5 ms·

The title is false. Here is why their style works: We read the exaggeration and translate it from 37Signals to the reasonable thing we expect they are trying

The title is false. Here is why their style works: We read the exaggeration and translate it from 37Signals to the reasonable thing we expect they are trying to say. For example, he might be saying: * "Buying ideas/talent rarely works out" * "Buying ideas/talent only works if you pay with culture" * "Buying ideas/talent can't work if the buyer is big" So when we encounter a 37Signals post and generally disagree with it, there is easy fuel for our side of the argument. Those that agree with the general idea get to argue for their favorite interpretation of what they must be saying. The imprecision and tone creates two sides maximally equipped to have a stupid internet discussion.

danilocampos 16y ago
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better. 37signals is becoming one of the most accomplished trolls on the internet. The first (non patent) corporate troll? Surely they can't be, but I can't think of another. The sad thing is, they have interesting things to talk about. But today, just like yesterday, they go for the cheap thrills of a spicy headline over having a substantive discussion about things that are important. In the short term, this generates pageviews and, potentially, sales. In the long term, it just makes them look like schmucks. Through the tone of their blog, I've gone from having a decent opinion of 37signals to being entirely unwilling to ever work with or for them. They just seem more like zealots than they do fun guys. Is alienating tech professionals really the best strategy for their business?
- pchristensen 16y ago
  Have you ever met them in person? I've met Jason and David and they're both smart and understand nuance much more than their style of writing conveys. I've developed a mental filter with for their titles that turns absolutes into mostlys, so "You can't buy ideas or talent" turns into "Buying ideas or talent is rarely successful". "Acquisition Condolences" becomes "Sometimes a big payday includes a soul-crushing earnout where you lose your work environment and your product dies". Joel Spolsky wrote once about how if you're going to make an airtight argument, it takes so long to list all the caveats that all the power is out of it.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    Having to apply a mental filter like that is tiresome. I'd rather just skip it.
    - joshuacc 16y ago
      Personally, I find that it's the same mental filter I apply to just about any discussion outside of academic subjects. Very few of the people I know bother to use qualifiers like "usually," "often," etc. Those are just understood.
      - mbreese 16y ago
        I'm an academic, and I rarely use absolutes such as 'always' or 'never' (this sentence being a good case). It's just so ingrained in academia that there are very few absolutes, and that there are almost always edge cases. As such, I refrain from making those statements... But that doesn't make it any less tiring... my mental output filter requires a decent amount of effort to keep going and makes things more verbose...
        derefr 16y ago
        In fact, since there are so few absolutes, both in and out of academia, it should be taken as a given that any time someone uses one, they are using it as a figure of speech; to actually come to their true, basically-now-jargon meanings of universal quantification, the speaker must add further words. It's basic Huffman encoding: the figurative use occurs much more frequently, so it gets the short means of expression.
      - scott_s 16y ago
        I do not find it's the same filter for me. As danilocampos points out in a cousin comment, I feel a difference between 37Signals essays and an essay where I feel the author is working with, and respecting the reader.
  - ams6110 16y ago
    To quote Elements of Style, vigorous writing is concise. Clutter it up with a bunch of qualifiers and it becomes tedious to the reader and the point you're trying to make gets muted.
- joshuacc 16y ago
  I wouldn't call them trolls, just writers with a taste for controversy. And I don't really see much of a change since I've been reading Signal vs. Noise (a few years). "Is alienating tech professionals really the best strategy for their business?" How many people does this sort of post actually alienate? From what I can tell, 37signals' customers are primarily small businesses who enjoy the "rail against the behemoth" approach.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    In fairness, I live to rail against the behemoth. I've got a rich streak of idealism, and I can see the value in iconoclasm. At the same time, controversy over substance feels like the cheap way to have a conversation. It feels exploitative, instead of virtuous. I find more enjoyment in, say, Paul Graham's measured, thoughtful approach to a subject. It feels like I'm reading someone who respects me and respects the conversation he is joining. It's entirely possible to voice powerful disagreement without being inflammatory. If 37signals wants to be the Howard Stern of tech blogging, that's an entirely reasonable position. It can be entertaining to watch and I'm sure it's fun to write. It's just not for me.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >I wouldn't call them trolls, just writers with a taste for controversy. I wouldn't call them $word, just definition($word)[1]?
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      The difference between a troll and a controversial writer is that a troll cares about the point as a means to effect controversy whereas a legitimate writer cares about the controversy as a means to get the point across. 37Signals seems more the latter than the former.
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        If the controversy were a byline then the writer would have a "taste for" pushing their point though and merely be riding the controversy to get there. IMO writers often care about controversy because they make money based on engagement and get better responses if people are passionate about the subject. I don't think this harms their legitimacy as a writer it just provides a poor motive. Trolls on the other hand want to maximise engagement as it gives them a sort of sadistic pleasure, they do it for free.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- blasdel 16y ago
  I confronted Jason Fried about this at last year's Startup School, and I think I figured it out — because they avoid adding features to their products, writing serves as their real creative outlet. He told me that anyone at the company can freely post to the SvN blog, and it appears that they do.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    This has a shocking ring of truth to it. Reading it gave me a sensation in my head not unlike the satisfying, chunky "clunk" of my middle school combination lock sliding open.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
GBond 16y ago
Not saying it is good or bad but the reasoning behind 37's style of writing became evident after I read this. It is from a chapter of their book Rework entitled "Pick a Fight": "Having an enemy gives you a great story to tell customers, too. Taking a stand always stands out. People get stoked by conflict. They take sides. Passions are ignited. And that’s a good way to get people to take notice."
- kenjackson 16y ago
  But to take notice of what? There are so many things of real controversy that one can take a stand on. Why make things up that you don't really believe in to have an argument where you don't disagree with the opposition? I get that 37 Signals is successful. But I think their writing does their software no favors. If anything I'd be more tempted to not purchase product from a company like this.
  - GBond 16y ago
    In some ways I agree (I've long unsubscribe from SvN because of their black and white position on how to run a company). But from a publicity/marketing POV, I can see why they are doing this. Their market segment is the small biz and they write stuff about how to run one. This is a blog topic segment that is super-saturated, ranging from PG's essays to "get rich quick!" blogs. So 37s made a choice to get notice (and gain leads for more BaseCamp subs) in this arena by any means. Yes, you can argue it is at the expense of audience deciding NOT to become a customer due to opposing their view. But this is the gamble they are taking. They are betting that most people are able to separate having an opposing opinion from seeing the value of being a paying customer of their products.
lkrubner 16y ago
They have changed. When I started reading them in 2000, their style was less extreme. Back then they said useful things about design and how people interact with interfaces. Check out their manifesto from 1999: http://37signals.com/manifesto http://37signals.com/manifesto I find myself in agreement with most of what they say. I do not need to filter. I do not need to internally think "Oh, there they go again, leaving it to me to translate their thoughts into something normal." Their style has gotten more extreme over time. They have been bent out of shape by their success. They seem increasingly convinced that their experience allows them to speak with authority about everyone's startup experience.
- lkrubner 16y ago
  Also, given how verbose they are regarding their success, it would be decent of them to be more transparent about their mistakes. For instance, there was the fact that they store passwords either in clear text or with the possibility of decryption available on their server: http://blog.jgc.org/2009/05/can-you-trust-37signals-with-your.html http://blog.jgc.org/2009/05/can-you-trust-37signals-with-you... The 2 year lag on that deserves some explanation.
- lkrubner 16y ago
  I think this kind of statement has become increasingly common from them over the years: "I don't understand why our industry seems to be afraid of profits, which really just means you make more money than you spend." http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2010/05/26/37-signals-jason-fried-rework/ http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2010/05/26/37-signals-jason-fri... The accusation is that people in the tech industry are "afraid" of making profits. Of course, we all know that people in the tech industry are experimenting with models where it might be possible to make large profits by giving something away for free. Twitter is free but potentially it is worth a great deal. But the nuances get lost in the writing that the 37 Signals crew engages in.

danilocampos 16y ago

Thank you. Couldn't have said it better. 37signals is becoming one of the most accomplished trolls on the internet. The first (non patent) corporate troll? Surely they can't be, but I can't think of another. The sad thing is, they have interesting things to talk about. But today, just like yesterday, they go for the cheap thrills of a spicy headline over having a substantive discussion about things that are important. In the short term, this generates pageviews and, potentially, sales. In the long term, it just makes them look like schmucks. Through the tone of their blog, I've gone from having a decent opinion of 37signals to being entirely unwilling to ever work with or for them. They just seem more like zealots than they do fun guys. Is alienating tech professionals really the best strategy for their business?

pchristensen 16y ago
Have you ever met them in person? I've met Jason and David and they're both smart and understand nuance much more than their style of writing conveys. I've developed a mental filter with for their titles that turns absolutes into mostlys, so "You can't buy ideas or talent" turns into "Buying ideas or talent is rarely successful". "Acquisition Condolences" becomes "Sometimes a big payday includes a soul-crushing earnout where you lose your work environment and your product dies". Joel Spolsky wrote once about how if you're going to make an airtight argument, it takes so long to list all the caveats that all the power is out of it.
- scott_s 16y ago
  Having to apply a mental filter like that is tiresome. I'd rather just skip it.
  - joshuacc 16y ago
    Personally, I find that it's the same mental filter I apply to just about any discussion outside of academic subjects. Very few of the people I know bother to use qualifiers like "usually," "often," etc. Those are just understood.
    - mbreese 16y ago
      I'm an academic, and I rarely use absolutes such as 'always' or 'never' (this sentence being a good case). It's just so ingrained in academia that there are very few absolutes, and that there are almost always edge cases. As such, I refrain from making those statements... But that doesn't make it any less tiring... my mental output filter requires a decent amount of effort to keep going and makes things more verbose...
      - derefr 16y ago
        In fact, since there are so few absolutes, both in and out of academia, it should be taken as a given that any time someone uses one, they are using it as a figure of speech; to actually come to their true, basically-now-jargon meanings of universal quantification, the speaker must add further words. It's basic Huffman encoding: the figurative use occurs much more frequently, so it gets the short means of expression.
    - scott_s 16y ago
      I do not find it's the same filter for me. As danilocampos points out in a cousin comment, I feel a difference between 37Signals essays and an essay where I feel the author is working with, and respecting the reader.
- ams6110 16y ago
  To quote Elements of Style, vigorous writing is concise. Clutter it up with a bunch of qualifiers and it becomes tedious to the reader and the point you're trying to make gets muted.
joshuacc 16y ago
I wouldn't call them trolls, just writers with a taste for controversy. And I don't really see much of a change since I've been reading Signal vs. Noise (a few years). "Is alienating tech professionals really the best strategy for their business?" How many people does this sort of post actually alienate? From what I can tell, 37signals' customers are primarily small businesses who enjoy the "rail against the behemoth" approach.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  In fairness, I live to rail against the behemoth. I've got a rich streak of idealism, and I can see the value in iconoclasm. At the same time, controversy over substance feels like the cheap way to have a conversation. It feels exploitative, instead of virtuous. I find more enjoyment in, say, Paul Graham's measured, thoughtful approach to a subject. It feels like I'm reading someone who respects me and respects the conversation he is joining. It's entirely possible to voice powerful disagreement without being inflammatory. If 37signals wants to be the Howard Stern of tech blogging, that's an entirely reasonable position. It can be entertaining to watch and I'm sure it's fun to write. It's just not for me.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >I wouldn't call them trolls, just writers with a taste for controversy. I wouldn't call them $word, just definition($word)[1]?
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    The difference between a troll and a controversial writer is that a troll cares about the point as a means to effect controversy whereas a legitimate writer cares about the controversy as a means to get the point across. 37Signals seems more the latter than the former.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      If the controversy were a byline then the writer would have a "taste for" pushing their point though and merely be riding the controversy to get there. IMO writers often care about controversy because they make money based on engagement and get better responses if people are passionate about the subject. I don't think this harms their legitimacy as a writer it just provides a poor motive. Trolls on the other hand want to maximise engagement as it gives them a sort of sadistic pleasure, they do it for free.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
blasdel 16y ago
I confronted Jason Fried about this at last year's Startup School, and I think I figured it out — because they avoid adding features to their products, writing serves as their real creative outlet. He told me that anyone at the company can freely post to the SvN blog, and it appears that they do.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  This has a shocking ring of truth to it. Reading it gave me a sensation in my head not unlike the satisfying, chunky "clunk" of my middle school combination lock sliding open.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

GBond 16y ago

Not saying it is good or bad but the reasoning behind 37's style of writing became evident after I read this. It is from a chapter of their book Rework entitled "Pick a Fight": "Having an enemy gives you a great story to tell customers, too. Taking a stand always stands out. People get stoked by conflict. They take sides. Passions are ignited. And that’s a good way to get people to take notice."

kenjackson 16y ago
But to take notice of what? There are so many things of real controversy that one can take a stand on. Why make things up that you don't really believe in to have an argument where you don't disagree with the opposition? I get that 37 Signals is successful. But I think their writing does their software no favors. If anything I'd be more tempted to not purchase product from a company like this.
- GBond 16y ago
  In some ways I agree (I've long unsubscribe from SvN because of their black and white position on how to run a company). But from a publicity/marketing POV, I can see why they are doing this. Their market segment is the small biz and they write stuff about how to run one. This is a blog topic segment that is super-saturated, ranging from PG's essays to "get rich quick!" blogs. So 37s made a choice to get notice (and gain leads for more BaseCamp subs) in this arena by any means. Yes, you can argue it is at the expense of audience deciding NOT to become a customer due to opposing their view. But this is the gamble they are taking. They are betting that most people are able to separate having an opposing opinion from seeing the value of being a paying customer of their products.

lkrubner 16y ago

They have changed. When I started reading them in 2000, their style was less extreme. Back then they said useful things about design and how people interact with interfaces. Check out their manifesto from 1999: http://37signals.com/manifesto http://37signals.com/manifesto I find myself in agreement with most of what they say. I do not need to filter. I do not need to internally think "Oh, there they go again, leaving it to me to translate their thoughts into something normal." Their style has gotten more extreme over time. They have been bent out of shape by their success. They seem increasingly convinced that their experience allows them to speak with authority about everyone's startup experience.

lkrubner 16y ago
Also, given how verbose they are regarding their success, it would be decent of them to be more transparent about their mistakes. For instance, there was the fact that they store passwords either in clear text or with the possibility of decryption available on their server: http://blog.jgc.org/2009/05/can-you-trust-37signals-with-your.html http://blog.jgc.org/2009/05/can-you-trust-37signals-with-you... The 2 year lag on that deserves some explanation.
lkrubner 16y ago
I think this kind of statement has become increasingly common from them over the years: "I don't understand why our industry seems to be afraid of profits, which really just means you make more money than you spend." http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2010/05/26/37-signals-jason-fried-rework/ http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2010/05/26/37-signals-jason-fri... The accusation is that people in the tech industry are "afraid" of making profits. Of course, we all know that people in the tech industry are experimenting with models where it might be possible to make large profits by giving something away for free. Twitter is free but potentially it is worth a great deal. But the nuances get lost in the writing that the 37 Signals crew engages in.