4 ms·

I'm confused that they had a business BEFORE their data breach. That the same people who thought it was a good idea to publicly search and advertise for a secr

I'm confused that they had a business BEFORE their data breach. That the same people who thought it was a good idea to publicly search and advertise for a secret affair would continue doing so after a privacy breach is less of a shock.

poulsbohemian 8y ago
I once worked at a company that did about $50 million / year at 19.95/mo/customer where about 99% of those customers had forgotten they ever signed up. So it isn’t that surprising AM is still in business.
- beering 8y ago
  AOL?
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    No, but more or less of that era. What was really interesting about it was that while I think there had been some dubious tactics to lure people to the product (before my time), the team I was on legitimately wanted to create a useful / valuable product for customers. Ironically, in the course of doing that it drove customers away as they became aware that they had signed up for this thing they had completely forgotten about. So in the course of making right with customers, that $50+MM/year stream disappeared from the company. There's a business lesson or two in there somewhere, but I'm not sure I like what it might say.
    - AlexCoventry 8y ago
      > I'm not sure I like what it might say. To me it says economic performance isn't everything, and I like that idea.
- NikolaNovak 8y ago
  This is not actually an unreasonable business model, and is explicitly the profitability criteria for most gyms / fitness clubs.
village-idiot 8y ago
I’m surprised that anyone thought there were a lot of women on that site. To me it seemed one step up fronm “Hot singles in <IP address location>!” Laughably transparent with a side order of extra skeeze.
- x0x0 8y ago
  It turns out -- IIRC -- that Ashley Madison was basically hiring women to flirt with potential customers. Something like that came out in the dump. quick google: https://splinternews.com/ashley-madison-comes-clean-about-all-those-fembots-on-t-1793860003 https://splinternews.com/ashley-madison-comes-clean-about-al...
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    I understand that, I’m just shocked anyone fell for it.

poulsbohemian 8y ago

I once worked at a company that did about $50 million / year at 19.95/mo/customer where about 99% of those customers had forgotten they ever signed up. So it isn’t that surprising AM is still in business.

beering 8y ago
AOL?
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  No, but more or less of that era. What was really interesting about it was that while I think there had been some dubious tactics to lure people to the product (before my time), the team I was on legitimately wanted to create a useful / valuable product for customers. Ironically, in the course of doing that it drove customers away as they became aware that they had signed up for this thing they had completely forgotten about. So in the course of making right with customers, that $50+MM/year stream disappeared from the company. There's a business lesson or two in there somewhere, but I'm not sure I like what it might say.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    > I'm not sure I like what it might say. To me it says economic performance isn't everything, and I like that idea.
NikolaNovak 8y ago
This is not actually an unreasonable business model, and is explicitly the profitability criteria for most gyms / fitness clubs.

village-idiot 8y ago

I’m surprised that anyone thought there were a lot of women on that site. To me it seemed one step up fronm “Hot singles in <IP address location>!” Laughably transparent with a side order of extra skeeze.

x0x0 8y ago
It turns out -- IIRC -- that Ashley Madison was basically hiring women to flirt with potential customers. Something like that came out in the dump. quick google: https://splinternews.com/ashley-madison-comes-clean-about-all-those-fembots-on-t-1793860003 https://splinternews.com/ashley-madison-comes-clean-about-al...
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I understand that, I’m just shocked anyone fell for it.