Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe he should have named the agency. I disagree. (1) There is evidence that his company may profit from the redesign, and (2) he risks being sued for even the slightest mischaracterization in his blog, which requires tens of thousands to defend (at least). I don't see the point in risking the family business over this. Both parties learned a lesson. Perhaps the WebAgency will decide never to have hourly clien…
Respectfully disagree. There is only one side that suffered the consequences, and it's not the agency. There is no incentive for them to change anything.
Or that it learnt anything more than "yes this really works for us to maximize revenue and we can get away with it".
(I do guess it's better to not name them though -- because naming them risks making actually well behaved agencies or freelancers nervous about working with the client in the future?)