Sam Altman will clean your house for $5 • Hacker News Board

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#21

Post by wccrawford » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:20 PM UTC

sama wrote: post #14

We're trying something new and innovative, and of course we'll have to iterate on it. We're moving as quickly as we can to fix this and make it work for consumers and businesses--obviously, it doesn't work for us unless it works for both of those groups. We have a chance to really improve local commerce, and I hope we do. As soon as a business wants to opt out, we block them permanently in the system and remove any p…

If you should learn anything from reading tech sites it's this: Opt-in.

Always, always, ALWAYS Opt-in.

Using the names of others to promote yourself until they tell you to stop is unethical and possibly illegal.

This is a stain you can never cleanse from your business. Everyone will always say 'Loopt? Wasn't that the company that used other companies without the approval?' And that's if you're lucky.

Because it if goes any further and a company gets a bad name from this, it'll be 'Loopt? Wasn't that the company that destroyed the reputation of Company X?'

Saying you were 'trying to iterate on it' is not enough. Saying you're trying to fix it is not enough. You need to outright admit how wrong it was and publicly apologize to every company you did this to.

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#22

Post by pg » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:20 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #3

Besides the fact that the idea makes no sense, I find it downright wrong that Loopt is enriching itself at the expense of local businesses. Establishments work damn hard to establish a brand, and here is Loopt going around shitting all over them, without consent. This is where I'd hope trademark law kicks in. Here's hoping Loopt gets what's rightfully coming to them.

I find it downright wrong that Loopt is enriching itself at the expense of local businesses

It would be impossible for Loopt to enrich itself at the expense of the local businesses. A local business wouldn't take the deal unless they felt it was to their advantage-- unless it was a "win-win" scenario.

Let the businesses decide what's at their expense.

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#23

Post by sama » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:20 PM UTC

rdl wrote: post #19

sama wrote: post #14

We're trying something new and innovative, and of course we'll have to iterate on it. We're moving as quickly as we can to fix this and make it work for consumers and businesses--obviously, it doesn't work for us unless it works for both of those groups. We have a chance to really improve local commerce, and I hope we do. As soon as a business wants to opt out, we block them permanently in the system and remove any p…

I think there is something one or two steps away from what you're doing now which will be a success. Especially if you can figure out a way to lower marginal costs to deliver a service through this kind of shared pre-buy (for instance, it's only worthwhile for a business to open late at night if customer demand exists; this way customers could prepay for midnight meals at a place which normally closes at 9pm on weekn…

We're certainly trying to figure out how to make this work the best for businesses. Certainly helping better utilize resources is part of it, and so is driving repeat visits.

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#24

Post by chailatte » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:21 PM UTC

sama wrote: post #14

We're trying something new and innovative, and of course we'll have to iterate on it. We're moving as quickly as we can to fix this and make it work for consumers and businesses--obviously, it doesn't work for us unless it works for both of those groups. We have a chance to really improve local commerce, and I hope we do. As soon as a business wants to opt out, we block them permanently in the system and remove any p…

When in doubt, use common sense.

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#25

Post by rockya » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:23 PM UTC

sama wrote: post #14

We're trying something new and innovative, and of course we'll have to iterate on it. We're moving as quickly as we can to fix this and make it work for consumers and businesses--obviously, it doesn't work for us unless it works for both of those groups. We have a chance to really improve local commerce, and I hope we do. As soon as a business wants to opt out, we block them permanently in the system and remove any p…

Sam-

There's no way this should be an opt out. Loopt is trading on the business's good name and offering a "deal" that doesn't exist.

It's inconveniencing the business and potentially damaging their relationships with customers to the benefit of Loopt.

It's just plain wrong and indefensible.

(Author of the original post.)

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#26

Post by sama » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:24 PM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #21

sama wrote: post #14

We're trying something new and innovative, and of course we'll have to iterate on it. We're moving as quickly as we can to fix this and make it work for consumers and businesses--obviously, it doesn't work for us unless it works for both of those groups. We have a chance to really improve local commerce, and I hope we do. As soon as a business wants to opt out, we block them permanently in the system and remove any p…

If you should learn anything from reading tech sites it's this: Opt-in. Always, always, ALWAYS Opt-in. Using the names of others to promote yourself until they tell you to stop is unethical and possibly illegal. This is a stain you can never cleanse from your business. Everyone will always say 'Loopt? Wasn't that the company that used other companies without the approval?' And that's if you're lucky. Because it if go…

I've sent apologies to the companies that were at all upset, and I apologize again here (and we're working to get the companies that are excited about this up and running as soon as possible). They've been understanding.

I think if we use the name of a business in a "Loopt users want a deal at Place X. If enough users express interest, Loopt will talk to the business owners to try to make it happen" that's ok. But we definitely shouldn't imply that a business has given any sort of consent before they have, and we shouldn't use their logo or images.

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#27

Post by rockya » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:26 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #22

potatolicious wrote: post #3

Besides the fact that the idea makes no sense, I find it downright wrong that Loopt is enriching itself at the expense of local businesses. Establishments work damn hard to establish a brand, and here is Loopt going around shitting all over them, without consent. This is where I'd hope trademark law kicks in. Here's hoping Loopt gets what's rightfully coming to them.

I find it downright wrong that Loopt is enriching itself at the expense of local businesses It would be impossible for Loopt to enrich itself at the expense of the local businesses. A local business wouldn't take the deal unless they felt it was to their advantage-- unless it was a "win-win" scenario. Let the businesses decide what's at their expense.

Merely publishing these deals enriches Loopt at the expense of the business -- even if none of them take it.

Loopt is building a mailing list of people using the business's brand name and causing customer service issues for them.

I've forward to this to some friends in the payments space. This might be considered credit card fraud because they are also taking people's credit card numbers in conjunction with a service they can't commit to delivering.

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#28

Post by potatolicious » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:28 PM UTC

repos wrote: post #10

ianterrell wrote: post #8

This is slightly reminiscent of Get Satisfaction's model of creating support forums for companies unless they opt out. And sometimes those companies take offense: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1650-get-satisfaction-or-else

Can companies really opt out of Get Satisfaction, or will they always be presented with the "Company X has not yet committed to open conversations about its products or services." If Loopt explicitly allows companies to opt out (and prevent the creation of deals for that company) then perhaps the service might be beneficial (companies that opt in to stay may get valuable feedback of what the consumer wants/would be w…

I'm not quite so confident about this idea. To me, all you will get are people voting for discounts at places they already frequent. This is not a good measure of what customers want, nor the prices they're willing to bear for these goods and services.

I may be willing to pay $3 for a latte from my favourite coffee shop... but you're damn right I'm going to vote yes on $1 coffee. Why wouldn't I? This is going to result in a lot of businesses needlessly offering discounts to existing customers for little discernible benefit. On top of this, it sheds no light on the effectiveness of pricing structures, since there's nothing in the system that encourages the discovery of pricing equilibrium.

I've spoken to a couple of business owners who have done Groupons - they see it as a marketing expense that seems to have greater returns than many traditional methods (coupons books, junk mail, etc). But Groupon works in a way that this idea does not: it gets new customers (whether or not they're good new customers is besides the point).

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#29

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:31 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Sam Altman will clean your house for $5

#30

Post by rockya » Sat, Jun 25, 2011, 10:38 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #29

[deleted]

I always separate the person from the model. My criticism is of the model and the actions. The headline was to make a point as to how absurd what Loopt did is.

I have never met you, so I have no opinion on you. I know people who know you and they've said good things in the past.