3 ms·

Most of my career has been spent at agencies. I think you're attributing malice to what was more than likely routine mismanagement.

thayne 4y ago
Perhaps, but there is an incentive to continue that mismanagement, rather than fixing it.
dahdum 4y ago
> I think you're attributing malice to what was more than likely routine mismanagement. I wouldn't call it mismanagement. Many agencies thrive despite regularly delivering these types of experiences. It's a conscious choice they can easily rationalize because of the money. This agency turned a one off $7k job into $46k by smooth talking and scope creeping an actual developer. I'm sure they're absolutely killing it doing the same to non-technical folks.
- nerdawson 4y ago
  I'm sure some do have that attitude but I don't believe, for most, that they're choosing to operate that way. TinyPilot is clearly successful and growing. Any smart agency would nurture that relationship, deliver a great product, and secure an ongoing relationship. By contrast, there's a huge amount of reputational risk in allowing things to spiral. They've walked away with more today but imagine for a moment the damage that would have been done were they named in this article. It doesn't take much for a brand to turn toxic and things to implode.
  - achikin 4y ago
    But hey, they were not named :) And that lines up with my experience in agencies - there is always an “Isaac” who’s job is to cool the customer down.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      Yes, I’m very confused why he did not make the agency.
      - bornfreddy 4y ago
        My guess - contractual obligations or some other liability?
        nerdawson 4y ago
        What benefit would the author get from naming the agency involved? There’s a big legal risk involved in doing so and no upside that I can see.
        bequanna 4y ago
        I was disappointed the author didn’t have the guts to name them. I would hope he could get some satisfaction in knowing that he might be able to stop them from taking advantage of clients in the future.
        SZJX 4y ago
        Easy for an outsider to say, though I’d imagine it’s a perfectly reasonable precaution to be cautious in the first post they make. Also he’d then not need to worry about what he exactly says in the post or mince his words/self-censor.
xupybd 4y ago
Yeah my read is they were having some internal issues and were overloaded. On top of that they hadn't done many projects like this. Management threw it out to the floor and the floor ran with it like every other job. Feedback went to management but the people doing the work didn't really understand that this client was not like their other projects. I've been on the other side of this where one bigger client changed the game and we didn't adapt as we were used to things at a different scale. We didn't clean up the mess we inherited fast enough. We didn't put enough resources on the projects and we failed to live up to expectations. We were used to smaller tasks with more limited scope.
sizzle 4y ago
The agency is incentivized to draw out the work to maximize billable hours

thayne 4y ago

Perhaps, but there is an incentive to continue that mismanagement, rather than fixing it.

dahdum 4y ago

> I think you're attributing malice to what was more than likely routine mismanagement. I wouldn't call it mismanagement. Many agencies thrive despite regularly delivering these types of experiences. It's a conscious choice they can easily rationalize because of the money. This agency turned a one off $7k job into $46k by smooth talking and scope creeping an actual developer. I'm sure they're absolutely killing it doing the same to non-technical folks.

nerdawson 4y ago
I'm sure some do have that attitude but I don't believe, for most, that they're choosing to operate that way. TinyPilot is clearly successful and growing. Any smart agency would nurture that relationship, deliver a great product, and secure an ongoing relationship. By contrast, there's a huge amount of reputational risk in allowing things to spiral. They've walked away with more today but imagine for a moment the damage that would have been done were they named in this article. It doesn't take much for a brand to turn toxic and things to implode.
- achikin 4y ago
  But hey, they were not named :) And that lines up with my experience in agencies - there is always an “Isaac” who’s job is to cool the customer down.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    Yes, I’m very confused why he did not make the agency.
    - bornfreddy 4y ago
      My guess - contractual obligations or some other liability?
      - nerdawson 4y ago
        What benefit would the author get from naming the agency involved? There’s a big legal risk involved in doing so and no upside that I can see.
        bequanna 4y ago
        I was disappointed the author didn’t have the guts to name them. I would hope he could get some satisfaction in knowing that he might be able to stop them from taking advantage of clients in the future.
        SZJX 4y ago
        Easy for an outsider to say, though I’d imagine it’s a perfectly reasonable precaution to be cautious in the first post they make. Also he’d then not need to worry about what he exactly says in the post or mince his words/self-censor.

xupybd 4y ago

Yeah my read is they were having some internal issues and were overloaded. On top of that they hadn't done many projects like this. Management threw it out to the floor and the floor ran with it like every other job. Feedback went to management but the people doing the work didn't really understand that this client was not like their other projects. I've been on the other side of this where one bigger client changed the game and we didn't adapt as we were used to things at a different scale. We didn't clean up the mess we inherited fast enough. We didn't put enough resources on the projects and we failed to live up to expectations. We were used to smaller tasks with more limited scope.

sizzle 4y ago

The agency is incentivized to draw out the work to maximize billable hours