14 ms·

Incredibly stupid decision to respond this way by Wag. How bad to you have to be at PR to screw this up? It's not hard. Liability in the case of harmed pets

Incredibly stupid decision to respond this way by Wag. How bad to you have to be at PR to screw this up? It's not hard. Liability in the case of harmed pets is extremely limited, so you just pay it all and apologize profusely. There's no way the bad press will be worth saving a couple thousand maximum. Absolute idiots.

wyqydsyq 8y ago
How to sink your own company in 1 easy step
celestialcheese 8y ago
Seriously. It should have been the easiest decision in the world for them - a persons' dog is more important than most other humans to most dog owners, yet the law treats dogs as nothing more than property. Pay up and grovel to these people. In-action doesn't make these things go away. EDIT: just read the non-disclosure section. I understand the impulse to do that, but it's a MUCH better gamble to just kill the story with boundless kindness.
- Judgmentality 8y ago
  > a persons' dog is more important than most other humans to most dog owners, yet the law treats dogs as nothing more than property Something I've always found particularly infuriating is how police dogs are considered officers and often carries a worse punishment than attacking an actual police officer. Not because I am upset that the dogs are being protected, but that the police basically can shoot other people's dogs but nobody can touch their dogs. Jesus I am just going off on tangents tonight. I need to take a break for a bit.
  - berti 8y ago
    This made me really mad last year: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/108562071/police-shoot-family-dog-while-searching-for-wanted-man-in-nelson https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/108562071/police-shoot-fami... TL;DR police looking for somebody went to the wrong address, shot the family dog because it "attacked" a police dog (which was "unharmed by the incident"), and casually told the owners on their way out the door that their dog had died.
    - ajmurmann 8y ago
      Well, police training in the US takes on average 19 weeks, whereas in Germany it takes at least 130 weeks (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_7709638 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_7709638). It takes 12-14 month to become a cosmetologist...
      - astura 8y ago
        That event took place in New Zealand, not the US.
    - masonic 8y ago
      In the famous Ruby Ridge incident, a Federal sniper shot the Weaver's dog from long distance... because it barked.
  - baddox 8y ago
    I’m not aware of any jurisdictions where police dogs are considered officers or where attacking a police dog carries a harsher punishment than attacking a police officer.
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    > often carries a worse punishment than attacking an actual police officer. Do you have any source on this? I'd be very surprised to hear that it was true.
  - dsl 8y ago
    Police dogs are not actual officers, as they can not meet the training and oath requirements. I'm not aware of any laws protecting the dogs specifically other than general animal cruelty laws. But because they are very expensive to train (I know of a bomb dog that cost $30k+) you are facing felony property damage charges if you injure or disable them. You should take a break.
    - Judgmentality 8y ago
      So I did some googling and like most things, "it's complicated." It varies by state, but killing a police dog can put you in jail for 10 years (and this has happened) and that is a federal law. There are some states pursuing stricter measures themselves where killing a canine officer is equivalent to killing a human officer. As to what I said about killing a police dog having a harsher punishment, that was based on a single anecdote and I meant that the judges serve harsher punishments, not that the laws themselves are stricter. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900010289/senate-approves-tougher-penalty-for-killing-a-k-9-police-dog.html https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900010289/senate-approve... https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96229&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96229&page=1 https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/man-who-killed-pittsburgh-police-dog-be-sentenced/46088200 https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/man-who-killed-pittsburgh-po...
      - takeda 8y ago
        > It varies by state, but killing a police dog can put you in jail for 10 years (and this has happened) and that is a federal law. There are some states pursuing stricter measures themselves where killing a canine officer is equivalent to killing a human officer. Killing another person can get you life in prison or capital punishment (depending on state) that's way worse than 10 years.
        unethical_ban 8y ago
        There IS a law for 10 years. There ARE some states that make it like killing a human officer. The MAX for killing a person is death penalty. See where your argument loses some teeth?
- dylan604 8y ago
  >yet the law treats dogs as nothing more than property. Reminded me of a highway sign I saw shortly after crossing California state line. The sign listed fines for 2 offenses: littering and animal abandonment (however it was worded). Littering was a significantly higher amount to the point that the fine for abandoning an animal would be cheaper than doing anything the right way with the animal. Maybe the tack on the littering fine too, but it was still a very striking distinction to me.
ec109685 8y ago
Agree. This is extremely cut and dry – something like this is a very rare occurrence, so you can afford to go absolutely above and beyond for your affected customer. For example, AirBnB changed their policy when a house was wrecked and now offers $50k guarantee they will make it right if something horrendous happens: https://techcrunch.com/2011/08/01/airbnb-offers-unconditional-apology-and-50000-insurance-guarantee/ https://techcrunch.com/2011/08/01/airbnb-offers-unconditiona... It’s also the right thing to do.
- masonic 8y ago
  It's not difficult to do more than $50K in damage to a house, especially via fire.
- berbec 8y ago
  And think of instantly turning all this negative press positive. If I was Wag, I would have thrown money, time and personnel at this until the clients were satisfied.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- SatvikBeri 8y ago
  If I remember correctly, AirBnB initially gave a similarly tepid response. Then they saw the storm of negative PR and quickly turned around.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ransom1538 8y ago
"It takes years or even decades to build community trust. It takes about 15 minutes to destroy it." - my old boss
- setr 8y ago
  Just fyi, the usual quote goes “Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair”
  - Xylakant 8y ago
    "Trust is not broken, but shattered."
- spuz 8y ago
  This is not entirely true though. It took Wag's lawyers more than 15 minutes to draft that NDA. Even after submitting it, and the story being posted online, there is still a chance for them to turn around and admit they fucked up. This isn't a totally unresolvable situation for them, they just need to figure out when they are going to finally decide to do the right thing.
BucketSort 8y ago
To be fair, we don't know if this is the truth. Has Wag responded with their side of the story?
- gafferongames 8y ago
  OH COME ON!
  - scott-smith_us 8y ago
    Please explain why wanting to hear both sides of a story gets an "OH COME ON!" from you?
    - exogeny 8y ago
      It gets a "OH COME ON!" because it's completely irreverent. The actual story here doesn't actually matter. A dog is dead, and there's no recovering from bungling the PR of something that sensitive. Everything in the world is a matter of understanding the marginal impact. There is no universe in which hearing both sides of the story (or trying to save n number of dollars) results in a better net outcome for Wag as a business than apologizing profusely and visibly showing as much empathy as possible.
    - onion2k 8y ago
      We do have Wag's side of the story. They decided to only reimburse costs if a customer signs an NDA, and then they decided to revoke their offer when the customer refused to sign. Wag don't need to add anything more than that for us to know they care more about a very small amount of money than the dogs customers entrust to the care of the walkers they employ. To be honest the money is actually a small and distracting aspect of this story. If it was my dog I'd want to know what happened. The fact Wag won't give any proper answers shows they probably don't know what's happening to dogs people trust their walkers with. That is a HUGE problem for me.
      - oldgradstudent 8y ago
cgriswald 8y ago
The thing Wag screwed up was its total lack of empathy in trying to buy silence. > a couple thousand maximum Maximum? Many pups cost more than this and you'd be paying to replace at least. You might also be paying for any amount of vet bills if the animal isn't killed on the spot. If you hit a service or working dog, be ready to shell out tens of thousands for replacement due to the unique tasks performed (not all dogs can do them) and specialized training they receive. In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver. Of course, I don't like the idea of a stranger walking my dog anyway. Even a kennel isn't ideal, but at least then I can build trust with a particular business. Wag just puts my dog in the hands of random people I'll probably never see again, opening me up to liability and my dog up to risk.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  I’d be more sympathetic to Wag if they made it possible for the pet owner to pursue the drivers. As it stands, it sounds like they have not provided enough details to identify the walker, let alone investigate the driver (if there even was one). So I’d say Wag is just as culpable as a maybe-existing-driver.
- mcorning 8y ago
  No matter, this incident in particular is still a drop in the bucket for Wag. Wag knew the dog was dead. All they needed to do in order to look good was pay for the cremation, maybe the cost of the dog, and be supportive. Instead the did the opposite and came off looking greedy, dismissive, and insensitive.
- kdf83 8y ago
  "In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver." Have you considered the dog was at fault? I mean unless the leash is incredible short it would be pretty easy to jump into an oncoming car if pavement is small. Playing devil advocate here but since we've considered Wag, the walker and driver surely we can consider the animal at fault too unless the lease was 20cms and dog was practically being dragged
  - 8y ago
lostlogin 8y ago
Missing from the discussion as far as I can see is mention of the walker’s behaviour. I don’t know what rules Wag have, but calling the owner as soon as possible and stating what has happened is a pretty basic thing to do. Deliver the bad news to those that need it as quickly and accurately as you can, with updates when appropriate. Not answering then lying is not ok, and whatever Wags’s rules are this shouldn’t have happened.
- logifail 8y ago
  >> I don’t know what rules Wag have, but calling the owner as soon as possible and stating what has happened is a pretty basic thing to do. If you were owning/operating your own dog-walking service, sure, because you'd care about your reputation. Wag appears to be yet another gig economy outfit, though, so the person delivering the actual service cares little (or not at all?) about the reputation of the intermediate service company. If things go badly wrong, as the service provider you'd just walk away. The service company certainly doesn't care about you, why should you care about them?
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  I agree, but it is easy to understand why the walker wouldn’t want to be the bearer of bad news. I’ve house sat friend’s pets, and the thought of my accidentally killing one and having to break the news is viscerally painful.
- dbg31415 8y ago
  From what I know about Wag, it's sort of like Uber pool. You don't get your dog walked alone, a dog walker has the option to walk as many dogs as they can to maximise their profit. Add to this a matching algorithm that doesn't pair a consistent walker with your dog every day, and you get a situation where a new walker is pushed into taking more more responsibility than they probably should. This inherently puts dogs in an unsafe environment. I can see a dog being excited, put with other dogs he doesn't know very well, and one dog breaking loose... running into the street while the walker holds on to the other 3 they are walking... total shit show. You want a consistent dog walker, you want someone who will put time in to get to know your dog, and you never want unfamiliar dogs around your dog unless it's properly supervised. The whole situation, in my opinion, is prone to disastrous outcomes. Can you imagine if AirBnB booked multiple families to a site at a time? We'd all flip out. But it's OK for our dogs... likely because when we're at work we don't know what goes on, out of site, out of mind.
benatkin 8y ago
I think perhaps that the press and social media only has so much attention for negative stories. If there's 50 negative stories in a year, and five of them get circulated widely, would having 100 negative stories in a year result in getting ten of them circulated widely? It's doubtful. There would probably be more people reading with a larger number of stories but I don't think it's linear.
anonymous5133 8y ago
Also on the other end. Wag seems to be having issues with walkers committing fraud against the company. I think wag needs to take a more aggressive approach at putting a stop to it. If walkers are committing fraud through the app then they should pursue legal action against those walkers and hold them criminally for fraud. From what I understand...what walkers are doing is signing up for their friends/family and letting the friend do the walking. Why would someone do this? Well if your friend has a long criminal record and can't find a job (because of their criminal history) then the family member feels compelled to help the family member by singing up for a wag account, get approved with a clear record and then let the family member with a bad record do the actual work. This is why in the story the person doing the walking was basically different from the person in the profile and failed to disclose their real name.
- astura 8y ago
  This is basically a side effect of the "gig economy." One can even just sell their account (and good will) when they decide to quit dog walking. Pretty scary when you really think about it. Also heard of uber drivers hiring illegal immigrants to drive under their uber account, not sure of the credibility of these reports.
  - labster 8y ago
    Why would anyone care if an undocumented immigrant drove your uber? As long as they're licensed and insured, they're just as qualified as any other driver.
    - idontpost 8y ago
      1) Some people would care because they think undocumented immigrants are subhuman. 2) Other people would care because Uber is sketchy enough with out random sub-sub-sub contractors being added into the mix, regardless of their immigration status. 3) Still other people would be bothered by the obviously minimal pay a sub-sub-sub....sub-contracted undocumented immigrant would be paid.
    - 8y ago
doodliego 8y ago
This bullying, cover-it-up response toward customers is telling. If I was an early investor, I would be worried that this symptomatic of larger scales issues of deceit regarding metrics and finance. Sociopathic behavior is a huge red flag.
- rhizome 8y ago
  Sociopathic behavior is a huge red flag. I realize this is an emotional subject, but everything we know about startups, the gig economy, and success in general says that it's actually a green flag.
ninedays 8y ago
They are using the same tactics than Airbnb when guests have issues with hosts and it is shameful.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Absolute idiots Agreed. You do three things in a crisis: 1) Acknowledge the problem. You killed someone's dog. This hits like losing family. "We're opening an investigation" is a chickenshit message. 2) CEO needs to speak. Personal call from the top. If a dog is seriously injured or killed while on your watch, the CEO must make the call. This shows seriousness to the customer. It also ensures top brass feels the pain. That pain prevents future mistakes and is a real emotional tool for correcting cultures. 3) Over-correct. You'll pay for cremation. You'll pay for counseling. You'll refund every Wag bill they ever incurred. If the family decides to get another dog, you'll offer to pay for their shots and food for a year and pet insurance for life. The message must be we are sorry, this is unacceptable, and we intend on making this about as difficult for us as it is for you. (Checklist from a video (with unfortunately and unrelated political content) by Scott Gallaway [1].) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-AyvgE8Ns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-AyvgE8Ns
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  > You killed someone's dog. This hits like losing family. Spoken like someone who's never lost family.
  - tallanvor 8y ago
    Having lost both pets and family (including my mother), losing a dog or cat is different but can absolutely be just as heartbreaking in its own way. Do not underestimate the bond people can have with a pet, and NEVER look down on them for reacting more strongly than you think they should.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      People react differently. Some are weepy and some are stoic. But nobody who is mentally normal will react more strongly to losing their dog than they do to losing a person.
  - B-Con 8y ago
    Having lost both a family member and close pets that were essentially family... it does make sense. Losing a pet is not the same as losing a human being, but... I can understand the analogy. A pet may have been an active part of the family for a decade, participating in many of the same activities as the family from dinner time to family outings. Some pets are taken on specifically in times of emotional need, such as after losing a family member or in place of a child that can't be conceived. Such pets may not be actual humans but they do fill a role and fill a hole similar to one. Again, not the same, but I can see circumstances where the analogy makes sense. And it's special when it does, this doesn't apply to every pet ever.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
To be fair, we know one side of the story. We don't know how many apologies they got before, during or after the settlement offer. Nor do we know what was offered as settlement. A settlement that includes non disparagement is not that unusual. We screwed up, or it happened on our watch but if you take the money consider it closed. Wag has raised $300 Million (wikipedia,) so if they did it save a few thousand, they are dumb.

wyqydsyq 8y ago

How to sink your own company in 1 easy step

celestialcheese 8y ago

Seriously. It should have been the easiest decision in the world for them - a persons' dog is more important than most other humans to most dog owners, yet the law treats dogs as nothing more than property. Pay up and grovel to these people. In-action doesn't make these things go away. EDIT: just read the non-disclosure section. I understand the impulse to do that, but it's a MUCH better gamble to just kill the story with boundless kindness.

Judgmentality 8y ago
> a persons' dog is more important than most other humans to most dog owners, yet the law treats dogs as nothing more than property Something I've always found particularly infuriating is how police dogs are considered officers and often carries a worse punishment than attacking an actual police officer. Not because I am upset that the dogs are being protected, but that the police basically can shoot other people's dogs but nobody can touch their dogs. Jesus I am just going off on tangents tonight. I need to take a break for a bit.
- berti 8y ago
  This made me really mad last year: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/108562071/police-shoot-family-dog-while-searching-for-wanted-man-in-nelson https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/108562071/police-shoot-fami... TL;DR police looking for somebody went to the wrong address, shot the family dog because it "attacked" a police dog (which was "unharmed by the incident"), and casually told the owners on their way out the door that their dog had died.
  - ajmurmann 8y ago
    Well, police training in the US takes on average 19 weeks, whereas in Germany it takes at least 130 weeks (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_7709638 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_7709638). It takes 12-14 month to become a cosmetologist...
    - astura 8y ago
      That event took place in New Zealand, not the US.
  - masonic 8y ago
    In the famous Ruby Ridge incident, a Federal sniper shot the Weaver's dog from long distance... because it barked.
- baddox 8y ago
  I’m not aware of any jurisdictions where police dogs are considered officers or where attacking a police dog carries a harsher punishment than attacking a police officer.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  > often carries a worse punishment than attacking an actual police officer. Do you have any source on this? I'd be very surprised to hear that it was true.
- dsl 8y ago
  Police dogs are not actual officers, as they can not meet the training and oath requirements. I'm not aware of any laws protecting the dogs specifically other than general animal cruelty laws. But because they are very expensive to train (I know of a bomb dog that cost $30k+) you are facing felony property damage charges if you injure or disable them. You should take a break.
  - Judgmentality 8y ago
    So I did some googling and like most things, "it's complicated." It varies by state, but killing a police dog can put you in jail for 10 years (and this has happened) and that is a federal law. There are some states pursuing stricter measures themselves where killing a canine officer is equivalent to killing a human officer. As to what I said about killing a police dog having a harsher punishment, that was based on a single anecdote and I meant that the judges serve harsher punishments, not that the laws themselves are stricter. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900010289/senate-approves-tougher-penalty-for-killing-a-k-9-police-dog.html https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900010289/senate-approve... https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96229&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96229&page=1 https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/man-who-killed-pittsburgh-police-dog-be-sentenced/46088200 https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/man-who-killed-pittsburgh-po...
    - takeda 8y ago
      > It varies by state, but killing a police dog can put you in jail for 10 years (and this has happened) and that is a federal law. There are some states pursuing stricter measures themselves where killing a canine officer is equivalent to killing a human officer. Killing another person can get you life in prison or capital punishment (depending on state) that's way worse than 10 years.
      - unethical_ban 8y ago
        There IS a law for 10 years. There ARE some states that make it like killing a human officer. The MAX for killing a person is death penalty. See where your argument loses some teeth?
dylan604 8y ago
>yet the law treats dogs as nothing more than property. Reminded me of a highway sign I saw shortly after crossing California state line. The sign listed fines for 2 offenses: littering and animal abandonment (however it was worded). Littering was a significantly higher amount to the point that the fine for abandoning an animal would be cheaper than doing anything the right way with the animal. Maybe the tack on the littering fine too, but it was still a very striking distinction to me.

ec109685 8y ago

Agree. This is extremely cut and dry – something like this is a very rare occurrence, so you can afford to go absolutely above and beyond for your affected customer. For example, AirBnB changed their policy when a house was wrecked and now offers $50k guarantee they will make it right if something horrendous happens: https://techcrunch.com/2011/08/01/airbnb-offers-unconditional-apology-and-50000-insurance-guarantee/ https://techcrunch.com/2011/08/01/airbnb-offers-unconditiona... It’s also the right thing to do.

masonic 8y ago
It's not difficult to do more than $50K in damage to a house, especially via fire.
berbec 8y ago
And think of instantly turning all this negative press positive. If I was Wag, I would have thrown money, time and personnel at this until the clients were satisfied.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SatvikBeri 8y ago
If I remember correctly, AirBnB initially gave a similarly tepid response. Then they saw the storm of negative PR and quickly turned around.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ransom1538 8y ago

"It takes years or even decades to build community trust. It takes about 15 minutes to destroy it." - my old boss

setr 8y ago
Just fyi, the usual quote goes “Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair”
- Xylakant 8y ago
  "Trust is not broken, but shattered."
spuz 8y ago
This is not entirely true though. It took Wag's lawyers more than 15 minutes to draft that NDA. Even after submitting it, and the story being posted online, there is still a chance for them to turn around and admit they fucked up. This isn't a totally unresolvable situation for them, they just need to figure out when they are going to finally decide to do the right thing.

BucketSort 8y ago

To be fair, we don't know if this is the truth. Has Wag responded with their side of the story?

gafferongames 8y ago
OH COME ON!
- scott-smith_us 8y ago
  Please explain why wanting to hear both sides of a story gets an "OH COME ON!" from you?
  - exogeny 8y ago
    It gets a "OH COME ON!" because it's completely irreverent. The actual story here doesn't actually matter. A dog is dead, and there's no recovering from bungling the PR of something that sensitive. Everything in the world is a matter of understanding the marginal impact. There is no universe in which hearing both sides of the story (or trying to save n number of dollars) results in a better net outcome for Wag as a business than apologizing profusely and visibly showing as much empathy as possible.
  - onion2k 8y ago
    We do have Wag's side of the story. They decided to only reimburse costs if a customer signs an NDA, and then they decided to revoke their offer when the customer refused to sign. Wag don't need to add anything more than that for us to know they care more about a very small amount of money than the dogs customers entrust to the care of the walkers they employ. To be honest the money is actually a small and distracting aspect of this story. If it was my dog I'd want to know what happened. The fact Wag won't give any proper answers shows they probably don't know what's happening to dogs people trust their walkers with. That is a HUGE problem for me.
    - oldgradstudent 8y ago

cgriswald 8y ago

The thing Wag screwed up was its total lack of empathy in trying to buy silence. > a couple thousand maximum Maximum? Many pups cost more than this and you'd be paying to replace at least. You might also be paying for any amount of vet bills if the animal isn't killed on the spot. If you hit a service or working dog, be ready to shell out tens of thousands for replacement due to the unique tasks performed (not all dogs can do them) and specialized training they receive. In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver. Of course, I don't like the idea of a stranger walking my dog anyway. Even a kennel isn't ideal, but at least then I can build trust with a particular business. Wag just puts my dog in the hands of random people I'll probably never see again, opening me up to liability and my dog up to risk.

landryraccoon 8y ago
I’d be more sympathetic to Wag if they made it possible for the pet owner to pursue the drivers. As it stands, it sounds like they have not provided enough details to identify the walker, let alone investigate the driver (if there even was one). So I’d say Wag is just as culpable as a maybe-existing-driver.
mcorning 8y ago
No matter, this incident in particular is still a drop in the bucket for Wag. Wag knew the dog was dead. All they needed to do in order to look good was pay for the cremation, maybe the cost of the dog, and be supportive. Instead the did the opposite and came off looking greedy, dismissive, and insensitive.
kdf83 8y ago
"In any case, Wag and its walker are probably not at fault. I'd be after the driver." Have you considered the dog was at fault? I mean unless the leash is incredible short it would be pretty easy to jump into an oncoming car if pavement is small. Playing devil advocate here but since we've considered Wag, the walker and driver surely we can consider the animal at fault too unless the lease was 20cms and dog was practically being dragged
- 8y ago

lostlogin 8y ago

Missing from the discussion as far as I can see is mention of the walker’s behaviour. I don’t know what rules Wag have, but calling the owner as soon as possible and stating what has happened is a pretty basic thing to do. Deliver the bad news to those that need it as quickly and accurately as you can, with updates when appropriate. Not answering then lying is not ok, and whatever Wags’s rules are this shouldn’t have happened.

logifail 8y ago
>> I don’t know what rules Wag have, but calling the owner as soon as possible and stating what has happened is a pretty basic thing to do. If you were owning/operating your own dog-walking service, sure, because you'd care about your reputation. Wag appears to be yet another gig economy outfit, though, so the person delivering the actual service cares little (or not at all?) about the reputation of the intermediate service company. If things go badly wrong, as the service provider you'd just walk away. The service company certainly doesn't care about you, why should you care about them?
WillPostForFood 8y ago
I agree, but it is easy to understand why the walker wouldn’t want to be the bearer of bad news. I’ve house sat friend’s pets, and the thought of my accidentally killing one and having to break the news is viscerally painful.
dbg31415 8y ago
From what I know about Wag, it's sort of like Uber pool. You don't get your dog walked alone, a dog walker has the option to walk as many dogs as they can to maximise their profit. Add to this a matching algorithm that doesn't pair a consistent walker with your dog every day, and you get a situation where a new walker is pushed into taking more more responsibility than they probably should. This inherently puts dogs in an unsafe environment. I can see a dog being excited, put with other dogs he doesn't know very well, and one dog breaking loose... running into the street while the walker holds on to the other 3 they are walking... total shit show. You want a consistent dog walker, you want someone who will put time in to get to know your dog, and you never want unfamiliar dogs around your dog unless it's properly supervised. The whole situation, in my opinion, is prone to disastrous outcomes. Can you imagine if AirBnB booked multiple families to a site at a time? We'd all flip out. But it's OK for our dogs... likely because when we're at work we don't know what goes on, out of site, out of mind.

benatkin 8y ago

I think perhaps that the press and social media only has so much attention for negative stories. If there's 50 negative stories in a year, and five of them get circulated widely, would having 100 negative stories in a year result in getting ten of them circulated widely? It's doubtful. There would probably be more people reading with a larger number of stories but I don't think it's linear.

anonymous5133 8y ago

Also on the other end. Wag seems to be having issues with walkers committing fraud against the company. I think wag needs to take a more aggressive approach at putting a stop to it. If walkers are committing fraud through the app then they should pursue legal action against those walkers and hold them criminally for fraud. From what I understand...what walkers are doing is signing up for their friends/family and letting the friend do the walking. Why would someone do this? Well if your friend has a long criminal record and can't find a job (because of their criminal history) then the family member feels compelled to help the family member by singing up for a wag account, get approved with a clear record and then let the family member with a bad record do the actual work. This is why in the story the person doing the walking was basically different from the person in the profile and failed to disclose their real name.

astura 8y ago
This is basically a side effect of the "gig economy." One can even just sell their account (and good will) when they decide to quit dog walking. Pretty scary when you really think about it. Also heard of uber drivers hiring illegal immigrants to drive under their uber account, not sure of the credibility of these reports.
- labster 8y ago
  Why would anyone care if an undocumented immigrant drove your uber? As long as they're licensed and insured, they're just as qualified as any other driver.
  - idontpost 8y ago
    1) Some people would care because they think undocumented immigrants are subhuman. 2) Other people would care because Uber is sketchy enough with out random sub-sub-sub contractors being added into the mix, regardless of their immigration status. 3) Still other people would be bothered by the obviously minimal pay a sub-sub-sub....sub-contracted undocumented immigrant would be paid.
  - 8y ago

doodliego 8y ago

This bullying, cover-it-up response toward customers is telling. If I was an early investor, I would be worried that this symptomatic of larger scales issues of deceit regarding metrics and finance. Sociopathic behavior is a huge red flag.

rhizome 8y ago
Sociopathic behavior is a huge red flag. I realize this is an emotional subject, but everything we know about startups, the gig economy, and success in general says that it's actually a green flag.

ninedays 8y ago

They are using the same tactics than Airbnb when guests have issues with hosts and it is shameful.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Absolute idiots Agreed. You do three things in a crisis: 1) Acknowledge the problem. You killed someone's dog. This hits like losing family. "We're opening an investigation" is a chickenshit message. 2) CEO needs to speak. Personal call from the top. If a dog is seriously injured or killed while on your watch, the CEO must make the call. This shows seriousness to the customer. It also ensures top brass feels the pain. That pain prevents future mistakes and is a real emotional tool for correcting cultures. 3) Over-correct. You'll pay for cremation. You'll pay for counseling. You'll refund every Wag bill they ever incurred. If the family decides to get another dog, you'll offer to pay for their shots and food for a year and pet insurance for life. The message must be we are sorry, this is unacceptable, and we intend on making this about as difficult for us as it is for you. (Checklist from a video (with unfortunately and unrelated political content) by Scott Gallaway [1].) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-AyvgE8Ns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-AyvgE8Ns

thaumasiotes 8y ago
> You killed someone's dog. This hits like losing family. Spoken like someone who's never lost family.
- tallanvor 8y ago
  Having lost both pets and family (including my mother), losing a dog or cat is different but can absolutely be just as heartbreaking in its own way. Do not underestimate the bond people can have with a pet, and NEVER look down on them for reacting more strongly than you think they should.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    People react differently. Some are weepy and some are stoic. But nobody who is mentally normal will react more strongly to losing their dog than they do to losing a person.
- B-Con 8y ago
  Having lost both a family member and close pets that were essentially family... it does make sense. Losing a pet is not the same as losing a human being, but... I can understand the analogy. A pet may have been an active part of the family for a decade, participating in many of the same activities as the family from dinner time to family outings. Some pets are taken on specifically in times of emotional need, such as after losing a family member or in place of a child that can't be conceived. Such pets may not be actual humans but they do fill a role and fill a hole similar to one. Again, not the same, but I can see circumstances where the analogy makes sense. And it's special when it does, this doesn't apply to every pet ever.

onetimemanytime 8y ago

To be fair, we know one side of the story. We don't know how many apologies they got before, during or after the settlement offer. Nor do we know what was offered as settlement. A settlement that includes non disparagement is not that unusual. We screwed up, or it happened on our watch but if you take the money consider it closed. Wag has raised $300 Million (wikipedia,) so if they did it save a few thousand, they are dumb.