Thread by @garius

A quick morning follow up thread on this, now I can see which why the big paper stories are going.

Let's revisit the subject of narrative, why controlling it is important to Uber, and I'll explain how they exploit the lack of continuity in UK newsrooms. /1

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1371958247633076229

Controlling the narrative is important to Uber because, as I've talked about before, they're an investment package first and a provider of services second.

To be snarky, the services don't pay the bills (they make a loss). Fresh investment is a continual need.

For investors to invest, Uber needs to at least be able to claim that:

1) They are meeting minimum legal obligations
2) They have a path to profitability.

I won't go into why 2) is dodgy. Short version: transport doesn't scale like tech. See thread:

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1362723609006006274

So when you're thinking (or writing) about a gig economy unicorn, of which Uber is the unicorniest, bear that in mind.

They NEED a public narrative, at all times, that reinforces 1) and 2). Because without that, investors get spooked. And INVESTORS are Uber's customers. Not you.

And (Credit where it's due) Uber are VERY good at narrative control. Always have been. As I wrote in this follow up to the OG thread, they know when to pressure and when to pivot.

They have a very finely tuned narrative nose. Kudos to 'em.

https://twitter.com/garius/status/1363440288316948482

But that is also why you should ALWAYS assume that anything they say won't be factually inaccurate, but WILL be aimed at either preserving, or moving, the narrative in a positive direction.

Indeed the current UK case is a PERFECT example of that, and i hope will be taught in journalism classes. Because look at how their message has changed in a few short weeks from:

"This affects only a FEW drivers"

to:

"We're making things better for ALL drivers!"

Neither of those things was ever false, but they both require an awful lot of squinting and narrow interpretation to be true.

But as long as you can control the narrative and make it SOUND exciting enough, you can hopefully stop people noticing.

And, to come onto the last point, Uber (and others) exploit the lack of continuity in newsrooms to do that.

I guarantee you that 90% of the Uber pieces you see today will be written by a different staffer to the one who wrote the same publication's piece on the initial judgement

So they won't be sitting there going:

"Hang on. Why wasn't it a big deal before, but now Uber say it suddenly is?"

They're overworked, subject to turnover and under pressure to churn out stories. Critical thinking and research time just often isn't there anymore.

Anyway, thought it might be useful to put all this down on (digital) paper. As I know it's not necessarily obvious.

But honestly, whether you're the public or a journo, remember this with 'big tech' unicorns:

Narrative matters MORE than the product.

So WHENEVER you see an announcement, don't treat it as a full brief of the situation. Ask yourself:

1) How does it align (or not) with previous statements?
2) What does the writer WANT you to think about the company at the end?

Whether you're a customer, an investor or a journalist, understanding a big tech firm's NARRATIVE is going to allow you to understand:

1) What direction they want to push in, or be seen as pushing in
2) What they're hoping you WON'T ask about. Omission is everything.

Use them in that way, and press releases/announcements can tell you a HELLUVAH lot more about a company than the company itself would really like.

Just don't treat them as if they're representative of reality. The narrator is unreliable. Deliberately so.