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

What really happened at LivingSocial?

finance.fortune.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 154 posts

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#101

Post by damoncali »

tptacek wrote: post #99
damoncali wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's exactly right - this wouldn't be a story if PrivCo wasn't mostly right about the big picture. The big picture is one of impending doom at LS, and yes, if that comes to bear, the little guys will get nothing. Sure, they come off as slimy (and maybe they are - I have no idea). But the details matter less than the overall story here.

That's what PrivCo would say to defend what's happened. Like you, they'd be careful to couch the defense in terms of ideas that are hard to falsify. Of course, they got to this point in the conversation by reporting a series of material falsehoods; their initial specificity is what scored them a seat at the table. But let's ignore that they have no credibility anymore and instead entertain our own biases about what's…

I can't say I disagree. They displayed some pretty aggressive, and possibly unethical tactics here. But honestly, I don't much care about their account (as it seems to be inaccurate). I do care about LivingSocial's account, which is interesting to me, and paints pretty much the same picture.

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#102

Post by danielweber »

tptacek wrote: post #74
danielweber wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libel (or slander) is really hard to prosecute in America, and with IMHO good reason. IANAL, but this doesn't seem like libel per se, so damages and malice would both need to be proven by the plaintiff.

If LS customers dropped off like flies after this report, there are multiple tort claims besides libel that could come into play. Interference is apparently one of them.

Wow, after reading their concern-troll update about the "little guys" it feels like this is what tortious interference is for. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5259439

(IANAL, and I am even less well-versed about tortious interference than I am about libel law.)

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#103

Post by tptacek »

damoncali wrote: post #101
tptacek wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what PrivCo would say to defend what's happened. Like you, they'd be careful to couch the defense in terms of ideas that are hard to falsify. Of course, they got to this point in the conversation by reporting a series of material falsehoods; their initial specificity is what scored them a seat at the table. But let's ignore that they have no credibility anymore and instead entertain our own biases about what's…

I can't say I disagree. They displayed some pretty aggressive, and possibly unethical tactics here. But honestly, I don't much care about their account (as it seems to be inaccurate). I do care about LivingSocial's account, which is interesting to me, and paints pretty much the same picture.

That is the audience sentiment PrivCo is counting on.

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#104

Post by danielweber »

Macsenour wrote: post #60
officemonkey wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never define yourself by the competition.

But didn't he? I mean, quoting their cap number, it's obvious who he is talking about, so why not just say the name?

They are in a space where mind-share is really important.

(I think that mind-share being important is a sign you are in a risky business, but that's neither here nor there.)

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#105

Post by philwelch »

tptacek wrote: post #87
philwelch wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know LivingSocial is the truthful one? Companies in their death throes have published bigger lies.

Because PrivCo published material falsehoods that are easy to refute alongside the (likely) falsehoods that are harder to refute.

Can they be refuted independently of LivingSocial's say-so?

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#106

Post by damoncali »

tptacek wrote: post #103
damoncali wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't say I disagree. They displayed some pretty aggressive, and possibly unethical tactics here. But honestly, I don't much care about their account (as it seems to be inaccurate). I do care about LivingSocial's account, which is interesting to me, and paints pretty much the same picture.

That is the audience sentiment PrivCo is counting on.

They're counting on me wanting to see the truth and thinking that they're scammy and unreliable? Seems like an odd strategy.

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#107

Post by larrys »

tptacek wrote: post #84
larrys wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"He also says that PrivCo spoke with a LivingSocial spokesman prior to publishing, and sent him a draft of the report with a request for any needed corrections. When nothing came back four hours later, PrivCo published." With respect to the "4 hours later" I would like to know what the standard is in the news business before "going to press" with a story. I'm not entirely certain that a news organization would wait m…

The NYT would be confident in the sourcing of its information if it was rushing something to press. PrivCo's "source" (generously stipulating it exists) didn't even know who LS's investors were.

I got the answer.

The question I posed was:

"When a news organization has what they think is a "scoop" and reaches out to confirm info with a company what is the normal time to wait for a reply before running with the story? I understand each organization has different standards and each situation is different. What are the guidelines or standards that you have seen after a PR depart at a company has been contacted for comment?"

Here was the answer from someone at the NYT (for at least 10 years) that has done front cover pieces and covered startups (among other things):

"It really depends on the topic, the competition and who's being asked to comment. If I called someone like you (business owner) and you didn't at least acknowledge my inquiry within a day -- perhaps asking for more time -- and it was a big scoop, I might not wait much longer. But if I had big news about a government agency or large multinational corporation with many layers, then some topics would merit more time for a response. There are a lot of variables though ... if the CEO of a large corporation got busted for drunk driving and killing someone, that's more time-sensitive than asking for comment about a long-term investigation into fraudulent practices at the company. And as you said, different media outlets have different standards."

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#108

Post by tptacek »

philwelch wrote: post #105
tptacek wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because PrivCo published material falsehoods that are easy to refute alongside the (likely) falsehoods that are harder to refute.

Can they be refuted independently of LivingSocial's say-so?

Like, which firms did and didn't invest in LivingSocial?

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#109

Post by bruceb »

funkbot wrote: post #77

Parts of the PrivCo report might not be accurate, but I don't trust a word Tim O'Shaughnessy says. We were told long ago that we'd be profitable by now, and then there was a round of layoffs. Is he under any obligation to be truthful about any of this? It's an internal email within a private company. Take anything he says with a grain of salt. He doesn't mention the allegation that LivingSocial owes more to merchants…

" From a business perspective, it makes no sense to pay high salaries to college educated 20-somethings to do customer support from expensive downtown DC loft office space"

So true and the same comment I was going to make. I was in the Seattle office and thought the same thing 2 years ago.

Re: What really happened at LivingSocial?

#110

Post by tptacek »

larrys wrote: post #107
tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT would be confident in the sourcing of its information if it was rushing something to press. PrivCo's "source" (generously stipulating it exists) didn't even know who LS's investors were.

I got the answer. The question I posed was: "When a news organization has what they think is a "scoop" and reaches out to confirm info with a company what is the normal time to wait for a reply before running with the story? I understand each organization has different standards and each situation is different. What are the guidelines or standards that you have seen after a PR depart at a company has been contacted f…

You should ask how good their source would have to be to run a story without a response from its subject inside of 4 hours.
Post reply on HN