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

321–330 of 334 posts

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

#321

Post by tikna »

I dropped a mail to GoDaddy regarding this. Here's the response from their side:

----------------------

Our Office of the President has responded to your request, details of which are described below:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion about Mr. Parsons' recent trip to Zimbabwe.

As you may be aware Mr. Parsons has also made several comments regarding this on his Vlog at BobParsons.me which you may wish to review. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in making any final determination about your relationship with GoDaddy.com.

We thank you again for your time and feedback.

Regards,

The Office of the President

---------------------

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

#322

Post by alinajaf »

epochwolf wrote: post #277
pyre wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

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

Some beliefs don't deserve respect.

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

#323

Post by calloc »

hayley wrote: post #117
X-Istence wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently moved to name.com. I absolutely love their minimalistic interface, and I like supporting local business (Denver)... So far no issues what so ever other than with GoDaddy and moving domains over because of issues with whois, but once there everything is fast, and simple. Unlike GoDaddy's interface.

I'm a former customer of name.com. I'm not sure if they're still doing it, but the thing that drove me away was their spammy DNS. Example: I had valid DNS records for mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com but they were forwarding ANYTHING.mydomain.com to one of their ad-ridden pages. I can kind of see an argument for having that when a domain has just been purchased and there is no valid content yet. But doing that to an…

I do my own DNS hosting, I've never used a registrars DNS services, I've never found them to be reliable enough, nor do they meet my needs in terms of being able to update records quickly or in programmatic way (such as hosting my own DynDNS like service, keeping a record updated for my home IP address).

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

#324

Post by girlvinyl »

Whether or not someone agrees that killing the elephant in this particular circumstance was warranted, I definitely feel like a CEO going into a foreign country and culture, killing an animal and making it into a publicity stunt is offensive and distasteful.

It also seems like many other CEOs would have been crucified for doing this. But for some reason Parsons is getting much less flack than would the CEO of Wal-mart, Monsanto or McDonald's. Why is that?

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

#325

Post by sunchild »

chc wrote: post #179
sunchild wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not offensive to "vegetarians" – it's offensive to people who care about living beings.

If you're offended by the practice of killing living beings for food, but you're not a vegetarian, what you are is simply inconsistent.

You're putting words in my mouth there. There's killing in the name of hunger, and then there's killing in the name of sport. I don't give a shit how much PR GoDaddy wraps around this story (hungry villagers, elephants on a rampage to destroy crops, funding other wildlife preserves, etc.), this is killing for sport.

There's no valid need to kill this animal. If the villagers themselves had taken care of it (or if a game warden had culled the animal as part of a considered program that benefits both human and elephant populations), I may feel differently.

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

#326

Post by elliottcarlson »

wakeboarder3780 wrote: post #279
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…

>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 th…

>>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.

Though it might be arguable that the hunt organizers/tour guides were profit seeking. Guiding someone to a place where they can shoot an animal for fun (with the guise of doing good) will bring them some money. Sure, it could have been beneficial to the community to rid a problem elephant and give the villagers additional meat - but Bob's desire to shoot something is doubtfully meant to be for the good will of the community and more so to fill his own desires of killing something.

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

#327

Post by rlf »

I think many of you are missing the point. One could argue both for and against killing the elephants. I think what's important here, and this is just a guess on my part, is that 1) I believe that Parsons was using this as an excuse to kill some really big wild game in Africa to show how "manly" he is; and 2) he clearly enjoyed it as evidenced by the big smile on his face in the pictures. For comparison, American Indians used to kill buffalo but I don't think they gloated over it as Parsons is doing. They had reverence for the buffalo and demonstrated that by using every bit of each buffalo they killed. Parsons, on the other hand, just did it for the thrill of the kill and that, to me, is wrong.

By the way, I moved all of my domains off GoDaddy last year. I got tired of paying above-market prices just so that GoDaddy could create those lame Super Bowl commercials. Also, their UI sucks.

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

#328

Post by logjam »

Having grown up around guns and hunting, I can tell you this guy's story just sounds worse and worse. Laws and hunting ethics generally precludes use of artificial illumination to hunt by, cf:

http://www.africahunting.com/hunting-africa/1321-namibian-ph...

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37704-3...

No "fair chase" here. Somebody quoted Parson's as claiming it was completely dark as he lay in wait for a hungry elephant to walk right into a field of, well, elephant food. If that's the case, he either used artificial illumination to shoot, or there was no very good way for him to tell whether he was shooting a cow with calf, a calf, or even one of the villagers he now so adamantly (after he gets called on it) and frankly unbelievably insists was the true mission of this hunt...a mission that just happened to come complete with film crew and GoDaddy logo for everyone.

Sounds fishy. I don't fish (or hunt) anymore.

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

#329

Post by mukyu »

d2 wrote: post #242
alexqgb wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pro Tip: Actual dissent requires being on-topic. And that means paying enough attention to know what the topic actually is. Had you actually read the OP, you'd have understood that the crux of the criticism has to do with mindless participation in an obviously bad system. That is, a system that turns a necessary but easily abused task into a profit center - thereby ensuring that it will be stretched to utterly unnece…

Parsons hunting Leopard in Zimbabwe in 2009 with some propaganda at the start of the video on why killing leopard is a good thing: http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=501 As a citizen of a southern African country I can tell you that A) The educated locals are disgusted by this kind of hunting for sport as opposed to food and B) I can assure you that the "foreign currency" that it supposedly brings in is not conve…

Zimbabwe got rid of their local currency 2 years ago. Clearly since it does not exist their money was not converted to it.

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

#330

Post by whatusername »

scythe wrote: post #302
alexqgb wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wildli…

Even the Republicans don't grease their slopes this much. One guy killing one elephant for the sake of a minor and frankly uninteresting publicity stunt (and this guy being part of a small minority of company owners capable of doing this, since shareholders would never approve) does not ipso facto lead to a bunch of rich sport-hunters decimating the wildlife population of Africa as a revival of some sort of primal hu…

I'm pretty sure Steve Irwin was a conservationist though... Aka -- he went and wrestled with Crocodiles but he never shot them - certainly not for sport.

// Being an Aussie -- we'd never really heard of Steve Irwin until he died. At which point he moved from being a tosser to being a national hero.

Post reply on HN