-
- Crisis comms 101 usually suggests you don’t draw attention to the element tarnishing your reputation, as that could be adding fuel to the fire
- That said, using your voice to “front run” or preemptively get your message out in its purest form is incredibly powerful. Coinbase is taking control of the situation
- Front running is usually only recommended when the facts are on your side and you can 100% substantiate your point. The execution needs to be perfect
- Crisis comms 101 usually suggests you don’t draw attention to the element tarnishing your reputation, as that could be adding fuel to the fire
Something really interesting happened between a business and the media this week. Cryptocurrency platform Coinbase and the New York Times had a very large public tiff.
This year has been tumultuous for many reasons. The global Coronavirus pandemic, the growing demands for racial equality, a strengthening Black Lives Matter movement, a US presidential election (among so much more) have all been huge issues. In the midst of all this, brands are encouraged to take a stance and engage in these societal issues, all while keeping their teams united and focused on their own tasks and business goals.
Coinbase is taking a laser-focused approach to their mission and actively distancing itself from issues like US elections, and societal movements like Black Lives Matter
Back in September, Coinbase publicly announced that during all of this societal turmoil, they would become laser focused on achieving their mission. That is “to create an open financial system for the world. This means we want to use cryptocurrency to bring economic freedom to people all over the world.” The company wants to focus on cultivating a championship team and building, products and culture. You can read more about this in depth here, and you can read Coinbase’s culture doc here.
The Coinbase Mission: To create an open financial system for the world. This means we want to use cryptocurrency to bring economic freedom to people all over the world.
In a time where we’ve seen most companies come out with a point of view on political and societal issues (some with more gravitas than others), Coinbase’s move has been unique and this sparked quite the debate on social media (mainly Twitter, where the cryptonauts tend to hang out). As a result of the contention, Coinbase offered a generous exit package available to any employee who didn’t feel they could support this directional, mission-focused approach. You can read more about the exit package and how Coinbase handled this delicate discussion here.
Coinbase, just like the majority of people and companies in the blockchain and cryptocurrency world are libertarian leaning. This means there is no-minimal state intervention, and there is a common belief that the market will look after itself. Based on this, it’s likely that meritocracy is commonplace. That said, positive discrimination has its benefits, which many companies, not just those in tech, could benefit from. Libertarian business policies vs liberal positive discrimination style policies are up to the owner of the company, and we have to respect that.
In addition to this, we have to also respect and accept that a global, open financial system that can economically empower people across the world is no small task. Financial inclusion is a huge project, and an under-reported one at that. There are a reported 1.7 billion adults on this earth who are unbanked. Cryptocurrency and the platforms that power it are a vehicle for economic empowerment therefore – potential to pull a huge proportion of the world out of poverty. The barriers to entry for a cryptocurrency wallet are much lower than the barriers to entry for obtaining a traditional bank account. Financial inclusion is a justified mission and it does warrant the full attention of a company.
Coinbase has it’s work cut out and I could talk about the social benefits of blockchain technology for ages, but I digress.
Ultimately, this Coinbase x NYT debacle highlights that to make any real social impact, a company has to really focus. Do we really want to see yet another company share empty Black Lives Matter or Pride content on social media, that’s not backed up by true action? Too many brands share empty words on social issues – likely because their isn’t time or budget in the business day to thoroughly invest and become an activist for every single social issue. So we can see where Coinbase is coming from, and during the process they highlight the realities and risks of reputation management and media relations in 2020. Things are changing.
The New York Times published a “hit piece” about Coinbase on Friday 27th November 2020. Ahead of the story, the NYT reached out to Coinbase for comment.
This is where it gets interesting.
The NYT article focused on the stories of a handful of Black former employees who left the company in early 2019. NYT implies they experienced discrimination which is why they left.
Ahead of this story being published in the New York Times on 27th November 2020, Coinbase attempted to “front-run” the story and publish their own blog piece. This raises some huge questions regarding media relations, industry trust and the future of how businesses should and can act during their media relations.
So, before the NYT story was published online, Coinbase published an internal email on Thursday 26th November that was sent to all employees. They did this in the interest of transparency. You can read the full article and email here. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and his team alerted the company (and subsequently, the public) to the negative New York Times story that was then due to be published. Brian explained the story would likely slate Coinbase for the stories and claims of former employees, all of whom left the company pre-2019 – suggesting that Coinbase Black employees have been discriminated against. Brian went on to mention “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.” And he explained and reinforced the importance of the company’s updated “Belonging, Inclusion and Diversity efforts”.
“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.” And he explained and reinforced the importance of the company’s updated “Belonging, Inclusion and Diversity efforts”.
What does this mean for Coinbase?
All in all, you can see that Coinbase’s intentions seem perfectly innocent – they are simply trying to “get there first” and make sure their employees, friends and family of employees hear the company’s point of view first, before jumping to conclusions based on the New York Times article.
Note that Coinbase highlighting the NYT article also means guaranteed readership for it. Crisis comms 101 traditionally advises you to not draw attention to the issue/article tarnishing your name.
A NYT tech reporter Mike Isaac tweeted about the story, explaining this- saying Coinbase has “guaranteed readership for the coming story and torched any semblance of trust or relationship they had” with the NYT.
Fascinatingly, the majority of conversation and response to this saga on social media has been positive for Coinbase. There has been an overbearing sense of support for the tech company. Many members of the public have responded criticising the New York Times’ own lack of ethics and moral code. – stating that the media has zero ground to stand on when trying to allegedly hold other companies to account. In addition to this, the NYT is being called out for their desire to publish this “hit piece” regardless of what Coinbase had to say.
However, there have been some mentions of Coinbase potentially cultivating a “cancel culture” in their “laser-focused” mission driven approach to business. The company is known for its libertarian values – in line with many people and other organisations in the cryptocurrency industry as I mentioned previously. That’s not to say libertarians are actively racist of supporters of cancel culture. But rather, they believe the market will look after itself and as such – social issues will look after themselves. Although based on the company’s commitment to internal Belonging, Inclusion & Diversity, the cancel culture argument doesn’t stack – they are still trying to create a positive culture internally, just choosing not to take a point of view on external issues. That said, they still have far to go to create an ideal ecosystem of people of different backgrounds. As the NYT reported “Three percent of the company’s employees are Black, which is less than half the average in most of the tech industry, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.” The article does fail to mention the large numbers of Coinbase staff that descend from Asian heritage. Asians (be that Indian, Chinese or other Asian countries) are left out of the article. The NYT seems to disregard the fact that the myriad of Asian cultures that are overindexed on in many tech companies is “diversity” too. Just taking Indian and Chinese cultures for example – these are two vastly different cultures which are frequently working in harmony with the white people in the industry. Why are Asians conveniently left out of this diversity conversation? Diversity isn’t meant to be selective.
The media implications
It’s worth looking at the fact that NYT staff have interpreted the Coinbase front running /preemptive blog post as comparable to the theft of story and they are so shocked by the fact a private company is audacious enough to stand its ground against a media big dog. Traditionally, the media is there to hold the world to account, and many journalists do agree that this is why they do what they do. But in reality, there is also a fear-mongering side to the media, that makes people and companies feel like they need to pander to their wants. It’s a complex business, what with the commodification of attention these days, and accepting the true motivations of media companies these days. Ultimately we all know that media need clicks, and are less focused on doing what’s best for society if a there’s weigh up between sensationalised news and clicks (profits) and a fair and ethical story.
That said, stories about mistreatment do need to be told – and ultimately the public can make up their own minds about what to believe, as long as a balanced story is presented to them.
Many are also calling out the NYT for its hypocrisy given journalism is among the least diverse industries in the USA. Racial and ethnic minorities make up about 40% of the US population, according to Pew Research. And diversity in journalism falls far below this rate, with only 2 of the top editors in the country being of a non-white background. So all in all, we can safely say journalism is less diverse than the tech industry in the US.
Coinbases’ actions have been seen by some (many journalists) as “burning bridges” with media and breaking trust. This could potentially impact how other media outlets interact with Coinbase in future – they’d be weary of the fact they know Coinbase are unafraid of sharing their own contradictory point of view. But ultimately, so what? The issue here is relationships. If the NYT didn’t build such as relationship with Coinbase to publish an objective story and share both sides of the contention at hand, is it any wonder Coinbase decided to publish the other half of the story?
Freedom of speech goes both ways.
Conclusion
If the media is saying something a person or company disagrees with, why is the done thing to stay quiet and let the media say and do what it wants, with no repercussions?
Why do we as a society hold the media in such high regard? Especially, when asked, 47% of society actively distrust the media according the Edelman’s Annual Trust Barometer data from January 2020. (Shout out to my old team for work on this year after year!)
Not to mention, unethical actions are consistently happening in the media – remember News of the World phone hacking scandal? The media doesn’t always do the right thing. And let’s go back to my earlier point above, the traditional media, NYT included, is not exactly diverse either, far less diverse than tech even. This is true for both the US and the UK, as reported by young journalists such as Helena Wadia and Faima Bakar in the Press Gazette.
Overall, I salute Coinbase for having the guts to share their point of view publicly. They haven’t lost anything by doing so. Why shouldn’t the general public have access to two sides of a story? People can make up their own minds.
What does this mean for your business and reputation management?
Crisis comms 101 usually suggests you don’t draw attention to the element tarnishing your reputation, as that could be adding fuel to the fire. However, using your voice to proactively get your message out, in its purest form is incredibly powerful. Coinbase is taking control of the narrative, and you have to applaud their efforts.
“Front running” (aka preemptively telling your story) is usually only recommended when the facts are on your side and you can 100% substantiate your point, and the execution needs to be perfect.
If you decide to publish your words, ahead of, or against a “hit piece” or “smear”, consider how your audience are going to respond. Will they support your brand’s stance? Is it in line with your brand-audience relationship? Or will it damage it?
Ultimately, as Coinbase clearly stated, they do not care what this specific media outlet thinks of them, but they do care about their employees and users, and ultimately they are only going to do what serves them.
And if focusing on one issue- financial inclusion – is what they want to do for their good karma, then the public should respect that, and support their decision to share their logic, instead of being pressured into staying quiet because a media giant said so.