I can't figure out what you're trying to say. You think it's bad he wrote it himself, or good? Are you saying his writing it himself was a mistake, or wasn't? And it does or doesn't sound formal enough? It needs rigor and doesn't have it, or it does have it?
He should have written it with more formality and more rigor. Tesla is a public company and there is already a perception among investors that this is a facade. Musk needs to reposition Tesla as less of a personal experiment/quest and more of a legitimate enterprise that acknowledges its fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Tone and communication are very important in this regard. This release failed to adopt a tone and style of communication commensurate with the severity of Tesla's present situation. Instead, it feels like Musk is treating Tesla as he might a startup. In short, he's being facetious. I doubt the stock will plummet as a result of this, but it was certainly a missed opportunity to reassure investors.
1) It appears that Musk genuinely believes that he is acting as a fiduciary with _long term_ outlook. If the investors don't like the time scale, they can put their money somewhere else. Fuck 'em.
2) In most cases, "formality" and "rigor" only works to mask unfortunate realities and incompetence. Being plain spoken need not imply ignorance nor thoughtlessness. I may not be a sophisticated investor, but Musk's ability to so clearly outline the plan (and proven track record of executing such plans!) gives me great confidence.
3) I view the entertainment and excitement that Musk provides is a small, but welcome dividend that I'm happy to share with non-investors alike. I feel sad for you that you can't or won't appreciate it.
Well in SV I've often seen informality leveraged to mask Kool-Aid. 'If I'm talking like the cool kids, how could I possibly be punking you?' Bit of a cliched strategy really. Clearly some people still fall for it.
This is the same guy joking about smoking crack and listening to Tupac while writing this plan, I don't think he really cares about making a good impression to anyone
Yea. The point is maybe he should care if he's running a company whose market capitalization is related to investor perceptions. Time will tell I guess. And, Tesla may still prevail.
I don't think there is a cutoff point in company size or whatever above which writing suddenly needs to become sterile. What you have is actually more a cultural thing I think. People thinking that a "professional" message is needed, when straightforwardness would be a superior goal. (On the other hand, a good reason to aim for "professional" is that everything released by a company has a consistent voice/tone.)
Notice that Musk runs his companies the same way - by trusting what's really important vs what isn't. And anyone who has invested in Tesla is already familiar with his irreverent character. (See this[1] interview for example).
You are arguing for a more formal and rigorous statement because it would have certain advantages. You should also note that a less formal and less rigorous communication as a rhetorical strategy has it's own advantages.
So unless you do a more thorough analysis comparing the two strategies regarding this particular article of communication, your criticism is just quick opinion without "sufficient"[1] effort to limit any prior biases[2].
[1] Quoted because I have no quantification measure.
[2] If you are a communications expert then of-course this particular criticism against your quick opinion is not justified.
I'm not a shareholder, but his tone always strikes me as honest and smart. I hate reading corporate statements full of vague and formal language, and always feel that they're hiding something with it.
