3 ms·
That's passing the buck and refusing to take responsibility for their own actions. News places will reprint anything that will get views, and people will click
by ebbv 14y ago
That's passing the buck and refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.
News places will reprint anything that will get views, and people will click through on anything sensational. So is that a valid excuse for engaging in GoDaddy-ish behavior?
No. You have to take responsibility for what you choose to do.
If you choose to release press releases purely about your VC funding round instead of talking about your product; that's your choice, nobody else's.
And if you talk about your product and nobody is interested in it; you should take that as a sign.
- matthewowen 14y agoThere's a pretty big difference between being 'GoDaddy-ish' and releasing press releases about funding rounds. GoDaddy style behaviour is A Bad Thing in and of itself. The only thing that's bad about funding round press releases is that they're boring. But since people print them and are apparently interested in reading them... well, OK. Press releases about funding don't reveal a lack of moral fibre or dubious ethics. They just reveal that the organisation is savvy enough to do something that works (een if it is pointless).
- ebbv 14y agoI agree there's a difference, I was just using it as an example to illustrate a point; that the fact that people will print something is not an excuse for that behavior.
- justin 14y agoStartups certainly "take responsibility" for announcing and heavily publicizing their fundraising rounds. It's a strong signal that your company is on a path to success (not the only path) and you certainly want it spread as far and wide as possible. I don't care if some people think my funding announcement less valid than other industry news, or somehow "less earned." The fact that there is a market for that kind of news means that enough people derive value from it. Not all news is valuable to all people: celebrity news and financial news have two very different audiences. If an investor is accidentally exposed to celebrity news at the grocery store checkout line, is it the fault of the celebrity?