Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 334 posts

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#271

Post by alexqgb »

Travis wrote: post #263
alexqgb wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I neither missed nor ignored the segment you cite (though I do appreciate your reading it). The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered. And again, it creates a legitimate source for ivory which has the nasty effect of providing cover…

Seems to me like it would be much more reasonable to blame the poachers and the systems that allow poaching versus one man who legally killed an animal. An animal that was going to be destroyed anyways. In my opinion, Bob Parsons did nothing wrong, even if I wouldn't have posted a video about it. Heck, I also wouldn't have killed the animal. But to attempt to blame him to poaching and historical racism (the great whi…

There's nothing reasonable about blaming one agent instead of another when it's their partnership that's doing the damage.

Indeed, and in a very small way, advocacy for this kind of buck-passing you makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

The problems of trophy hunting, poaching, black-market animal parts, and wholesale extinction are all connected. They're all part of an outlook that reflexively sees wildlife as being worth more dead than alive. The thing supporting this view is a larger (and hugely problematic) outlook that views the Earth as an infinitely renewable resource, and only acknowledges financial limits when it comes to one's own consumption.

The good news is that a growing number of people look at this guy's 'adventure' and think "ick". Though you may not share that sense of moral revulsion, please be aware that it reflects an instinct that you and any kids you may have will ultimately benefit from.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#272

Post by pyre »

barefoot wrote: post #97
kwis wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a CEO who, in 2005, posted a blog article talking about why we have to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, because (mumble mumble) 9/11. He deleted both the original post and a half-retraction shortly thereafter, or I'd provide a link. As such, I'm not surprised that he turned his personal hunting exhibition into a marketing expense. He seems to have a deaf ear when it comes to brand management. And that doe…

Right, I find it difficult to believe that any of this was uncalculated (does that make me a high-mach?) They appear to target the bottom 90% who needs a domain name. And, they very wisely get name recognition with non tech savvy business owners who often have the ultimate decision in which registrar to use. Look at it from the vantage of a typical conservative small business owner here in America. Slaughtering a bea…

  > GoDaddy is not afraid to kill to solve problems
Just don't forget to pay your GoDaddy bills...

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#274

Post by dpcan »

kreek wrote: post #206
dpcan wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The butcher at my grocery store wears a coat with the company name on it while he grounds up my hamburger.

That's cool, so does mine, and I have zero problem with that. However, GoDaddy is not it the elephant butchering business. Slapping their hats on people butchering an elephant strikes me as a crass marketing attempt (even for them).

That's a good point. But do you think they knew that this was going to happen when they handed out the hats?

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#275

Post by mc2k »

travisp wrote: post #119
namityadav wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm -- YES! Sexist advertising campaign = Silly, but I am not going to choose or drop a registrar based on that. CEO shooting an innocent animal = A company that I don't want to do business with. You aren't trying to say that showing some scantily clad women is equivalent to killing, are you?

Almost every CEO in the country is responsible for killing "innocent" animals, since most are not vegetarian. Most are paying others to do it for them and are eating it themselves, but why is that morally better?

This is a form of blood sport (i.e. killing for personal entertainment). Animals that are destined for human consumption aren't generally killed for entertainment.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#276

Post by aridiculous »

mitjak wrote: post #140
aridiculous wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. There are millions of people getting scammed and ruined by fat-cats everywhere, and an elephant is what it takes for people to get mad? Wake up, everyone. I hate asshats like the GoDaddy CEO just as much as you do, but this self-righteous indignation is at The View levels right now.

Perhaps some of us care more about endangered species than those getting scammed around the world? Just a thought.

Scammed and ruined*, and I'd add killed, by way of economic force. Not every death is by way of physical force.

SMH. Downvoted because I prioritize humans over elephants.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#277

Post by epochwolf »

pyre wrote: post #270
jarin wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This satirical response only applies if you value human lives and elephant lives equally.

So true. The Bible says that we are created in God's image and that God gave us domain to do whatever we like to animals... just so long as we don't attempt to copulate with them. It should be a crime to even hint that an animal's life could be valued as a human life... Except for my trusty dog companion.

Sorry if I actually subscribe to that belief. Neither did God give humans a free pass on torturing less valued species. Animals are given as a resource much like trees and oil. Animals also happen to have some capacity for emotion and intelligence. Since they are similar to us in some way we should respect them, lest we become callus with the taking of intelligent life.

As for pets, it's a cultural thing that we don't eat pets. The bible cautions against following culturally aberrant activities provided doing so doesn't infringe on your service to God.

I would hope you will have some respect for other peoples' beliefs in the future.

(Sorry if I am less than clear, I'm typing this on my iPad and I can't edit stuff in text boxes very easily.)

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#278

Post by CamperBob »

dman wrote: post #43
dman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you use a gun for if not killing people or animals?

I dont mind the downvotes but I could like the education on what people who believe in gun rights believe in.

I dont mind the downvotes but I could like the education on what people who believe in gun rights believe in.

I don't currently own any guns, and am clumsy enough to be a threat to everybody within 1/4 mile if I did, but I do believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right, perhaps the most fundamental of all.

Historically, most deaths due to misuse of guns have occurred in times and places where the state has maintained a monopoly on the use of violence. It would be very hard to convince me that a disarmed populace is a net positive for society, over the long run.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#279

Post by wakeboarder3780 »

alexqgb wrote: post #255
ihodes wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can reply without being offensive. You could also save time by not prefacing some of your sentences with insults. Come on, uncool. Additionally, the article you linked says (among other pros and cons) Some countries, including South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia, had been able to manage their elephant populations and claimed that increased populations were causing increased agricultural losses, decrease…

I neither missed nor ignored the segment you cite (though I do appreciate your reading it). The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered. And again, it creates a legitimate source for ivory which has the nasty effect of providing cover…

>The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered

This is not a commercial big game hunt.

>It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic

This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot the elephant left with nothing.

>Even if the necessity to cull does return in certain areas, it's critically important to handle this without reviving the specter of the Great White Hunter. And it's just as important to ensure that any consumption remains entirely local

So the fact he took video of it then means he's making a spectacle of himself? He's just trying to record something good he was doing.

>Letting commodities like ivory and hides slip out may bring short term gains, but only by serving markets that represent the antithesis of conservationism.

Neither of these commodities went anywhere except with the surrounding villagers.

>The arguments you cite don't do nearly enough to acknowledge this aspect of the problem.

Because it's not a problem, nothing was taken.

>Separately, what you allow to offend you is your business. Personally, I don't mind lightly-salted language and a well deserved jab.

You were objectively being an unprofessional, emotional twat.

>Where I take offense is in seeing a demonstrably mindless response that veers wildly off-topic before landing in a thicket of unwarranted slurs getting upvoted to the degree that c2's did. And I hope I'm not alone.

Mindless to who? You. Your entire rant that i've read is 100% mindless to me. Your opinion of what's mindless is just that - opinion, and it's subjective. Since you hate mindless responses I'll assume you think your response is mindful. I find this interesting seeing as how the majority of your post is about "jabbing" people and speaking emotionally.

Re: How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy

#280

Post by ajays »

bpodgursky wrote: post #161
Tichy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He explained it - it gives an incentive for marking more elephants as "problem elephants" than needed. I wonder if a couple of fence (electric) might be a better solution than shooting the elephant. And all I saw in the video was a couple of square meters of trampled grass. I wonder what animal court in the world would give the death sentence for that.

It might look just like trampled grass, to you, but it's Sorghum ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum ) which a subsistence farmer was growing so he could feed himself, and to him it was the difference between eating and starving. It's ridiculous to glibly dismiss the farmer's worries about STARVING because you didn't see much damage in the video. And do you really think a poor village in remote Zimbabwe is going t…

Did you notice that the herd of villagers did more damage to the crops than the elephant?
Post reply on HN