5 ms·
PR-wise, very well done on Square's part: -Didn't mention the competitor by name, and stuck to addressing the arguments, without any messy ad hominem stuff. -
by rriepe 16y ago
PR-wise, very well done on Square's part:
-Didn't mention the competitor by name, and stuck to addressing the arguments, without any messy ad hominem stuff.
-Set up a separate page to address this issue. They could have easily lost by simply shifting the focus of the discussion to questioning Square's security. Posting a message on their home page or their blog, for example, makes it an issue to people who had no previous exposure to the issue.
-Stuck to a basic analogy that everyone has experience with, and everyone can understand.
-Used the opportunity to discuss other aspects of Square without throwing it in the reader's face. I had no idea they had a partner bank.
Good on them. I feel Dorsey has a mind for this, but I also find myself wondering if they had any PR consultation.
- jemka 16y agoI had no idea they had a partner bank. Chase is probably their processor.
- PakG1 16y agoOne more thing that I think is very good for a situation like this. They kept it short, to the point. The message couldn't be more clear, and people can get suspicious if you're doing PR to clear up a fiasco, but you're rambling. In those situations, it's like you're obfuscating the message to hide the real deal.
- Jayasimhan 16y ago..and jack didn't tweet it either.. now, that is class.