9 ms·

Can’t monetize free users? Try threatening them with legal action

188 points by prateekdayal 15y ago

Jimmie 15y ago
It's hard to see how this could not work. /s Do they really think this is a good tactic? It immediately creates tension between them and the client. Even if you paid up or added their link to your page would you trust them in the future? Absolutely not.
tomelders 15y ago
I don't think this is totally unreasonable. From their point of view, they offered a perfectly reasonable alternative to paying, which was ignored. By ignoring (accidentally) the original email, the message sent back could be interpreted as: "We're not implementing your link back, and we're not paying for your service, but we're still going to use it anyway". I'm playing devils advocate here, but there are two ways to look at this.
- gcp 15y ago
  Threatening legal action was completely unnecessary and makes them look like an ass. Simply pointing out you will stop the service from working for non-paying users would have been enough.
- JS_startup 15y ago
  The correct way to transition from a freemium to paid service is to grandfather previous users in, not classlessly pull the rug out from under them and demand money or a backlink (seriously? $20M in venture capital and you're begging users for backlinks?) Moreover, that e-mail was just really ham-fisted. Why not say "your service will be discontinued if you don't respond" instead of going thermonuclear with legal threats? It reeks of desperation and disregard for their existing clients.
  - mattmanser 15y ago
    Grandfathering is as stupid an idea as freemium. Ever heard of inflation? It's a totally and utterly stupid idea and I'll have zero sympathy when any startup doing it suddenly find themselves in a world where the dollar isn't worth anywhere near what it was. Prices change. I don't expect to buy a Mars Bar for 15p from my local corner shop as they sold it to me that price 20 years ago. It is fine to say 'we're discontinuing your current plan, sorry'. Maybe be nice and offer them 3 months more free to transition if you can afford to. NEVER grandfather. What you don't do though is threaten legal action because you changed your T&Cs, that's just stupid and regardless of you CYA 'subject to change' clause you're not going to win in court and you just made a bunch of pissed off ex-customers telling everyone you suck because you threatened them.
    - jasonkester 15y ago
      Have you ever looked at the account lifetimes of users who have been grandfathered into a cheap plan versus the lifetime of a regular user on a regular plan? It's quite a thing to see. Grandfathered users will hold onto their subscription like it was made of gold. Even if they don't need the product anymore, you'll find them still hanging around for years because they know what a great deal they're getting. In mildly-innumerate-user-psychology, they're making money every month by keeping that old grandfathered plan. So even though those guys are making you less money, they're going to continue making you that money pretty much forever. Way more over their lifetime than they would have had you forced them onto a more expensive plan, pissed off half of them into leaving immediately, then watched the rest trickle away through attrition.
      - danshapiro 15y ago
        Furthermore, a user with low churn is worth much more than a normal user. In the phone industry, telcos pay over $300/head for a new subscriber, who will leave after ~30 months. That means they have to allocate $10/month during your subscription to find your replacement. It's worth giving an existing customer a $10/month discount by way of a grandfathered plan if it means they'll stay around.
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  No, the reasonable thing to do (and the good business practice) would have been to in some ways limit or revoke their access to the API if they didn't pay. That way, if they miss the mail and / or choose not to pay, they lose service but no more. Keeping up the service but demanding money with force would make me incredibly wary to do business with them. It's destroying trust and goodwill, and pretty much guarantees that, were I in that position, I'd be looking for alternatives with whom I could have a more healthy business relationship. Need to make money off what used to be free? Fine, but be polite about it. A business operates on the good will of its customers, who they've just annoyed.
- palebluedot 15y ago
  I don't think this is totally unreasonable. From their point of view, they offered a perfectly reasonable alternative to paying, which was ignored. By ignoring (accidentally) the original email, the message sent back could be interpreted as: "We're not implementing your link back, and we're not paying for your service, but we're still going to use it anyway". Wait, what? So - if I ignore an unsolicited email, that suddenly becomes actionable if I don't do what the email says? I have a hard time seeing how that is not totally unreasonable. The only reasonable nuclear option for them that I see, would be to simply terminate the user account or service, if they did not respond.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    Your argument hinges on the email being unsolicited. One could argue that the email was not unsolicited, if the email address was obtained during signup and acceptance of the Terms of Service. Since it is not uncommon for free online services to have Terms of Service which allow the provider to unilaterally change those terms, the argument that an email notifying the user of the change is unsolicited is further weakened. While I am not suggesting that the alternatives offered are or are not fair or reasonable, the follow up email did its job in getting the service consumer's attention and more importantly action in regards to the matter.
    - skrish 15y ago
      Legally what you are saying could be right. But what if even this email was ignored as an unsolicited email? Is it right thing to sue them because they have sent 2 emails for a service that was offered free? Definitely not. The right thing to do would be to terminate the service for such a free user & get their attention.
      - dedward 15y ago
        It would seem to me that if the service was free, no money exchanged hands, therefore no contract exists that would make any sense in court. The only recourse they would have is to shut off access..... they'd have nothing to sue over.
- mikeash 15y ago
  Why couldn't they just shut the service off if these guys didn't pay? Going straight from "please pay or link" to "we will sue you" is unreasonable to an unbelievable degree. The issue is not with them wanting to charge money or get links or whatever. The issue is that they escalated way too hard and way too fast when much kinder effective measures were available.
- elliottcarlson 15y ago
  I completely agree that it's not an unreasonable approach; though Gigya should have made the subject line of the initial email clearer; and probably should not have mentioned the legal route in a second email. If still left ignored I am sure they could have sent a certified letter if still no action was taken. The articles mention of the link back being a paid for link is exactly what it is - in exchange for not paying $6000/year you have the option of placing a link on your site. It's a fair option.
  - dedward 15y ago
    Even still there would be no cause for legal action... what would the damages be? They could simply shut off the service for the customer like every other service provider in the world would do...
    - elliottcarlson 15y ago
      Not every service provider works that way - I've seen plenty of hosting companies who just start charging overage charges - it would be stipulated somewhere in their TOS which most likely would also have the wording that it can be changed at any time. I'm not justifying the action - just saying that it does happen.
- damoncali 15y ago
  They could, you know, turn off the widget so that people that don't pay won't have access. Shockingly high tech, but that's why they get paid the big bucks.
narad 15y ago
$6000 a year for a widget - without proper data & explanation is - extortion.
- corin_ 15y ago
  It really isn't anything like extortion.
  - narad 15y ago
    I have gone too harsh by using that word. I stand corrected.
- kylemaxwell 15y ago
  I do not think that word means what you think it means. It's a legal term to describe somebody getting money through abuse of their authority (e.g. requiring bribes under threat of prosecution) or charging illegal interest rates (e.g. usury). It doesn't mean "setting your prices too high but your customers can leave". Because, if it were extortion, SupportBee wouldn't be able simply to remove the widget and end the problem.
JS_startup 15y ago
I personally can't wait until the freemium model finally dies. It is extraordinarily difficult to pull off despite how popular it is and creates desperate decisions like this.
- digitalsushi 15y ago
  I believe the model will be with us for as long as newly minted business people believe they can make the model work better than their predecessors.
  - loceng 15y ago
    Not all businesses will have a viable freemium model, especially when you have a huge amount of competition in an area.
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    Some of them will even be right. This is why it will never really die.
- rplnt 15y ago
  There are many examples where freemium model works though.
  - dean 15y ago
    I'm interested to see examples where the freemium model works. Could you provide any links? I've typically read that they don't work. For example: http://www.softwarebyrob.com/2010/08/18/why-free-plans-dont-work/ http://www.softwarebyrob.com/2010/08/18/why-free-plans-dont-...
    - jgmmo 15y ago
      Just in my industry: AVG, AVAST, AVIRA, BitDefender, MalwareBytes, SUPERAntiSpyware All offer a non-trial/non-expiring 100% free home user version of their security software, with a more feature rich premium option available for payment. Freemium works like gangbusters in some industries.
yock 15y ago
This is an easy problem - change your API. It creates a built-in way of excluding previous users and, if a bit forcefully, opens lines of communication for users to update their implementations. Legal threats? Good riddance to you. I'd not touch your service if it sent me free money.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
joedev 15y ago
I act with the belief that notice by email is not enforceable and I ignore any emails with claims of legal action. I am under no obligation to read email. If it were true that an email serves as legal notice, then process servers would be out of work.
- jarrett 15y ago
  In general, it would depend on the type of notice. The bar is high for process servers because of the extraordinary importance of the news they're delivering. However, many contracts and statutes merely require "written notice." In these situations, the distinction between snail mail and email can matter, but I don't think it would often hinge on one's ability to ignore it. One can just as easily ignore snail mail as email.
- a3camero 15y ago
  But how would companies with lots of users provide notice otherwise? Apple is not going to be sending out letters to all XYZ million users of iTunes when they change the Terms of Service.
  - Nick_C 15y ago
    I would bet the original ToS have a clause stating "you agree to receive notices by email" or similar. Also, keep distinct the notion of general communication between a company and client, and serving a legal notice.
jdietrich 15y ago
Repeat after me: If I do not pay for a service, I am the product, not the customer.
feralchimp 15y ago
I have never seen a Terms of Service agreement that would make gigya's behavior seem reasonable or justifiable in this case. Even if their ToS reserved the right to start charging for the service at any time, and explicitly wrote in crazy terms that disclaim them from notification periods, methods of notification, etc., their odds of collecting actual dollars by force are infinitesimal. Sadly, their odds of collecting actual dollars by threat of force might be pretty good. How sticky is their solution?
rkalla 15y ago
This reeks of a team floundering trying to figure out how to keep a ship from sinking. 1. Our "Free" product is now $6000/year ($500/mo) 2. OR give us a link-back 3. OR prepare for a lawyering While the response is inflammatory and wonderful for up-vote fodder, I can't imagine any calm, decent person ever taking this tact with a client. There are 17 different emails they could have sent to SupportBee that would have been more constructive than this. I wonder if the Gigya team is too young to know better or if they have back-breaking pressure on them from their investors to turn any sort of profit before they are all taken out to sea and shot. Obviously a stupid response, but really seems to be a response out of pure desperation more than anything.
- mikeash 15y ago
  Let's not assume that not knowing better requires youth. Because let's face it, there are plenty of older folk who are still this stupid, and plenty of younger people who realize that threatening to sue their clients for no good reason is a Bad Move.
  - rkalla 15y ago
    Good clarification; "young" meaning "inexperienced" or "stupid like a fox"[1] and not age-dependent. [1] http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season6/lemon15.mp3 http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season6/lemon15.mp3
  - bryanh 15y ago
    I read "young" as "green".
  - brudgers 15y ago
    >"threatening to sue their clients" If you are not cashing someone's checks, they are not your client.
    - mikeash 15y ago
      If you're threatening to sue someone unless they pay you for services, you must at least think that they qualify as a client.
jmilloy 15y ago
I expected to come here and see comments lambasting supportbee for being whiny; I am surprised by the tone here. I think a lot (certainly not all) of the problems with the freemium model stem from the users. Just because it's free doesn't mean that it's always going to be free and that you don't have to read and comply with the terms of service. In this case, for one it's not clear to me that we've gotten the whole story. In particular, what were the original terms of service, and how did they change? Did supportbee read and comply with them? The current ToS says explicitly: >"Any notice or other communication to be given hereunder will be in writing and given (x) by Gigya via email (in each case to the address that you provide), (y) a posting on the Gigya Site or (z) by you via email ..." And really, did they have to send any notice at all? If supporbee was failing to comply with the ToS, couldn't Gigya cut off service or take legal action, sans warning? Meanwhile, supportbee doesn't want to put a link on the webpage for a service that they use and benefit from for free, and they throw a small public temper tantrum about it, and we are sympathetic? I'm just surprised. Aren't we overreacting about "legal threats"? Isn't this pretty standard and run of the mill? It could make more of an effort to make you feel good inside, but that's not really enough to make it wrong.
- simonbrown 15y ago
  I think warning them that Wildfire would be disabled for them on a certain date if they didn't pay/add a link would be more reasonable, but they just threatened legal action. They didn't even suggest stopping use of it, almost implying that having used it in the past indebted them.
droithomme 15y ago
I don't really see a problem with what they are asking. They want to be paid either in ad links or in subscription fees. The user of the service who wrote the article doesn't wish to do either. He also (in their view) ignored their previous email about it, so the second email is slightly less polite about it and brings up the possibility of legal action. I see how it came to this: he says he didn't notice the previous email. Given that perhaps he should have more sympathy for their position believing their request has gone ignored. I do agree that legal action claims are premature. It's also not very clear if they could prevail in a theft of services case against someone using their service after being asked not to (obviously consent to use the free version has been withdrawn). Clearly it would be a lot simpler to shut down the former client's access than it would be to drive something through the legal system. It could be argued that without properly notifying customers a service is about to be shut down, the customer might have cause to bring legal action against the company, this may be why they are doing notifications and requests rather than just unexpectedly disconnecting. Either party taking legal action at all in such a case is probably a foolish move. Not because it's a reaction to "not monetizing", but because it is unlikely there would be a positive outcome for any of the parties in such an action. Blogging one's (I think) unjustified rage seems as premature as the legal threats. Now looking at another angle. I don't think ad links are worth $6000, but the company says they would be happy with that. It sounds like the $6000 figure might actually be a fake number that they believe will motivate users to choose ad links instead, which is the real goal. The way they have approached this goal is poor. In this case, the user obviously doesn't want to use an ad link. Perhaps he would be willing to pay $100 a month instead of $500? We'll never know because of the way it was handled. Both sides should have given the other side more of a benefit of the doubt until determining the real intentions of the other party. edit: this being vigorously downvoted is pretty amusing.
corkill 15y ago
Ok so hate to point out the obvious, but if you want people to pay for your service ($6000 a year no less) or backlink you. You might need to put in a bit more effort than a single email with a crappy subject line and a follow up email threatening legal measures. Maybe something nice and friendly even? Someone said maybe they are a young team..sounds like the kind of crap corporate dinosaurs would pull to me.
- jmilloy 15y ago
  I don't understand what was so crappy about the subject line. If I was using any service, free or not, and I received an email with the company name and the word "Permissions" in the subject line, I would read it.
- ericabiz 15y ago
  Or sheesh, perhaps a phone call. I do not understand so many tech companies' reluctance to pick up the phone. Often you can resolve whatever you need to resolve in 10-15 minutes, and you don't come off looking like a jerk during the process.
cbs 15y ago
Is there something I'm missing? They discontinued a service. They're not asking for back compensation from when it was discontinued, only from this point on. So "please stop using our service or start paying" seems like a reasonable request. I typically expect an "its their buisness, their prerogative" type of response here on HN, how is this situation any different? Because the notice came by email? I'm sure if the first suportbee heard from them was a cease-and-deist letter in certified mail everyone would (rightfully so) point out that it could have much more easily been solved with a few email explaining the change. Because the notice didn't come by enough (or good enough) email? I'll give you that it might be worded a bit strong for a second notice, but this is buisness, not a cuddle factory. Is it really worth getting your panties in this big of a bunch?
- slantyyz 15y ago
  It is their business and prerogative to charge for access to the widget. Instead of saying "please stop using our service or start paying" (or face legal consequences), they should have said "please start paying or your widget won't work any more". That they use legal threats instead of an on/off switch to block access says something about their competence.
ErikRogneby 15y ago
One of the best freemium products I use is github. This discussion made me wonder if they are profitable... (the answer is yes) I dug up this old HN thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593980 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593980 Other than the "powered by rackspace" in the footer, it's blessedly ad free.

188 points by prateekdayal 15y ago

It's hard to see how this could not work. /s Do they really think this is a good tactic? It immediately creates tension between them and the client. Even if you paid up or added their link to your page would you trust them in the future? Absolutely not.

tomelders 15y ago

I don't think this is totally unreasonable. From their point of view, they offered a perfectly reasonable alternative to paying, which was ignored. By ignoring (accidentally) the original email, the message sent back could be interpreted as: "We're not implementing your link back, and we're not paying for your service, but we're still going to use it anyway". I'm playing devils advocate here, but there are two ways to look at this.

gcp 15y ago
Threatening legal action was completely unnecessary and makes them look like an ass. Simply pointing out you will stop the service from working for non-paying users would have been enough.
JS_startup 15y ago
The correct way to transition from a freemium to paid service is to grandfather previous users in, not classlessly pull the rug out from under them and demand money or a backlink (seriously? $20M in venture capital and you're begging users for backlinks?) Moreover, that e-mail was just really ham-fisted. Why not say "your service will be discontinued if you don't respond" instead of going thermonuclear with legal threats? It reeks of desperation and disregard for their existing clients.
- mattmanser 15y ago
  Grandfathering is as stupid an idea as freemium. Ever heard of inflation? It's a totally and utterly stupid idea and I'll have zero sympathy when any startup doing it suddenly find themselves in a world where the dollar isn't worth anywhere near what it was. Prices change. I don't expect to buy a Mars Bar for 15p from my local corner shop as they sold it to me that price 20 years ago. It is fine to say 'we're discontinuing your current plan, sorry'. Maybe be nice and offer them 3 months more free to transition if you can afford to. NEVER grandfather. What you don't do though is threaten legal action because you changed your T&Cs, that's just stupid and regardless of you CYA 'subject to change' clause you're not going to win in court and you just made a bunch of pissed off ex-customers telling everyone you suck because you threatened them.
  - jasonkester 15y ago
    Have you ever looked at the account lifetimes of users who have been grandfathered into a cheap plan versus the lifetime of a regular user on a regular plan? It's quite a thing to see. Grandfathered users will hold onto their subscription like it was made of gold. Even if they don't need the product anymore, you'll find them still hanging around for years because they know what a great deal they're getting. In mildly-innumerate-user-psychology, they're making money every month by keeping that old grandfathered plan. So even though those guys are making you less money, they're going to continue making you that money pretty much forever. Way more over their lifetime than they would have had you forced them onto a more expensive plan, pissed off half of them into leaving immediately, then watched the rest trickle away through attrition.
    - danshapiro 15y ago
      Furthermore, a user with low churn is worth much more than a normal user. In the phone industry, telcos pay over $300/head for a new subscriber, who will leave after ~30 months. That means they have to allocate $10/month during your subscription to find your replacement. It's worth giving an existing customer a $10/month discount by way of a grandfathered plan if it means they'll stay around.
eftpotrm 15y ago
No, the reasonable thing to do (and the good business practice) would have been to in some ways limit or revoke their access to the API if they didn't pay. That way, if they miss the mail and / or choose not to pay, they lose service but no more. Keeping up the service but demanding money with force would make me incredibly wary to do business with them. It's destroying trust and goodwill, and pretty much guarantees that, were I in that position, I'd be looking for alternatives with whom I could have a more healthy business relationship. Need to make money off what used to be free? Fine, but be polite about it. A business operates on the good will of its customers, who they've just annoyed.
palebluedot 15y ago
I don't think this is totally unreasonable. From their point of view, they offered a perfectly reasonable alternative to paying, which was ignored. By ignoring (accidentally) the original email, the message sent back could be interpreted as: "We're not implementing your link back, and we're not paying for your service, but we're still going to use it anyway". Wait, what? So - if I ignore an unsolicited email, that suddenly becomes actionable if I don't do what the email says? I have a hard time seeing how that is not totally unreasonable. The only reasonable nuclear option for them that I see, would be to simply terminate the user account or service, if they did not respond.
- brudgers 15y ago
  Your argument hinges on the email being unsolicited. One could argue that the email was not unsolicited, if the email address was obtained during signup and acceptance of the Terms of Service. Since it is not uncommon for free online services to have Terms of Service which allow the provider to unilaterally change those terms, the argument that an email notifying the user of the change is unsolicited is further weakened. While I am not suggesting that the alternatives offered are or are not fair or reasonable, the follow up email did its job in getting the service consumer's attention and more importantly action in regards to the matter.
  - skrish 15y ago
    Legally what you are saying could be right. But what if even this email was ignored as an unsolicited email? Is it right thing to sue them because they have sent 2 emails for a service that was offered free? Definitely not. The right thing to do would be to terminate the service for such a free user & get their attention.
    - dedward 15y ago
      It would seem to me that if the service was free, no money exchanged hands, therefore no contract exists that would make any sense in court. The only recourse they would have is to shut off access..... they'd have nothing to sue over.
mikeash 15y ago
Why couldn't they just shut the service off if these guys didn't pay? Going straight from "please pay or link" to "we will sue you" is unreasonable to an unbelievable degree. The issue is not with them wanting to charge money or get links or whatever. The issue is that they escalated way too hard and way too fast when much kinder effective measures were available.
elliottcarlson 15y ago
I completely agree that it's not an unreasonable approach; though Gigya should have made the subject line of the initial email clearer; and probably should not have mentioned the legal route in a second email. If still left ignored I am sure they could have sent a certified letter if still no action was taken. The articles mention of the link back being a paid for link is exactly what it is - in exchange for not paying $6000/year you have the option of placing a link on your site. It's a fair option.
- dedward 15y ago
  Even still there would be no cause for legal action... what would the damages be? They could simply shut off the service for the customer like every other service provider in the world would do...
  - elliottcarlson 15y ago
    Not every service provider works that way - I've seen plenty of hosting companies who just start charging overage charges - it would be stipulated somewhere in their TOS which most likely would also have the wording that it can be changed at any time. I'm not justifying the action - just saying that it does happen.
damoncali 15y ago
They could, you know, turn off the widget so that people that don't pay won't have access. Shockingly high tech, but that's why they get paid the big bucks.

narad 15y ago

$6000 a year for a widget - without proper data & explanation is - extortion.

corin_ 15y ago
It really isn't anything like extortion.
- narad 15y ago
  I have gone too harsh by using that word. I stand corrected.
kylemaxwell 15y ago
I do not think that word means what you think it means. It's a legal term to describe somebody getting money through abuse of their authority (e.g. requiring bribes under threat of prosecution) or charging illegal interest rates (e.g. usury). It doesn't mean "setting your prices too high but your customers can leave". Because, if it were extortion, SupportBee wouldn't be able simply to remove the widget and end the problem.

JS_startup 15y ago

I personally can't wait until the freemium model finally dies. It is extraordinarily difficult to pull off despite how popular it is and creates desperate decisions like this.

digitalsushi 15y ago
I believe the model will be with us for as long as newly minted business people believe they can make the model work better than their predecessors.
- loceng 15y ago
  Not all businesses will have a viable freemium model, especially when you have a huge amount of competition in an area.
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  Some of them will even be right. This is why it will never really die.
rplnt 15y ago
There are many examples where freemium model works though.
- dean 15y ago
  I'm interested to see examples where the freemium model works. Could you provide any links? I've typically read that they don't work. For example: http://www.softwarebyrob.com/2010/08/18/why-free-plans-dont-work/ http://www.softwarebyrob.com/2010/08/18/why-free-plans-dont-...
  - jgmmo 15y ago
    Just in my industry: AVG, AVAST, AVIRA, BitDefender, MalwareBytes, SUPERAntiSpyware All offer a non-trial/non-expiring 100% free home user version of their security software, with a more feature rich premium option available for payment. Freemium works like gangbusters in some industries.

yock 15y ago

This is an easy problem - change your API. It creates a built-in way of excluding previous users and, if a bit forcefully, opens lines of communication for users to update their implementations. Legal threats? Good riddance to you. I'd not touch your service if it sent me free money.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

joedev 15y ago

I act with the belief that notice by email is not enforceable and I ignore any emails with claims of legal action. I am under no obligation to read email. If it were true that an email serves as legal notice, then process servers would be out of work.

jarrett 15y ago
In general, it would depend on the type of notice. The bar is high for process servers because of the extraordinary importance of the news they're delivering. However, many contracts and statutes merely require "written notice." In these situations, the distinction between snail mail and email can matter, but I don't think it would often hinge on one's ability to ignore it. One can just as easily ignore snail mail as email.
a3camero 15y ago
But how would companies with lots of users provide notice otherwise? Apple is not going to be sending out letters to all XYZ million users of iTunes when they change the Terms of Service.
- Nick_C 15y ago
  I would bet the original ToS have a clause stating "you agree to receive notices by email" or similar. Also, keep distinct the notion of general communication between a company and client, and serving a legal notice.

jdietrich 15y ago

Repeat after me: If I do not pay for a service, I am the product, not the customer.

feralchimp 15y ago

I have never seen a Terms of Service agreement that would make gigya's behavior seem reasonable or justifiable in this case. Even if their ToS reserved the right to start charging for the service at any time, and explicitly wrote in crazy terms that disclaim them from notification periods, methods of notification, etc., their odds of collecting actual dollars by force are infinitesimal. Sadly, their odds of collecting actual dollars by threat of force might be pretty good. How sticky is their solution?

rkalla 15y ago

This reeks of a team floundering trying to figure out how to keep a ship from sinking. 1. Our "Free" product is now $6000/year ($500/mo) 2. OR give us a link-back 3. OR prepare for a lawyering While the response is inflammatory and wonderful for up-vote fodder, I can't imagine any calm, decent person ever taking this tact with a client. There are 17 different emails they could have sent to SupportBee that would have been more constructive than this. I wonder if the Gigya team is too young to know better or if they have back-breaking pressure on them from their investors to turn any sort of profit before they are all taken out to sea and shot. Obviously a stupid response, but really seems to be a response out of pure desperation more than anything.

mikeash 15y ago
Let's not assume that not knowing better requires youth. Because let's face it, there are plenty of older folk who are still this stupid, and plenty of younger people who realize that threatening to sue their clients for no good reason is a Bad Move.
- rkalla 15y ago
  Good clarification; "young" meaning "inexperienced" or "stupid like a fox"[1] and not age-dependent. [1] http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season6/lemon15.mp3 http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season6/lemon15.mp3
- bryanh 15y ago
  I read "young" as "green".
- brudgers 15y ago
  >"threatening to sue their clients" If you are not cashing someone's checks, they are not your client.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    If you're threatening to sue someone unless they pay you for services, you must at least think that they qualify as a client.

jmilloy 15y ago

I expected to come here and see comments lambasting supportbee for being whiny; I am surprised by the tone here. I think a lot (certainly not all) of the problems with the freemium model stem from the users. Just because it's free doesn't mean that it's always going to be free and that you don't have to read and comply with the terms of service. In this case, for one it's not clear to me that we've gotten the whole story. In particular, what were the original terms of service, and how did they change? Did supportbee read and comply with them? The current ToS says explicitly: >"Any notice or other communication to be given hereunder will be in writing and given (x) by Gigya via email (in each case to the address that you provide), (y) a posting on the Gigya Site or (z) by you via email ..." And really, did they have to send any notice at all? If supporbee was failing to comply with the ToS, couldn't Gigya cut off service or take legal action, sans warning? Meanwhile, supportbee doesn't want to put a link on the webpage for a service that they use and benefit from for free, and they throw a small public temper tantrum about it, and we are sympathetic? I'm just surprised. Aren't we overreacting about "legal threats"? Isn't this pretty standard and run of the mill? It could make more of an effort to make you feel good inside, but that's not really enough to make it wrong.

simonbrown 15y ago
I think warning them that Wildfire would be disabled for them on a certain date if they didn't pay/add a link would be more reasonable, but they just threatened legal action. They didn't even suggest stopping use of it, almost implying that having used it in the past indebted them.

droithomme 15y ago

I don't really see a problem with what they are asking. They want to be paid either in ad links or in subscription fees. The user of the service who wrote the article doesn't wish to do either. He also (in their view) ignored their previous email about it, so the second email is slightly less polite about it and brings up the possibility of legal action. I see how it came to this: he says he didn't notice the previous email. Given that perhaps he should have more sympathy for their position believing their request has gone ignored. I do agree that legal action claims are premature. It's also not very clear if they could prevail in a theft of services case against someone using their service after being asked not to (obviously consent to use the free version has been withdrawn). Clearly it would be a lot simpler to shut down the former client's access than it would be to drive something through the legal system. It could be argued that without properly notifying customers a service is about to be shut down, the customer might have cause to bring legal action against the company, this may be why they are doing notifications and requests rather than just unexpectedly disconnecting. Either party taking legal action at all in such a case is probably a foolish move. Not because it's a reaction to "not monetizing", but because it is unlikely there would be a positive outcome for any of the parties in such an action. Blogging one's (I think) unjustified rage seems as premature as the legal threats. Now looking at another angle. I don't think ad links are worth $6000, but the company says they would be happy with that. It sounds like the $6000 figure might actually be a fake number that they believe will motivate users to choose ad links instead, which is the real goal. The way they have approached this goal is poor. In this case, the user obviously doesn't want to use an ad link. Perhaps he would be willing to pay $100 a month instead of $500? We'll never know because of the way it was handled. Both sides should have given the other side more of a benefit of the doubt until determining the real intentions of the other party. edit: this being vigorously downvoted is pretty amusing.

corkill 15y ago

Ok so hate to point out the obvious, but if you want people to pay for your service ($6000 a year no less) or backlink you. You might need to put in a bit more effort than a single email with a crappy subject line and a follow up email threatening legal measures. Maybe something nice and friendly even? Someone said maybe they are a young team..sounds like the kind of crap corporate dinosaurs would pull to me.

jmilloy 15y ago
I don't understand what was so crappy about the subject line. If I was using any service, free or not, and I received an email with the company name and the word "Permissions" in the subject line, I would read it.
ericabiz 15y ago
Or sheesh, perhaps a phone call. I do not understand so many tech companies' reluctance to pick up the phone. Often you can resolve whatever you need to resolve in 10-15 minutes, and you don't come off looking like a jerk during the process.

cbs 15y ago

Is there something I'm missing? They discontinued a service. They're not asking for back compensation from when it was discontinued, only from this point on. So "please stop using our service or start paying" seems like a reasonable request. I typically expect an "its their buisness, their prerogative" type of response here on HN, how is this situation any different? Because the notice came by email? I'm sure if the first suportbee heard from them was a cease-and-deist letter in certified mail everyone would (rightfully so) point out that it could have much more easily been solved with a few email explaining the change. Because the notice didn't come by enough (or good enough) email? I'll give you that it might be worded a bit strong for a second notice, but this is buisness, not a cuddle factory. Is it really worth getting your panties in this big of a bunch?

slantyyz 15y ago
It is their business and prerogative to charge for access to the widget. Instead of saying "please stop using our service or start paying" (or face legal consequences), they should have said "please start paying or your widget won't work any more". That they use legal threats instead of an on/off switch to block access says something about their competence.

ErikRogneby 15y ago

One of the best freemium products I use is github. This discussion made me wonder if they are profitable... (the answer is yes) I dug up this old HN thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593980 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593980 Other than the "powered by rackspace" in the footer, it's blessedly ad free.