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

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

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 147 posts

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

#71

Post by Semiapies »

Gibbon wrote: post #43

So GetSatisfaction mildy misrepresents their association with 37Signals and uses their IP without authorization.. and 37Signals counters with a potentially slanderous letter in a public forum? Not exactly a great way to start a dialogue or build a legal case. Most any other company would first engage with a civil, private, discussion, followed by legal action before firing off a public lambasting as a last resort (a…

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.

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

#72

Post by Semiapies »

imgabe wrote: post #52

The site also hosts, without permission, company support pages for over 14,000 companies. They’ll use your logo, title the page “Customer service & support for [COMPANY NAME HERE]” and generally make it feel like an officially sanctioned place to get official support from the company in question. If they're using your company's logo and name, and those are a registered trademark, isn't that grounds for a lawsuit? Isn…

Or operate a "Pepsi Helpline", for that matter.

I'm amused at all the "gee, he should have just emailed them" responses. The fact that 37Signals didn't lawyer up to start with was an act of restraint.

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

#73

Post by knowtheory »

mmelin wrote: post #9
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #3

For what it's worth, Thor Muller (Cofounder of Get Satisfaction) responded in the comments and said the wording was a mistake and would be changed immediately: "Gosh, we messed up on the wording of that badge and are changing it pronto. The wording on that badge was actually intended to explicitly state that the space was NOT OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED by the company, but that doesn’t come off at all. The idea is to encou…

That badge has been on GetSatisfaction pages for as long as I can remember, at least a year. I find it hard to believe that it could be an oversight.

Talking with the GetSatisfaction guys on their Ustream: http://getsatisfaction.tv/

The badge has been up for about 2 weeks according to them. It was deployed with their redesigned header 2 weeks ago.

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

#74

Post by ryanwaggoner »

moe wrote: post #34
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…

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.

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

#75

Post by mechanical_fish »

sfg wrote: post #38
mechanical_fish wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is completely true. That said: Accept the groveling apology for what it is. GetSatisfaction has passed the first test of customer support: When the customer gets angry, you must grovel, and vice versa: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=240170

"GetSatisfaction has passed the first test of customer support", What customer? 37Signals are not a customer, but a victim.

That's true, but this is the internet. Just because the customer is not visible in this exchange doesn't mean that (s)he is not watching.

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

#76

Post by webwright »

tptacek wrote: post #67
webwright wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you didn't otherwise appear like an asshole, you'd hear from me first. If we couldn't come to some accord, I'd weigh the lawyer involvement with the time investment that it'd require to compel you to be more reasonable.

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 respond to feeling pissed off/slighted isn't what 37s did. And it's not calling a lawyer. Or not at first.

If it was important to my business that the issue fix itself, I'd way the costs and benefits of assorted actions. Easiest thing is to pick up the phone and take 15 minutes to politely explain our position and ask for a timeframe for resolution. If didn't feel that was going to solve the issue, I'd go the expose' route (which, as someone else mentioned-- carries a lot more weight if you can say, "I privately asked them to fix it and they pretty much told me to fuck off"). If that didn't work, I'd decide whether it was worth the $300 to spin up a form letter from my lawyer. And if that didn't work, I'd decide whether it was worth it to spin up a lawsuit (in terms of time and money).

Being "pissed off" shouldn't enter into business decisions. But, again-- I don't think 37s' decision to take this public immediately was not motivated by anything but self-gratification (unless you want to go meta and credit them for a great linkbait play).

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

#77

Post by swombat »

tptacek wrote: post #67
webwright wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you didn't otherwise appear like an asshole, you'd hear from me first. If we couldn't come to some accord, I'd weigh the lawyer involvement with the time investment that it'd require to compel you to be more reasonable.

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?

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

#78

Post by Gibbon »

Semiapies wrote: post #71
Gibbon wrote: post #43

So GetSatisfaction mildy misrepresents their association with 37Signals and uses their IP without authorization.. and 37Signals counters with a potentially slanderous letter in a public forum? Not exactly a great way to start a dialogue or build a legal case. Most any other company would first engage with a civil, private, discussion, followed by legal action before firing off a public lambasting as a last resort (a…

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.

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

#79

Post by webwright »

scott_s wrote: post #47
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.

That badge is/was on every page for companies that haven't set up an account with them - which I assume is a lot. And according to what other commenters here have said, it's been worded as such since launch. I have a hard time believing that the "higher-ups" hadn't read something as ubiquitous as this on their own site. Also, at a small startup, shouldn't there be very little distance from the writers and the "higher…

Actually, according to the founder of the company (and, more importantly, the Internet Archive), that wording changed with their most recent release.

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

#80

Post by rimantas »

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…

What? Some random guys put nonsense like "37 signals is not committed blah blah blah" and 37signals should be polite with those bastards? And in case you missed the news, 37signals' main income is not ads on their blog, they have pretty successful web app business. Posting that for "generating page views" sounds ridiculous if you know at least a bit about the company which posted it.
Post reply on HN