Why did RIM even Respond to The New York Times?
- It only validates what the article is saying.
First they responded via Twitter, then Thorsten Heins wrote in. Considering ALL of the bad press, they've been getting lately, they haven't responded to anyone in a way that really matters. They haven't responded to their consumers. You know, those very consumers in that New York Times article. I'm disappointed with Frank Boulben's tepid response. The guy basically said, "Yeah, we may suck balls, but our phones sell themselves so we don't have to." I'm paraphrasing of course, but WTF, Frank? Is that what Thorsten feels? Is that how the board of directors feel? I'm a stock holder, and I sure don't feel that way. Where is the commercial response, or the advertising response to these criticisms and speculations?
I'm an ad person. Looking at the competition, I see Apple diminishing in terms of the status quo. Their ads lack the luster they once held. Their new devices are no longer presenting true innovation, just remixes of gadget pageantry. A bigger screen on the iPhone 5, and a smaller screen on the iPad [mini]. Big whup. The emperor has no clothes, and RIM, it's very expensive, and very large ad agency, BBDO not doing anything to capitalize on it.
Not doing anything except singing cheesy 80's ballads to developers, agreeing to disagree over twitter, and literally writing a strongly worded letter. Are you kidding me?
80 million people are vouching for RIM. According to Frank Boulben, twenty-two percent of them live in North America, the market where they are facing their greatest challenge, and the market that has been critical to their success in the first place. It's like some weird abusive relationship. RIM is the abuser, and we are the abused. They neglect us, they lead us on, but they never really show us any love, except for when the bruises show, and The New York Times calls them on it.
Before I get labeled a troll for speaking my opinions, let me say I am a supporter of RIM and BlackBerry. From my experience as an advertising professional, I seen a lot a come, and I seen a lot a go. There have been great products that failed where inferior products succeeded. And these things happen for the same reasons every time. Marketers don't speak to their consumers. CrackBerry, and the Mobile Nations is a great place for that to happen but it isn't the only place. Neither is Twitter. Instead of showing me a great camera app feature like rewind, or a great OS feature like flow, relate to me, RIM. Show me why none of the negativity in the media matters, and why my faithfulness to you is worth my while.
#BlackBerryTorchBearerLast edited by srsBlackBird; 10-20-12 at 01:43 PM.
10-20-12 01:21 PMLike 0 -
- NOT responding would validate the article for many people. "RIM can't even deny the truth". It's a toss-up. I'd rather see them refute these over the top bad articles rahter than just let them sit in people's minds without a counter-point.10-20-12 02:20 PMLike 4
-
It's really good business to hate RIM folks. The NY Times article is perfect proof of that. It was the most viewed and shared article on their site for days after it was posted (might be still right now). This is the reason sites keep bashing RIM. Look at BGR and the comments. The articles that bash RIM almost always have the most comments. That means more traffic for BGR. Crazy10-20-12 02:31 PMLike 3 -
I'm pretty sure no one has ever before said "____ cant even deny the truth" as if they're waiting for a reply because in most cases it either doesn't matter, or is just so irrelevant or untrue that it deserves no response or acknowledgement. Most other notable entities seems to be able to disprove negativity through its own success. But then again were talking about RIM here so its not that surprising..
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 210-20-12 02:36 PMLike 0 - I agree in that RIM is in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. Their best course of action to cater to the majority which I think they did.10-20-12 02:37 PMLike 0
- Can I just clarify, in yout title, you basically say that you think RIM shouldn't have reponded to the NY Times article, but then in the first paragraph you say that Frank Boulben should have made commercials refuting the claims (I'm paraphrasing). Which do you want? An all out advertising blitz to refute one "journalists" hatchet job, or no response at all? I'm a little confused
Either way, I believe their response to have been the correct one. Thor politely reminded NY Times readers of a more real truth in his open letter to them. (I'm sorry but Twitter cannot count as an official response from a company the size of RIM, so we can ignore that). Plus, you've got people like Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News doing free advertising defending the BlackBerry too. Overall, for me, that's a pretty good way to get out a response to that article.
Si.richardat likes this.10-20-12 02:39 PMLike 1 - Brian Williams owned this NY Times reporter. This was a weird article, I've never met any such people like this reporter found, not in real life.10-20-12 04:31 PMLike 0
- No I agree with the op. They should have never responded. They acknowledged the negative press which shows that the article did affect them and wasn't so far-fetched to ignore as garbage, which instead proved it showed some validity and truth. What's worse is they managed to write a pretty poor response as well.
I'm pretty sure no one has ever before said "____ cant even deny the truth" as if they're waiting for a reply because in most cases it either doesn't matter, or is just so irrelevant or untrue that it deserves no response or acknowledgement. Most other notable entities seems to be able to disprove negativity through its own success. But then again were talking about RIM here so its not that surprising..
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2
So it doesn't become about facts or reality, it becomes more of a marketing war. The thing is, for people who do feel the way the article portrayed (and I've met several first hand....more on that later), RIM telling them they don't exist/count doesn't make them feel better, for those that don't feel that way....well they already felt that way! Finally, for those who aren't BB users....the corporation and CEO are not exactly convincing endorsements....
So in my mind, I think RIM risks both looking silly, and bringing attention to the situation, for almost no gain. (yes, I agree that the only real gain is making some supporters happy....but again...those people are going to be there anyways)10-20-12 04:47 PMLike 0 -
This was always surprising to me a bit, because I had said it with enthusiasm, and I usually respond with "oh really?! why?"
There were a few who were pretty extreme as well, wanting to destroy their phones, though this was usually due to specific features they wanted and didn't have, or, in many cases, broken down hardware eg my trackpad barely moves to the right
Anyways, the sentiment is definitely out there, and the people I've met have been very defensive and/or conscious about it. I don't think it's a good thing, but there it is.10-20-12 05:03 PMLike 0 - kbz1960Doesn't MatterYep if they didn't respond the thread title would be, why didn't rim respond the nyt article?
I think they had to say something maybe it would have been better if they had someone ask them about it and they just laugh.Thunderbuck and esk369 like this.10-20-12 05:04 PMLike 2 - Bold_until_Hybrid_ComesWaterloo's FinestThe article was ridiculous. People hide their blackberry under their ipad at meetings because they are embarassed??? These people have serious psychological problems if their self esteem and self confidence is changed because a piece of metal and plastic does not meet the needs of those around them. I think these individuals really need to consider some type of counselling or cognitive behavior therapy. Someone should not be feeling like less of a person because a communication device they own does not do video chat.esk369 and CerveloJohn like this.10-20-12 05:25 PMLike 2
- The article was ridiculous. People hide their blackberry under their ipad at meetings because they are embarassed??? These people have serious psychological problems if their self esteem and self confidence is changed because a piece of metal and plastic does not meet the needs of those around them. I think these individuals really need to consider some type of counselling or cognitive behavior therapy. Someone should not be feeling like less of a person because a communication device they own does not do video chat.
I don't think this a good thing, and I think we can certainly rise above it, but to trivialize the real feelings of these people, silly as they may sound, or to think that we are somehow immune due to being better is probably not true. It just means they're ordinary human beings. If I'm being very honest, I can think of times in my life when I've tried to, or wanted to hide some pretty silly, superficial attributes, or goods, and I consider myself (and most around me agree), a pretty independent, critical thinker/non-conformist!notfanboy likes this.10-20-12 06:11 PMLike 1 - Can I just clarify, in yout title, you basically say that you think RIM shouldn't have reponded to the NY Times article, but then in the first paragraph you say that Frank Boulben should have made commercials refuting the claims (I'm paraphrasing). Which do you want? An all out advertising blitz to refute one "journalists" hatchet job, or no response at all? I'm a little confused
Either way, I believe their response to have been the correct one. Thor politely reminded NY Times readers of a more real truth in his open letter to them. (I'm sorry but Twitter cannot count as an official response from a company the size of RIM, so we can ignore that). Plus, you've got people like Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News doing free advertising defending the BlackBerry too. Overall, for me, that's a pretty good way to get out a response to that article.
Si.
If RIM were ever going to respond to anything anyone says, it should have first been a response to it's consumers. Advertising is the most obvious way of disarming hostile customers by entertaining them, and transmitting a relevant, remarkable, and resonant message that actually gets through.
#BlackBerryTorchBearer10-20-12 07:02 PMLike 0 - I was glad they responded. There were a lot of vague or outright wrong depictions of blackberry devices and the platform in that article. The article had received a fair amount of distribution by the time Thorsten decided to respond anyway. It was a good move on RIMs' part because it helped provide a counter point to the poor reporting that the author of the article employed. RIM was smart to piggy back off of that and say hey a lot of what you said was wrong. It was also a good move because it galvanized their user base who vocally defended BB online and it even pulled the media into the discussion/debate. Plus it was also a good time to plug BB10.CerveloJohn likes this.10-20-12 07:45 PMLike 1
- It is a common practice in good journalism to have the two sides of the story, and also debunk any false claims, i.e. being objective.
Thorsten made that clear when he mentioned there is even OpenTable for Blackberry.CerveloJohn likes this.10-20-12 08:43 PMLike 1 - Media is the devil, not just in this case but through and through. The idea that a single view point being transposed into peoples psychy is in itself too much influence over the social mindset.
What is happening with RIM in the media is very strange, I can't relate it to any other company in the past. The closest I can remember (which doesn't seem to fit the bill) is when Ford Explorers were rolling over with Firestone tires, which seemed like a weekly if not daily occurrence and the bad news and finger pointing never stopped. What I do relate it to is some sort of media terrorism on a company. No one finds RIM and their issues that important unless they have some vested interest in it. Just my opinion. If not, then why stop at RIM, tell it like it is, tell people who buy hyundai cars that they are cheap and/or people who shop at Walmart are trailer park trash.10-20-12 08:46 PMLike 0 - Anything posted on Twitter from any company small or large counts as an "official" response in my book. If a company has decided that it will allow some of its executives to post on Twitter, then it knows full well that anything said may be regarded as "official".10-20-12 09:02 PMLike 0
-
- ThunderbuckRetired ModeratorThere are two reasons why RIM needed to respond to the NYT piece. First, there were factual errors, or at least erroneous suggestions along the lines of certain apps not being available, and those needed correction. Second, however one might feel about them, the NYT is among the highest-circulation dailies in the world, with a huge online audience as well. Not only did they publish this piece, it was getting blogged/linked to everywhere and was becoming the source of considerable secondary coverage. I think RIM had to get in front of that somehow, and I think they did it appropriately.CerveloJohn likes this.10-20-12 10:06 PMLike 1
- Forum
- Popular at CrackBerry
- General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
Why did RIM even Respond to The New York Times?
Similar Threads
-
Why did RIM reduce screen size from 9000 to 9700?
By BerryBlack15 in forum BlackBerry Bold SeriesReplies: 15Last Post: 12-26-12, 01:43 AM -
Another response to the New York Times "Article" with a Poll.
By Neely2005 in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & RumorsReplies: 52Last Post: 10-21-12, 09:17 AM -
Did you switch from old to the new bold 9700? If so, have you discovered new features
By cal2okl in forum BlackBerry Bold SeriesReplies: 9Last Post: 12-15-09, 11:57 AM -
Why did RIM need to change charger/usb port?
By b00001 in forum More for your BBOS Phone!Replies: 33Last Post: 12-04-09, 05:09 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD