Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail" • Hacker News Board

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#81

Post by rimantas » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 9:42 PM UTC

Gibbon wrote: post #78

Semiapies wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was slanderous (or, since it was written, libelous) about anything in the blog post? Very simply, GS set up web pages where they appeared to represent another company in a detrimental way. That is not something the other company is obligated to quietly request them to stop - they are well within their rights to open up with a cease & desist order, not an annoyed blog post.

For starters he implied (and borderline accused) GetSatisfaction of blackmail and extortionist practices.

For startes GetSatisfaction accused 37s of not caring for their customers. Publicly.

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#82

Post by mechanical_fish » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 9:50 PM UTC

wheels wrote: post #50

mechanical_fish wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's quite bad form to publicly attack another company like this without discussing it in private first. Whereas I think a public statement of outrage is entirely justified. Take a look at the screenshot. GetSatisfaction has been collecting feedback under the 37signals name for at least a month. Those people who typed messages into GetSatisfaction expecting a response have been disappointed for a while. Anyon…

Loud public fuss is usually a reasonable backup plan if asking them to change doesn't work, but starting off by asking people to resolve something lends you credibility because you've tried to resolve things amicably. If you want to put a squeeze on them, you can add, "Or we're going to lambaste you in our popular blog." But starting off that way is just obnoxious. Granted, as noted, being obnoxious drives page views…

Loud public fuss is usually a reasonable backup plan if asking them to change doesn't work.

You still haven't grasped the problem. I'm sure that 37signals could easily have used quiet channels to remove the offending pages, messages, and marketing copy on GetSatisfaction.

But that would not have reached me. Up until three hours ago I was wandering through the world, with a faint memory of the time that I followed a Google link to a 37signals support page and found nothing but a ghost town. To counteract that bad impression, they need me to hear that it wasn't their fault, and they want me -- a potential future customer -- to know that they take their reputation very seriously.

I suppose they didn't have to put up a blog post. They could have filed a lawsuit, or obtained an injunction, and then publicized that instead. Would that have been more polite?

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#83

Post by tptacek » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 9:50 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #77

tptacek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this: what's an honest answer about how pissed you'd be if: (1) I was the top Google search result for "RescueTime security" (2) That page linked to a site where I collected security reports from end-users. (3) That page had your logo on it. (4) That page had copy that might suggest RescueTime didn't take the security of your customer's data seriously. We've established that you'd come talk to me first (act…

Being able to manage "feeling upset" is generally considered a good thing, no? Or are we supposed to give in to our feelings every time we feel upset?

I'm trying to separate the legitimacy of 37signals' complaint --- which I care about --- from the "level of maturity" shown by their response. I don't care about that at all. Why would it? How does it affect me?

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#84

Post by tptacek » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 9:51 PM UTC

webwright wrote: post #76

tptacek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this: what's an honest answer about how pissed you'd be if: (1) I was the top Google search result for "RescueTime security" (2) That page linked to a site where I collected security reports from end-users. (3) That page had your logo on it. (4) That page had copy that might suggest RescueTime didn't take the security of your customer's data seriously. We've established that you'd come talk to me first (act…

Why are you creating a hypothetical situation about security? Seems like a hypothetical situation about customer support would be more appropriate. The answer is (for customer support)-- moderately. But the question is: What's the goal with a response? To make them suffer? Or to fix it? How does it benefit my business to invest extra time/money to make another company suffer? I think the grown up / smart way to respo…

You left "deterring future companies who think this is a smart play" out of the calculus there.

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#85

Post by knowtheory » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 9:53 PM UTC

enjo wrote: post #54

webwright wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit (will probably get a downmod or two for my vehemence). If Jason Fried dropped them a note saying, "I almost hit PUBLISH on the following rant-style post, but I wanted to drop you guys a line first", they would've jumped just as far, just as fast. It would've cost him exactly NOTHING to give it a day or two on private channels before posting a rant other than the time it took to find a contact form and hit "c…

Except that other folks on the web would have no idea this was going on. A private e-mail likely results in a private response (changing the wording on 37signals's get satisfaction page). A public exposure gets things changed... as it did. The fact is that GS got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. To think that the wording on that banner was not carefully considered is just plain naive. The 37 signals post is…

Ridiculous.

As if Fried couldn't have posted the article after an interaction w/ Get Satisfaction. But then it would be a good example of quick customer service, as opposed to a hatchet job.

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#86

Post by lallysingh » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 9:58 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #12

I think it's quite bad form to publicly attack another company like this without discussing it in private first. I see no indication that there was any communication between 37Signals and GetSatisfaction prior to this very public post. I've had this kind of thing done to me before, and I think it's really out of order. Essentially, 37Signals have decided, in this case, to trade politeness and "being good" for making…

I think the extortion was pretty blatant, and the counterattack was proportionate.

The BS response given by GetSatisfaction's people is so bad it proves the point.

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#87

Post by lallysingh » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 9:59 PM UTC

wheels wrote: post #50

mechanical_fish wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's quite bad form to publicly attack another company like this without discussing it in private first. Whereas I think a public statement of outrage is entirely justified. Take a look at the screenshot. GetSatisfaction has been collecting feedback under the 37signals name for at least a month. Those people who typed messages into GetSatisfaction expecting a response have been disappointed for a while. Anyon…

Loud public fuss is usually a reasonable backup plan if asking them to change doesn't work, but starting off by asking people to resolve something lends you credibility because you've tried to resolve things amicably. If you want to put a squeeze on them, you can add, "Or we're going to lambaste you in our popular blog." But starting off that way is just obnoxious. Granted, as noted, being obnoxious drives page views…

It's a nice way to profit from a bad situation. Added would be a pack of lawyers with rows of razor-sharp teeth and large dorsal fins.

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#88

Post by sah » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 10:05 PM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #74

moe wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amen.

Totally OT, but aren't posts like this and other similar "I agree" posts redundant? I thought that's what the little up-mod button was for? This feels like clutter to me.

Isn't "this feels like clutter to me" what the down-mod button is for?

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#89

Post by chris11 » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 10:07 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #12

I think it's quite bad form to publicly attack another company like this without discussing it in private first. I see no indication that there was any communication between 37Signals and GetSatisfaction prior to this very public post. I've had this kind of thing done to me before, and I think it's really out of order. Essentially, 37Signals have decided, in this case, to trade politeness and "being good" for making…

DHH wrote a comment that I really agree with: "Brian, that language adequately reflects the feeling we have when we discover a site that is accepting questions and requests from users who expect an answer there - and will be disappointed when they don’t get it - is taunting the conversation with words like we haven’t committed to an open conversation and then have a price tag to make that go away.

GS’ is certainly helping to turn that image by being quick to respond here, but that doesn’t really change how the situation arose."

I think it might have been more polite to privately discuss this with GetSatisfaction first, but this needed to be discussed publicly.

The only difference between an official support page and an unofficial support page is the added announcement at the top that says the page is unofficial.

The official support pages also says it is supported by employees, but I don't really know what that means by itself. Does it mean that the product is only supported through Get Satisfaction, or does it only mean that company employees read the questions there?

Just check out the pages for officially supported products and unofficially supported products. Photosynth is only officially supported by GetSatisfication. The NY Times has its own customer support. The only big difference I see is that the NY Times has the added message that it is unofficial.

Photosynth:http://getsatisfaction.com/livelabs/products/livelabs_photos...

NY Times:http://getsatisfaction.com/nytimes

GS is advertising itself as a one stop customer support solution.If I believe that a company solely uses GS and try to contact that company, I am going to treat any response as an official response.

With 14k+ plus support pages on GS, I am sure that there are a few companies out there that don't even know they have a GS page. So if GS is not clearly saying that those pages are unofficial, any lack of correspondence will hurt that company.

GS was basically hijacking some companies customer service. If I have a problem with a product, and I incorrectly believe that I am being ignored, the company will end up worse off. At the minimum, I will seriously consider not buying from that company again, and I might mention my bad experience to other people I know. And if my problem was severe, I might think of filing a chargeback.

I really doubt 37Signals spends a lot of time scouring the internet looking for people infringing on their IP. So probably this was brought to their attention by their own customers. So while they could have go about this in a less confrontational manner, I really don't think they were being an arse. This problem deserved public attention.

Re: Jason Fried: Get Satisfaction is "awfully close to blackmail"

#90

Post by webwright » Tue, Mar 31, 2009, 10:12 PM UTC

evgen wrote: post #48

webwright wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't mean accident in that they fell on a keyboard and that came out. They mean accident in that someone wrote it as placeholder (or supposed final) copy and it didn't get reviewed/agreed to by the team before it got launched. Clearly some writer was overzealous and the higher-ups didn't get a chance to read it. Happens all the time at small startups.

> Happens all the time at small startups. ORLY? How many layers of management bullshit are there between the decision-makers at Get Satisfaction and the people writing their core message? This is not some random page buried deep within the site, it is top right on most of the pages they are generating. I have a feeling that what they mean by "accident" is that someone with a voice decided to call them on it...

O Rly.

Have you ever worked at a startup? It's not layers of management. It's a mess of people pushing towards similar goals with a LOT less workflow and oversight than a normal company. Everyone at our 5 person startup has the authority to commit copy to the site. I imagine GS is similar (I think they have ~10ish people). Sometimes it's not great copy. Sometimes it's placeholder copy. Sometimes a user will point out a typo in a prominent place on our site that hasn't been touched for a week-- How could we possibly miss that for two weeks!?

" This is not some random page buried deep within the site, it is top right on most of the pages they are generating."

I don't know their QA process, nor do I know the time/date of the commit of this copy change. But I can say that it only shows for companies where the company hasn't "claimed" the forum. So GS folks could've checked their own forum area, and a few customer areas (which were "claimed") and never seen that message. If one employee made the change without discussing it, it'd be very easy to miss. For weeks at a time potentially. I haven't re-read copy on our home page for WEEKS-- for all I know, one of my team changed it.