3 ms·

I don't know what they're smoking over there, honestly. Cut off all contact through their CS to the victim, and then have a cofounder want to "meet them for cof

I don't know what they're smoking over there, honestly. Cut off all contact through their CS to the victim, and then have a cofounder want to "meet them for coffee"? After asking her to take down the blog or give it a positive-twist ending? I don't know what they're expecting but I'm hard-pressed to think of what they could do worse, short of joking about it on twitter. Edit: Holy god, I didn't realize the actual timeframe of this was five weeks. AirBnB is going to have to crucify someone for a "bad judgement call" in terms of the sudden Customer Service cutoff if they want to have any positive spin coming off of this, I think. Also, props to this brave lady for the point-by-point shutdown of their PR statement. I don't know many people who would have the guts to stand up to a company, especially after what she's been through, both from the original incident and AirBnB's response after her initial blog post.

gojomo 15y ago
What you're calling a 'sudden Customer Service cutoff' is actually when (from victim's account) communication switched to being with a cofounder. That's escalation and unification, and it's not fair to portray a direct open line to the boss as a 'cutoff'. (That the victim portrays it that way suggests they may have had better rapport with the original CS liason. Perhaps that person included more social/emotional niceties in more frequent communications. Not everyone is as good at the sort of 'inquiry into my current emotional state' that this victim might find comforting.)
- _delirium 15y ago
  Yeah, I think that's structurally the correct response (escalate her directly to the founders), but unless the cofounder is actually good at that kind of thing (apparently not), they probably should've additionally assigned someone who is good at it as a contact person to check up on her situation / provide assistance / etc. Heck, if the original CS rep had good rapport, maybe the right response would be to keep him/her as the main contact person, but escalate the CS rep into more of a personal representative of the founders, with more authority to provide assistance, and a direct line to keep them updated. Of course, that's a guess with hindsight.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- pseudonym 15y ago
  If I'm not mistaking the timeline here (and I may well be), the process went like this: June 22: Ransack June 23: AirBnB starts talking to her June 29: She posts the blog June 30: CS Liason cuts contact, first contact from cofounder Random points between the June 30 and July 26: "this co-founder has been the only person at Airbnb from whom I have received occasional contact regarding my situation, his messages directed primarily at my blog post and its activity on Twitter. " July 26-27ish: Blog posts blows up on HN July 27: Other co-founder says he "would enjoy meeting" her for coffee. I'd consider infrequent communication, primarily about the blog post, as pretty damn close to a cutoff. Especially if the first contact from the co-founder on the 30th was primarily about "Would you please make your blog say nice things about us". But yes, perhaps cutoff isn't the correct word for the situation. I stand corrected.
- lallysingh 15y ago
  The CS liason sounds like they were actually trying to serve their customer. The interactions with the founder sound like her account got switched from "customer service" to "damage control." Yeah, I get it, the business is his baby. But it's just a business, and it's just ruined someone's life for who-knows how long. Get your priorities straight. The business is just effort and money, it's not worth doing this kind of damage to other people, not even 1.
  - gojomo 15y ago
    From EJ's account, it does sound like "her account got switched from 'customer service' to 'damage control'", and that it happened the day of her first blog post. I have no doubt that's how she feels. But EJ is a person who is still, by her own descriptions, hurt and angry. She's paraphrasing many communications down to just the excerpts that explain her feelings. It's easy for misunderstandings to multiply. A recent less-emotional example was the Steve Yegge speech. He thought he said he was resigning from a project, based on context and word choice many thought he was resigning from Google. If communicating over email and the phone with a person you've never met, who's still emotionally suffering, the potentials for hurtful misunderstandings are much higher. You might say things that you think are reassuring/hopeful, that instead sound indifferent. When you ask, "are you OK and do you have a place to stay?", and get an answer like, "I'm set for the next few days and then have other friends to talk to", you might think things are settled, where the answerer is really just putting on a strong facade. If you close with, "contact us if you need anything else", you might think you've left an open door for all other needs, and will hear if there are any, when in fact she needs and expects more check-ins about her well-being. And so forth. It's wrong to condemn someone's tone based on the accounts of one aggrieved side of the communication.

gojomo 15y ago

What you're calling a 'sudden Customer Service cutoff' is actually when (from victim's account) communication switched to being with a cofounder. That's escalation and unification, and it's not fair to portray a direct open line to the boss as a 'cutoff'. (That the victim portrays it that way suggests they may have had better rapport with the original CS liason. Perhaps that person included more social/emotional niceties in more frequent communications. Not everyone is as good at the sort of 'inquiry into my current emotional state' that this victim might find comforting.)

_delirium 15y ago
Yeah, I think that's structurally the correct response (escalate her directly to the founders), but unless the cofounder is actually good at that kind of thing (apparently not), they probably should've additionally assigned someone who is good at it as a contact person to check up on her situation / provide assistance / etc. Heck, if the original CS rep had good rapport, maybe the right response would be to keep him/her as the main contact person, but escalate the CS rep into more of a personal representative of the founders, with more authority to provide assistance, and a direct line to keep them updated. Of course, that's a guess with hindsight.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
pseudonym 15y ago
If I'm not mistaking the timeline here (and I may well be), the process went like this: June 22: Ransack June 23: AirBnB starts talking to her June 29: She posts the blog June 30: CS Liason cuts contact, first contact from cofounder Random points between the June 30 and July 26: "this co-founder has been the only person at Airbnb from whom I have received occasional contact regarding my situation, his messages directed primarily at my blog post and its activity on Twitter. " July 26-27ish: Blog posts blows up on HN July 27: Other co-founder says he "would enjoy meeting" her for coffee. I'd consider infrequent communication, primarily about the blog post, as pretty damn close to a cutoff. Especially if the first contact from the co-founder on the 30th was primarily about "Would you please make your blog say nice things about us". But yes, perhaps cutoff isn't the correct word for the situation. I stand corrected.
lallysingh 15y ago
The CS liason sounds like they were actually trying to serve their customer. The interactions with the founder sound like her account got switched from "customer service" to "damage control." Yeah, I get it, the business is his baby. But it's just a business, and it's just ruined someone's life for who-knows how long. Get your priorities straight. The business is just effort and money, it's not worth doing this kind of damage to other people, not even 1.
- gojomo 15y ago
  From EJ's account, it does sound like "her account got switched from 'customer service' to 'damage control'", and that it happened the day of her first blog post. I have no doubt that's how she feels. But EJ is a person who is still, by her own descriptions, hurt and angry. She's paraphrasing many communications down to just the excerpts that explain her feelings. It's easy for misunderstandings to multiply. A recent less-emotional example was the Steve Yegge speech. He thought he said he was resigning from a project, based on context and word choice many thought he was resigning from Google. If communicating over email and the phone with a person you've never met, who's still emotionally suffering, the potentials for hurtful misunderstandings are much higher. You might say things that you think are reassuring/hopeful, that instead sound indifferent. When you ask, "are you OK and do you have a place to stay?", and get an answer like, "I'm set for the next few days and then have other friends to talk to", you might think things are settled, where the answerer is really just putting on a strong facade. If you close with, "contact us if you need anything else", you might think you've left an open door for all other needs, and will hear if there are any, when in fact she needs and expects more check-ins about her well-being. And so forth. It's wrong to condemn someone's tone based on the accounts of one aggrieved side of the communication.