for all to see and judge for themselves; augmented with a bit of 'colorful' (for a lack of a better word) commentary.
I'm not sure there is a lot of harm here. The Tesla market is tech-minded people, and a lot of them value data over anything. Sure, it could have been handled in a smoother manner, I agree. But its Musk. The guy who is building the future, today.
I really think this is the most important learning from this whole debacle.
Broder ran into a edge case in electric car behavior (though it's arguable just how 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.
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 Big Fucking Deal. You don't do it lightly - and in this case it seems like the judgment was more than premature.
This is the level of modern public discourse. "Romney lied" or "Obama lied" was what you probably heard most in headlines last year, even though in most cases the discrepancy was more along the lines of Broder lowering the temperature twenty minutes after he thought he did.
It's not my impression, either. Basically the only thing that might make Tesla look bad in this is if people believe that Tesla support personnel told Broder all the misinformation that he claims they did. I find it telling, though, that Broder has tried to move the debate from places where there is hard data to places where it's unclear what was said (since, I suppose, no one was recording that). He doesn't really dispute anything Musk says, but only tries to excuse it.
I'm usually on the side of not talking back to reviewers of your work, having read that advice over and over in essays and articles by wise authors and other creative types. In this case, though, everyone I've spoken to in person about this is convinced that Broder was just trying to tell the most entertaining story; Musk, given his accomplishments, naturally has higher credibility than Broder. It's a point in Broder's favor that all the people I've spoken with about this are technical types, who might be predisposed to side with Musk, but those are also the sort of people most likely to be swayed by actual hard data, which only one side of this argument has provided.
I would say yes he is. The article is correct in its driving more traffic to the Broder site where people have to read what was said in the review. Most people also will want to read the article in its entirety.
I also found myself looking for similar articles, wondering if indeed the car really does have problems or is it just poor publicity.
I found this article which linked to the original NYT article as well as Musk's rebuttal:
The best way to avoid MORE negative PR is too simply ignore the bad PR you are getting. Had Musk simply said, "Eh, whatever, it was a bad review, I know what my cars are capable of." and left it at, people wouldn't care. Once you start defending your product so vigorously, it makes it seem like maybe there is something to the claims and negative reviews.
Very true. It really doesn't matter whether Border lied or screwed up or anything. Musk gave him more free PR than Tesla would have gotten from a good review. It's ooooh so tempting to get into a fight when someone slanders your company, but it's almost always the worst decision you can make. If you're going to sit down and pick apart someone else's writing, data point and word by data point and word, you're going to be under the exact same scrutiny. And, now, everyone who reviews the Tesla will want to test it out in cold weather, just to be sure.
More likely it is a people who have had to depend on cars/people who have not had to depend on cars divide. There's very little practical argument to be found in these threads on that website, just shrill invective. The "journalist committing libel" angle is quite juicy if you have no horse in the race. Average auto consumers might think Musk's behavior off-putting, detached, etc. and see the journalist's concerns as legitimate: A car, especially at that price, should get you from point A to B predictably, preferably with a comfortable cabin.
The divide is between people who have been following this story critically and those that haven't. Most of reddit and many people here have been suggesting he's an oil industry shill that was determined to see the car fail, but they were already looking to side with Elon.
Yeah, but for those casuals just peaking in, I think there's also an immediate divide between the media and the tech community. The invective here was very much pro-Elon right off the bat, and hasn't favored Border since. But all the other coverage I see in the journalism community is entirely pro NYT.
Perhaps. I work in finance, I'm not a programmer or 'hacker' at all. So I constantly feel like an outsider to this community, and especially when stories like this pop-up that really highlight the groupthink.
Algorithmic trading based on news "evaluation" alone could account for that. For those people who actually sold by hand, I doubt they actually evaluated the data. For those people who actually evaluated the data, they're just waiting for a signal that they can buy Tesla at the best discount.
Most people won't read everything, which is why Broder is not, in fact, winning the argument.
Most people heard about it in passing on cable news or in a single newspaper story. All they will remember is that the Tesla CEO accused the NY Times of faking a car review.
Considering that Elon accused Broder of faking/fabricating the review when he clearly wasn't and that he's focusing on side-stories in order to distract from the fact that the Model S is terrible in cold weather, he's definitely not winning this argument.
He would have been way better off by simply saying there were inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the review than going nuclear by screaming out "FAKE!"
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:
1) What the speaker has said
2) What the listener has understood
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Whether Elon Musk wants to admit it, the Model S does require considerations that we're not used to making with gasoline powered cars.
Admit it? Have they ever denied it? It is an electric car, you need to charge it. Charging it takes longer than filling it with gas. Everybody who thinks they are being profound or daring for pointing this out is frankly just being obnoxious.
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.
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.
They are constantly measuring popularity and asking propaganda experts about "what they have to say" in order to manipulate the audience.
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.
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".
People who like the NYT/dislike Musk side against Tesla, and vice versa.
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:
1) another test case, which they may not have accounted for, and they will use this to make future improvements
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.
Overall I see this as a net plus for Tesla in the long term.
On the other hand, if people do not have much of an impression on the car company or Elon Musk, this type of episode could cement an unwelcome impression in their mind.
For instance, if you didn't have any impression of Top Gear before their Model S review, how do you feel about them months later after learning of what they did?
For all the people criticizing Musk, rembember, all advertising is good advertising.
> "The debate has driven a lot of people to Broder's initial review"
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.
Obviously the numbers are hypothetical, but I am pretty drunk (it's friday night, yo), but you can catch my drift.
I would love to see Musk and Tesla (not the guy, RIP, the band) succeed.
For all the people criticizing Musk, rembember, all advertising is good advertising.
That is not and has never been true.
The all-electric car has a serious stigma of being a risky proposition where you're always tossing the die. This article cements that opinion, as does Musk's counter arguments (everything is great, apparently, if you turn off the heat, drive so slow you'll get driven off the road, and avoid anywhere that is cold. Also know every charging station and be prepared to spend hours at each).
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.
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.
And what if tech support of the manufacturer of the mobile phone is telling you to take certain steps to extend the life of the battery that ultimately are incorrect and fail?
Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to include that in your review of the phone?
haha all CNN proved is that they can play lapdog for Tesla. Let's make it clear: the weather was much warmer yesterday and today, the CNN people didnt stay overnight, and they made sure to spend extra time charging. Those were not in the Broder case, so its an apples-to-oranges comparison.
ahhh maybe cause the CNN article doesn't prove that Musk was right. They were driving under different conditions (the weather is much warmer now). Didn't stay over night, and didn't follow the same instructions that the NYT report received when he called Tesla.
Repeating someone's experiment but changing several of the variables (temperature, overnight stop versus all-in-one-day) does not refute the experiment.
> Repeating someone's experiment but changing several of the variables (temperature, overnight stop versus all-in-one-day) does not refute the experiment.
That depends. If the stress on the car's battery is the same, but the driver's behavior with respect to charging is different, then the new experiment may have important things to tell us.
And remember -- in science, there are no failed experiments. A replication effort that doesn't produce the same result as the original experiment is still a useful result.
Yes, true, which means we have a new data set, and if we're careful in our analysis we may discover why the new data differs from the old. Therefore it's a successful experiment.
I don't trust CNN as a news source just as I don't trust any car "journalist" (there shouldn't be such a job because they're just a bunch of liers).
But I'm tempted to say that "of course" that the replay went out flawlessly and the car still had close to 100 miles left.
Broder hates electric vehicles and want that technology to fail: he clearly just wanted soooooo badly to put that picture of the Tesla being towed. You could tell it was fishy from the split-second that picture happened.
Now, interestingly, the logs and Musk's response just show how much he knows about its technology and its cars and how well they've been conceived.
This one is going to end up being a major win for Tesla (and Musk).
I've got a Porsche 911 Carrera and, honestly, I've been tempted by the Tesla roadster. But now seeing what Musk wrote, all these logs and his explanation I just want to buy a Tesla sedan.
Yes, and supposedly "any publicity is good publicity." Let's not assume there's a lesson to be learned at all unless we know how it affects Tesla's bottom line.
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.
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.
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.
Broder was obviously way too happy to publish that picture of a Tesla being towed away.
Car journalists are liers. They do lie. And then they lie more. And eventually they lie even more.
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.
They'll lie and then they'll play on words and say: "Oh but I didn't say that, hence I didn't lie".
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.
Ask this question to Broder: did it make you feel good to publish that picture of a (supposedly) empty Tesla needing assistance?
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.
That guy isn't worthy of being a journalist.
You know what? F^ck the NYT and f^ck Broder.
Tesla: you don't need these intellectually dishonest clowns to become very succesful.
I wish you the best. And your log data makes me want to buy one of your cars. Thanks for that marvel of engeenering.
Car journalists are liars but the CEO of a car company isn't?
In various forums with Tesla owners in similar climate conditions, people agree with Broder's observations. He didn't "lie" about what happened. It's something they noticed as well.
Now you can carp on petty points like him using common sense, but when a car company lets you test drive a car and they give advice, you should follow said advice. I understand crying foul if he did something ill-advised, but Musk did not refute the fact that they gave him what seems to be poor advice. And I don't blame Broder for following what Tesla said, even if it ended up with a picture of a Tesla being towed away.
I'm very surprised Tesla hasn't released the call logs, to be honest. And I suspect, if you saw them, you would agree that Broder's actions are in line with what Tesla told him while he was in the car
"And your log data makes me want to buy one of your cars. Thanks for that marvel of engeenering."
P.S: I recommend you read some of the comments here. The data is in-line with Broder's account.
What I wrote: "I'm very surprised Tesla hasn't released the call logs, to be honest. And I suspect, if you saw them, you would agree that Broder's actions are in line with what Tesla told him while he was in the car"
That is a very simple way of resolving this. And completely within Tesla's and Musk's ability (and if Broder really was authorized to do so, he'd let them release the call logs)
You fanboys' response to this is so laughable and such a good example that there truly is less and less a difference between this community and reddit with each passing day. So Musk makes rockets that go into outer space, is it so unfathomable that he might also make a shitty car?
For values of "shitty" that include "runs out of power when it runs out of power"?
By all reasonable accounts it is a very nice car. What this is all about is allegations of dishonest journalism and bad PR. Who exactly is saying the car is shit?
It is a very nice car because reasonable accounts have said so.
The limitations of the battery technology, primarily the long time to charge, are acknowledged by everybody as far as I can tell, and emphasized by most. Most reviewers have nevertheless not found the car to be "shit" because of that. Hell, not even Top Gear called the Roadster shit (and I, unlike Musk, would classify the Top Gear review of the Roadster as "reasonable").
No, at least they certainly did not use that word however it was a negative review. Let me rephrase: Why is the NY Time review "unreasonable" because it was negative?
Just b/c the account is new doesn't mean I haven't been reading HN for a much longer than that. I'd argue it's a semi noob illusion to assume otherwise :)
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.
When you say "deliberately driving in a place where there was no easy access to a charging station", are you referring to Broder choosing to use the Milford CT Supercharger station, or the choice of an East Coast route?
Because if you are referring to the former, the Milford station is the only choice along the route if your ride is restricted to Supercharger networks (as was the entire basis of the article): http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
If you are referring to the idea to test drive the car along the Northeast Corridor relying on only Supercharger stations, the idea was proposed by Tesla to the New York Times.
>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.
Why not? You're depriving your company of getting the best PR possible: A positive review from a reviewer that is known to hate your stuff.
You can't get that story if you don't let people who you don't like get in a review. And a negative review from a reviewer who's biases are widely known won't hurt at all.
A funny artifact of Tesla's reaction to the NYT piece is that people are reviewing the Top Gear claims (this time with much more credibility lent to Top Gear).
Top Gear filmed themselves pushing a fully working vehicle, while pretending that it was dead. In court, they claimed they never actually said the vehicle was dead, and that what they did was merely for entertainment value.
There seriously cannot be any credibility lent here, regardless of anything else Top Gear did or did not do.
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.
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.
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.