[avolcano]

This is an odd thing to see widely published. I'm at a company that had a rather detailed negative article written about us, and we were warned about it internally shortly before it was published, after the reporter had contacted us with details and questions. However, we didn't go public with a reaction until after it was out, since it seemed rather pointless to respond to something that hadn't been published yet, especially when we hadn't even seen it in full.

It is odd to me that they would preemptively go loud on this, drawing attention to a story that might not even get that much traction. It seems like it would have been much easier to just let that story go out and respond with a simple "We've investigated this before and dispute the claims, except for these few unfortunate stories we can confirm happened, and here's how we will prevent them in the future." What on earth do they gain with a preemptive memo like this? Are they really scared of their employees leaking this? Would anyone even pick up a story of "someone's about to publish a bad article about Coinbase"?

[lacker]

It is odd to me that they would preemptively go loud on this, drawing attention to a story that might not even get that much traction.

It's hard for me to imagine an NYT story getting less traction than a Coinbase post, though. So is this really drawing attention to the story? Maybe this is just drawing more attention to Coinbase's version of the story, rather than the NYT's version.

Basically, if you're going to end up publishing a counterargument to an upcoming news story, why not publish the rebuttal first? Maybe the tradition of waiting for a bad newspaper article, then immediately publishing a rebuttal, is an artifact of the olden days when there were no corporate blogs and social media, when there was no way to bring attention to a pre-rebuttal.

[ntsplnkv2]

> It is odd to me that they would preemptively go loud on this

"This is gonna be really bad, so we need to get out in front of it." That's what it sounds like to me.

[theanarcrist]

I suspect part of the motivation is to scoop the reporter's own story as a passive aggressive reprisal. It also serves to reduce the chance of future reporters on negative topics to talk directly to Coinbase since they've already showed they're willing to break stories before they publish.

[galaxyLogic]

Yes isn't this a rather common strategy, "Be pro-active, not reactive".

When the actual story comes out it is not such a big news any more, because it is not news any more. First impressions often last, so now the first impressions is that the story is fake.

So even if their response does amplify the story, it might amplify a good story rather than a bad one. So go even so far as to say "all publicity is good publicity"

[JeremyNT]

I get that this strategy can work, but are there really that many people who will be swayed by a pr statement from coinbase? I'm primed to assume their version is filled with lies and spin, and I'm waiting for the piece in the NYT to cut through the corporate pr bullshit.

[treis]

Personally, I don't have a lot of confidence in the objectivity of the NYT around race and related social issues. Not to the extent of "lies and spin" but not exactly accurate reporting either. The truth is likely going lie somewhere between the NYT and Coinbase versions.

[AsyncAwait]

The thing is, NYT has had its own reputation damaged to the point where such preemptive posts may work.

[galaxyLogic]

Well you have an eye for objectivity. Many people don't. And whenever there are two conflicting versions of a story it sows some doubt on both of them. We know this from politics already. So from a pure PR and game-theoretic standpoint I think they made the right (pro-active) move.

[AsyncAwait]

> Well you have an eye for objectivity.

The NYT is far from objective, so this may actually work.

[robswc]

I would personally trust coinbase over NYT at this point...

Especially given the circumstances of the article.

[thu2111]

Well, speak for yourself. My own assessment is the opposite: that the NYT is highly likely to assume anything an 'oppressed minority' tells them is true, even if it's not, and meanwhile a company is highly likely to be more objective: they have every incentive to investigate complaints yet also not self-flagellate if the complaints are false.

That said, I think Popper specifically has done a decent job with tech stories in the past. So I reserve judgement. But only because of him, not because of the NYT.

[ntsplnkv2]

> When the actual story comes out it is not such a big news any more, because it is not news any more.

Why not? I was never going to read said article. Now I am, based on this post, alone. This was never going to be headline news.

> First impressions often last, so now the first impressions is that the story is fake.

Except my first impression is that it is real, not fake, based on this response, because companies lie all the damn time. I imagine many don't believe in company PR at all.

[peteretep]

Their PR agency is asleep at the wheel; there's no way this doesn't amplify the story

[gabereiser]

Streisand effect

[compsciphd]

what major media outlet would refuse to talk to the subject of an article? That would seem to undermine their credibility.

[bra-ket]

I don't know the details of the story, but the thing is with baseless accusations of 'racism' is that it's a perfect slander, one can never prove innocence once proclaimed guilty.

[ntsplnkv2]

Luckily we have journalism and can see what these people claim. Perhaps the article has substance, perhaps it doesn't.

One thing I do know - I would not have read this article had it not been for this post by Coinbase.

[unityByFreedom]

Since we're all hip to this strategy these days, I have the same feeling as GP.

[3327]

Thats exactly what it is. Hey dad, the cops Are gonna knock on the door and arrest me so heads up.

[fatbird]

Everyone who has read this and then reads the NYT story will do the latter with the former in mind. As much as possible, they're anticipating what the story will reveal and getting their objections on the record so that a reader can't help but view the story's assertions in light of the responses they've already read.

Moreover, getting in front of this means adopting a stance of openness and transparency that, in itself, seems quite laudible. As a PR strategy, this is good work, especially for a company that's already raised its profile on these topics earlier in the year.

Whether it's cynical PR strategy or sincere crisis management is left for the reader to decide.

[apexalpha]

It seems their reasoning is explained partly in the FAQ at tho bottom:

We provided several written, on-the-record statements to The Times. We have no control over whether and how The Times uses those statements (in whole or in part) in the story. Given this, we decided to make our email to employees and FAQ publicly available to provide additional facts and context.

[taauji]

Susan Flower's allegations ultimately led to the firing of Uber's CEO

[an_opabinia]

> As Brian shared with the ColorBlock ERG this morning, we don’t care what The New York Times thinks.

Yeah, if this is the level of maturity that’s in charge, it doesn’t matter if these execs personally discriminate against their black employees. They’re donezo.

[person1234]

> As Brian shared with the ColorBlock ERG this morning, we don’t care what The New York Times thinks. The most important thing we care about is you, our employees, and what you think.

Should probably share the whole quote and not just cherry pick.

[defertoreptar]

Anti-Streisand effect? This article "spoils" the surprise of NYT's article. I don't think it's odd, and it's probably the best they could've done if all the people responsible really no longer work there.

[Aunche]

Maybe it's to warn pre-IPO investors so they don't all panic sell when the article drops?