[ekpyrotic]

It is much safer to get bad news out in your own voice than risk that it leaks some other way, either through a journalist reporting on it or, even, an employee breaking the story on social media.

If the company doesn't get on the front foot to control the narrative, they will wake up to an email from a journalist saying that they are writing an article about 30pc cuts.

At that point, the journalist is likely to have heard the news -- and largely written the story. The company will be able to provide a quote, but by that point they will have lost control of the narrative. They won't be able to put their own headline on it -- as the start-up has done with this blog post.

One story becomes two. Becomes three. Becomes four. Etc. Then a media narrative sets in that the company is on the way to bankruptcy, etc, etc. Investors start calling the CEO, etc, etc.

I know that people find these types of announcements cringe and think that PR is a waste of time. But there is a reason most companies use this playbook: it is safer and it works (most of the time).

For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't a justification for all the language and messaging in this announcement, but a broader justification of the general strategy of communicating openly and in your own voice when you have bad news.