5 ms·

"Good will" is an asset just like any other to be spent when the time is right. Sometimes a company will make the wrong bet and accidentally go out of business.

"Good will" is an asset just like any other to be spent when the time is right. Sometimes a company will make the wrong bet and accidentally go out of business. Far more often there is a ton of backlash, their reputation goes in the tank, then they spend the next couple years building good will back up until the majority of people forget all about the past transgressions. Meanwhile the unpopular decision makes stacks of cash. Repeat the cycle ad-infinitum. To clarify, I don't endorse this behavior, but unfortunately, it's the modern way of business.

Aditya_Garg 3y ago
Besides Reddit, do you have other examples ?
- wetpaws 3y ago
  [dead]
- red_hare 3y ago
  Etsy. Ever since the 2017 activist investor event, it feels like they've been trading good will with sellers for profits.
  - transcriptase 3y ago
    I used to be able to buy amazing handmade items for reasonable prices and reasonable shipping from actual people running small storefronts on Etsy. Now it’s just another e-commerce site that’s been completely and utterly overrun with marked up Aliexpress junk and low quality copies of anything novel that gains the slightest bit of popularity. The few remaining authentic sellers now charge so much it’s laughable unless you’re wealthy enough that cost isn’t a concern.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Where do you find authentic sellers?
      - transcriptase 3y ago
        I'm assuming you're being sardonic, but remarkably it's still a great place to buy live cuttings of succulents and other plants from enthusiasts. In contrast to buying seeds off Amazon or eBay, where the plants that sellers are claiming they're shipping you seeds for are often just random weeds rather than the hilariously photoshopped or non-existent flowers/fruits shown in the product listing. e.g. https://www.amazon.ca/Glamaours-Climbing-Strawberry-Delicious-Planting/dp/B07CPQ2CMK/ https://www.amazon.ca/Glamaours-Climbing-Strawberry-Deliciou... or https://www.amazon.ca/Rosepoem-100pcs-rainbow-vegetable-Non-GMO/dp/B079QJ7GBD/ https://www.amazon.ca/Rosepoem-100pcs-rainbow-vegetable-Non-...
        wolverine876 3y ago
        Thanks for answering. I was not being sardonic; it was a genuine question.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - notpachet 3y ago
    It began with the IPO; the investor takeover was just the logical conclusion.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rany_ 3y ago
I guess it's a gamble on whether you could gain users faster than you'd be losing them. Either way I don't think this can be the case with Unity due to how niche their product is with many alternatives (including free ones).
brookst 3y ago
But isn’t that as it should be? Just like you never step in the same river twice, you never do business with the same company twice. Staff and executives change over time, and companies shift for better or worse. Should we hold grudges against brands for things totally different people did 10? 20? 50? years ago? That seems weird to me. Unity specifically deserves loss of trust and all the pain they get. But in 5 years, or 10 years or whatever, should we assume they are less trustworthy than other companies because of what this group of managers did?
- digging 3y ago
  Maybe, if new people are in charge.
- nwiswell 3y ago
  If you drink from a river and get cholera, would you drink from that river again in the future? It might be fine! Maybe on that particular day, somebody with cholera had just taken a shit upstream, and the bacteria are totally gone now. But it's still a useful prior, and that's the case here with whom you choose to conduct business. I think it's a question of burden of proof. You'd ordinarily not worry too much about cholera, but after an incident you'd want the water thoroughly and repeatedly tested. You probably would not say "eh, it's been 5 or 10 years, it's most likely fine." Similarly you'd want some concrete evidence that a company has actually changed, in a degree sufficient to offset your negative prior, before you'd consider engaging in any further business with them. But actually doing that research is a pain in the ass, so I think it's a reasonable strategy to simply prefer companies that haven't screwed you over wherever good options exist.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > If you drink from a river and get cholera, would you drink from that river again in the future? No. Further, I'd stop drinking untreated water from all rivers. (Just answering your hypothetical. I spend a lot of time in the wilderness and wouldn't drink untreated water from a river or lake to begin with.) This effect, though, has happened with software for me years ago. Enough bad actors exist that I've reached the place where I trust very few software houses (and I trust exactly zero SV-style companies). Not that all of those rivers are polluted, of course, but that it's impossible to tell which ones are and which ones aren't by looking at them. I would never dare to start a business that depended on any of them. The risk is simply too great.
deciplex 3y ago
It's extremely risky, and while it's relatively easy to calculate the gains realized, it's almost impossible to calculate the cost.

Aditya_Garg 3y ago

Besides Reddit, do you have other examples ?

wetpaws 3y ago
[dead]
red_hare 3y ago
Etsy. Ever since the 2017 activist investor event, it feels like they've been trading good will with sellers for profits.
- transcriptase 3y ago
  I used to be able to buy amazing handmade items for reasonable prices and reasonable shipping from actual people running small storefronts on Etsy. Now it’s just another e-commerce site that’s been completely and utterly overrun with marked up Aliexpress junk and low quality copies of anything novel that gains the slightest bit of popularity. The few remaining authentic sellers now charge so much it’s laughable unless you’re wealthy enough that cost isn’t a concern.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Where do you find authentic sellers?
    - transcriptase 3y ago
      I'm assuming you're being sardonic, but remarkably it's still a great place to buy live cuttings of succulents and other plants from enthusiasts. In contrast to buying seeds off Amazon or eBay, where the plants that sellers are claiming they're shipping you seeds for are often just random weeds rather than the hilariously photoshopped or non-existent flowers/fruits shown in the product listing. e.g. https://www.amazon.ca/Glamaours-Climbing-Strawberry-Delicious-Planting/dp/B07CPQ2CMK/ https://www.amazon.ca/Glamaours-Climbing-Strawberry-Deliciou... or https://www.amazon.ca/Rosepoem-100pcs-rainbow-vegetable-Non-GMO/dp/B079QJ7GBD/ https://www.amazon.ca/Rosepoem-100pcs-rainbow-vegetable-Non-...
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Thanks for answering. I was not being sardonic; it was a genuine question.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- notpachet 3y ago
  It began with the IPO; the investor takeover was just the logical conclusion.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rany_ 3y ago

I guess it's a gamble on whether you could gain users faster than you'd be losing them. Either way I don't think this can be the case with Unity due to how niche their product is with many alternatives (including free ones).

brookst 3y ago

But isn’t that as it should be? Just like you never step in the same river twice, you never do business with the same company twice. Staff and executives change over time, and companies shift for better or worse. Should we hold grudges against brands for things totally different people did 10? 20? 50? years ago? That seems weird to me. Unity specifically deserves loss of trust and all the pain they get. But in 5 years, or 10 years or whatever, should we assume they are less trustworthy than other companies because of what this group of managers did?

digging 3y ago
Maybe, if new people are in charge.
nwiswell 3y ago
If you drink from a river and get cholera, would you drink from that river again in the future? It might be fine! Maybe on that particular day, somebody with cholera had just taken a shit upstream, and the bacteria are totally gone now. But it's still a useful prior, and that's the case here with whom you choose to conduct business. I think it's a question of burden of proof. You'd ordinarily not worry too much about cholera, but after an incident you'd want the water thoroughly and repeatedly tested. You probably would not say "eh, it's been 5 or 10 years, it's most likely fine." Similarly you'd want some concrete evidence that a company has actually changed, in a degree sufficient to offset your negative prior, before you'd consider engaging in any further business with them. But actually doing that research is a pain in the ass, so I think it's a reasonable strategy to simply prefer companies that haven't screwed you over wherever good options exist.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > If you drink from a river and get cholera, would you drink from that river again in the future? No. Further, I'd stop drinking untreated water from all rivers. (Just answering your hypothetical. I spend a lot of time in the wilderness and wouldn't drink untreated water from a river or lake to begin with.) This effect, though, has happened with software for me years ago. Enough bad actors exist that I've reached the place where I trust very few software houses (and I trust exactly zero SV-style companies). Not that all of those rivers are polluted, of course, but that it's impossible to tell which ones are and which ones aren't by looking at them. I would never dare to start a business that depended on any of them. The risk is simply too great.

deciplex 3y ago

It's extremely risky, and while it's relatively easy to calculate the gains realized, it's almost impossible to calculate the cost.