5 ms·

I'm in the camp that says 37Signals have a valid point. Let's assume their intention is not about traffic but is to pressure GetSatisfaction into rectifying the

by markh 18y ago

I'm in the camp that says 37Signals have a valid point. Let's assume their intention is not about traffic but is to pressure GetSatisfaction into rectifying the situation as quickly as possible (and not just for 37Signals) then as harsh as the post may have been: 1) 37Signals have used their considerable influence to achieve change on behalf of many sites who have far less influence 2) 37Signals used the open model of putting pressure on a company publicly that GetSatisfaction have built their business on 3) They've effected change and created open discussion Could they have been 'nicer'? Perhaps. But more effective, I'm not so sure...

swombat 18y ago
That they have a valid point is not in question. GS themselves have acknowledged it and immediately fixed the offending badges and pages. My point is, the way they handled conveying that point to GetSatisfaction was nasty, brutish, and totally unwarranted.
- JoelSutherland 18y ago
  That they have a valid point is not in question. totally unwarranted If you agree that Jason's point is valid, I don't see how you can think his response was unwarranted. Jason did not appear to believe GetSatisfaction simply slipped up. Instead he accused them of extortion! His response was in line with this belief and only unwarranted if you disagree with his point.
  - swombat 18y ago
    That they have a valid point does not mean that all their points were valid. Valid point: GS wording is bad. Invalid point: GS are evil extortionists. Both can coexist in the same post.
    - JoelSutherland 18y ago
      That they have a valid point is not in question. Should I have taken that to mean: "That some of the very minor points he made were valid is not in question."? Clearly the takeaway from his post was not that he disagreed with the wording.
webwright 18y ago
Bullshit (will probably get a downmod or two for my vehemence). If Jason Fried dropped them a note saying, "I almost hit PUBLISH on the following rant-style post, but I wanted to drop you guys a line first", they would've jumped just as far, just as fast. It would've cost him exactly NOTHING to give it a day or two on private channels before posting a rant other than the time it took to find a contact form and hit "ctrl-V". Public rants are fun. Causing public harm to someone who has slighted you is gratifying. Getting a reaction from supporters and an apology from the rant-target is gratifying. That's the motivation of this post. Self-gratification. I generally love 37s, but not here. Pretty disappointing.
- enjo 18y ago
  Except that other folks on the web would have no idea this was going on. A private e-mail likely results in a private response (changing the wording on 37signals's get satisfaction page). A public exposure gets things changed... as it did. The fact is that GS got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. To think that the wording on that banner was not carefully considered is just plain naive. The 37 signals post is spot on. They where attempting to increase their conversion by strong-arming businesses into signing up. It didn't make it on to the site by accident. They changed the wording to something rather harsh, and received a commiserate reply in return. I hope they've learned their lesson, as I rather like their product.
  - ryanwaggoner 18y ago
    It's not like it's an either/or decision to send a private email or post an accusatory blog post. They could have simply tried the mature way first and then posted publicly if that didn't work. In fact, the public post would probably have had even more impact if they had been able to say "We contacted GetSatisfaction to work with them but they wouldn't cooperate." As it is, it just reads like another one of 37signal's invented controversies designed to garner page views.
  - webwright 18y ago
    I dunno if you've ever worked in a small startup, but to think that all wording that gets out the door gets vetted all the time is just ridiculous. My startup is pretty careful, but we've gotten caught with mistakes or even placeholder content once or twice. Chances are, some lowbie at the company said, "Oh, this will improve the text, I bet. I'll make sure to bring it up in the next design review". If a private communication as I described would've resulted in change (it would've), what extra benefit do we get out of turning it into an expose'? If it's a big monolithic evil company, I get the concept of a public spanking. But if it's a small startup, can't we give people just a LITTLE benefit of the doubt and try the polite path first?
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
drusenko 18y ago
I've been complaining about this for a while now and I'd tend to agree here. The whole getsatisfaction service is sort of like a blackmail scheme to start out with: They try hard to attract all of your users to their site, to be the "Weebly support forum", and then users are disappointed when their requests aren't answered. What's most annoying is that GetSatisfaction has a strong selection bias towards the users who have problems, and so it very negatively affects the image of the company. There is no way to respond to those users or fix their problems besides buying into the whole scam and doing support on their site. FYI, their support system has so much more overhead than the one we use internally that I'd estimate our support costs would increase 2-3X by moving all of our support into their system.

by markh 18y ago

swombat 18y ago

That they have a valid point is not in question. GS themselves have acknowledged it and immediately fixed the offending badges and pages. My point is, the way they handled conveying that point to GetSatisfaction was nasty, brutish, and totally unwarranted.

JoelSutherland 18y ago
That they have a valid point is not in question. totally unwarranted If you agree that Jason's point is valid, I don't see how you can think his response was unwarranted. Jason did not appear to believe GetSatisfaction simply slipped up. Instead he accused them of extortion! His response was in line with this belief and only unwarranted if you disagree with his point.
- swombat 18y ago
  That they have a valid point does not mean that all their points were valid. Valid point: GS wording is bad. Invalid point: GS are evil extortionists. Both can coexist in the same post.
  - JoelSutherland 18y ago
    That they have a valid point is not in question. Should I have taken that to mean: "That some of the very minor points he made were valid is not in question."? Clearly the takeaway from his post was not that he disagreed with the wording.

webwright 18y ago

Bullshit (will probably get a downmod or two for my vehemence). If Jason Fried dropped them a note saying, "I almost hit PUBLISH on the following rant-style post, but I wanted to drop you guys a line first", they would've jumped just as far, just as fast. It would've cost him exactly NOTHING to give it a day or two on private channels before posting a rant other than the time it took to find a contact form and hit "ctrl-V". Public rants are fun. Causing public harm to someone who has slighted you is gratifying. Getting a reaction from supporters and an apology from the rant-target is gratifying. That's the motivation of this post. Self-gratification. I generally love 37s, but not here. Pretty disappointing.

enjo 18y ago
Except that other folks on the web would have no idea this was going on. A private e-mail likely results in a private response (changing the wording on 37signals's get satisfaction page). A public exposure gets things changed... as it did. The fact is that GS got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. To think that the wording on that banner was not carefully considered is just plain naive. The 37 signals post is spot on. They where attempting to increase their conversion by strong-arming businesses into signing up. It didn't make it on to the site by accident. They changed the wording to something rather harsh, and received a commiserate reply in return. I hope they've learned their lesson, as I rather like their product.
- ryanwaggoner 18y ago
  It's not like it's an either/or decision to send a private email or post an accusatory blog post. They could have simply tried the mature way first and then posted publicly if that didn't work. In fact, the public post would probably have had even more impact if they had been able to say "We contacted GetSatisfaction to work with them but they wouldn't cooperate." As it is, it just reads like another one of 37signal's invented controversies designed to garner page views.
- webwright 18y ago
  I dunno if you've ever worked in a small startup, but to think that all wording that gets out the door gets vetted all the time is just ridiculous. My startup is pretty careful, but we've gotten caught with mistakes or even placeholder content once or twice. Chances are, some lowbie at the company said, "Oh, this will improve the text, I bet. I'll make sure to bring it up in the next design review". If a private communication as I described would've resulted in change (it would've), what extra benefit do we get out of turning it into an expose'? If it's a big monolithic evil company, I get the concept of a public spanking. But if it's a small startup, can't we give people just a LITTLE benefit of the doubt and try the polite path first?

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

drusenko 18y ago

I've been complaining about this for a while now and I'd tend to agree here. The whole getsatisfaction service is sort of like a blackmail scheme to start out with: They try hard to attract all of your users to their site, to be the "Weebly support forum", and then users are disappointed when their requests aren't answered. What's most annoying is that GetSatisfaction has a strong selection bias towards the users who have problems, and so it very negatively affects the image of the company. There is no way to respond to those users or fix their problems besides buying into the whole scam and doing support on their site. FYI, their support system has so much more overhead than the one we use internally that I'd estimate our support costs would increase 2-3X by moving all of our support into their system.