Corporate Doublespeak (Or When Companies Lie)

I sometimes wonder if I am being excessively critical or cynical when companies issue statements or answer questions.

But in the last few days I have seen some blatant examples of corporate "doubespeak". First, Sony and the PlayStation 3 price cut.

When fliers from Circuit City's upcoming sales ad surfaced on the Internet Thursday, they showed a $100 price-cut on the PS3. I reached out to a Sony spokesperson who said the company doesn't want to comment on "unsubstantiated claims."

The next day, Sony President Ryoji Chubachi told Reuters in an interview that Sony has no plans to cut price of the console "at present."

Sorry, if I am being dense, but I would think that means Sony is not planning a price-cut at least in the next few days, if not weeks.

Turns out "at present" is literally that. For three days later, Sony announced the price cut.

I am not sure what kind of credibility the company has if its senior executives lie outright to the media. Mr. Chubachi doesn't need to talk to the press if he isn't aware of what the management is really thinking or what its moves will be. But I am positive his interviews with Reuters was with the blessing of other Sony higher-ups.

The right thing for Sony to have done here is accept that there was a leak and immediately announce the price cut. Sure they would have had to advance their intended announcement by four days but that's a small price to pay.

My next example: Microsoft. For months and months Microsoft denied it had a problem with the Xbox 360. In February when I reached out to the company about increasing reports of hardware failure with the Xbox 360, Microsoft PR dismissed my concern. Their response? The failure rate was within "normal range" for electronic devices.

So why did Microsoft say Thursday it will take a charge of $1.05 billion to $1.15 billion in additional warranties for the Xbox 360? Microsoft admitted it was receiving a lot of complaints about the console's problems from its users.

There's a chance that Microsoft didn't know the complete extent of the problems in February when I reached out to them but I find that hard to believe. I think Microsoft knew it had an issue but didn't want to admit it. They wanted to see if it would go away quietly.

When it didn't, or maybe got worse, they spun the story as one where the company was concerned about the users and so offering extended warrantly.

Not surprisingly, Microsoft gets so much flak from the media.

That brings me to the question of the day: When being less than truthful is not okay in personal life, how do executives go to work and think it is fine to do so? Don't professional standards come from an individual's personal ethics? Or do you need a split personality to survive in the corporate world?

To me it is shocking that a company's senior management would not place integrity and credibility on top of its must-have professional values.

Sigh.

Media & Conflict of Interest

My dear friend, Cyrus, has an interesting discussion going on with Donna Dubinsky, a director at Palm and C.E.O of Numenta, over the seeming conflict of interest that New Yorker's profile of uber tech journalist, Walt Mossberg raises.

In his position as the consumer electronics reviewer for the Wall Street Journal, Mossberg is probably the best known technology journalist today and as the profile makes clear a "brand." But it also reveals more than that.

The profile talks about Mossberg's role as an informal "consultant" for companies on products ranging from cellphones to other gadgets. Dubinsky pitched both the Palm Pilot and the Treo to Mossberg to get his opinion on the device.

I think the revelation is troubling.

Mossberg is known for his integrity and I certainly don't think anyone for a moment believes otherwise. He has also built up a reputation of being fair, impartial, and an advocate for what he believes the average user is looking for from a gadget.

Till the New Yorker's profile on him, I don't think most of his readers knew about his "consulting" role with companies on the gadgets he reviews.

From the point of view of the companies, it makes sense to reach out to him. Mossberg is a very senior technology journalist, knows the industry very well, and has seen products evolve. It also helps that his reviews carry a lot of weight.

So not surprisingly, they want to his opinion on what possibly works for consumers and what doesn't.

But do his readers know that? Is there a disclosure at the end of his review on a product that says, Mossberg may have provided his input during the making of the product?

I think his readers have a right to know that. I have been reading his column for a long time and the New Yorker's revelation certainly came as a shock to me.

Clearly companies are putting a lot of weight behind his suggestions else they wouldn't be reaching out exclusively to him. And not being paid for his role doesn't negate Mossberg's contribution.

The profile also left me wondering whether a certain feature in, say, a cellphone that he praised in his review is because the company tailored the feature to his liking through their discussions during the product evolution stage.

Cyrus had an interesting analogy, and one that I think plays well here to describe the situation. He says: "Let’s say that Spielberg came to Roger Ebert while a film was still in production, and showed him a rough cut of the movie, or a storyboard, or a script, even. Ebert would give his opinion as a “non-official” review, and then Spielberg would go back and change the movie to meet the feedback that Ebert had given him. Then the movie would come out, very different then what Ebert had seen before, and he gave it a positive review. Don’t you think that would be a little strange? ."

I think what the New Yorker profile of Mossberg also shows is the cozy relationship between the big media and the companies they cover.

It's also one reason why, I think, there is increasing distrust of the media among the general public.

Another indication of how relationships between big media and companies work to mutual benefit? Mossberg's All Things D site has a conference coming up soon. Jeff Hawkins, the founder of Palm, is expected to reveal a new line of business at the conference. There's speculation that it could be related to a new set of devices that Palm may launch.

Hawkins and Palm don't want to reveal any details of that announcement before the conference. While it is certainly their prerogative to chose when they want to announce something, Mossberg's cozy relationship with Palm makes me think it could be a quid-pro-quo relationship, albeit in a very subtle way. What I would be even more interested in seeing is the review of any device that is announced at the conference.

Mossberg may be fair and impartial in his eventual review, if any, but this whole set-up makes me very uncomfortable.

Media companies rarely look at the flaws within themselves. And I am surprised the Mossberg conflicts issue hasn't been discussed more on sites like Romenesko.