5 ms·

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 po

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?
  - enjo 18y ago
    I'm currently at my third. Even if it was placeholder content it had been on the site for more than a week, on every single non-paying customers page. That's not something that just slips by. This isn't a typo in the terms of service, it's a marketing tool. Give me a break. Your never going to convince me this was a simple mistake.
    - prawn 18y ago
      Enjo, I back your position on this 100%. Dodgy, intentional marketing tactic from GS - no doubt about it.
  - troels 18y ago
    It's rather irrelevant if it was intentional or not - the damage is still very real. If you accidentally shoot someones head off, you're still accountable for the action. Of course there's a difference in how to handle the mistake (murder-one or manslaughter?), but the question of responsibility remains the same. If GS handles this matter well (And so far they seem to), they might get away with some minor damage done to their own reputation, but that's not Jason' fault - That's their own.
- knowtheory 18y ago
  Ridiculous. As if Fried couldn't have posted the article after an interaction w/ Get Satisfaction. But then it would be a good example of quick customer service, as opposed to a hatchet job.
  - GHFigs 18y ago
    it would be a good example of quick customer service 37signals were not and are not customers of Get Satisfaction.
    - knowtheory 18y ago
      So? Clearly some of their users are.
tptacek 18y ago
I'm surprised to hear you take this position. If I set up a website with pages for companies including RescueTime, collected security vulnerability reports, provided statistics about them, included your logo and a comment about your commitment to secure software development, I'd expect to hear from your lawyers.
- webwright 18y ago
  Well, if you didn't otherwise appear like an asshole, you'd hear from me first. If we couldn't come to some accord, I'd weigh the lawyer involvement with the time investment that it'd require to compel you to be more reasonable.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    How about this: what's an honest answer about how pissed you'd be if: (1) I was the top Google search result for "RescueTime security" (2) That page linked to a site where I collected security reports from end-users. (3) That page had your logo on it. (4) That page had copy that might suggest RescueTime didn't take the security of your customer's data seriously. We've established that you'd come talk to me first (actually, by your wording, we've establish that I'd be hearing from your lawyer). But how upset would you be?
    - webwright 18y ago
      Why are you creating a hypothetical situation about security? Seems like a hypothetical situation about customer support would be more appropriate. The answer is (for customer support)-- moderately. But the question is: What's the goal with a response? To make them suffer? Or to fix it? How does it benefit my business to invest extra time/money to make another company suffer? I think the grown up / smart way to respond to feeling pissed off/slighted isn't what 37s did. And it's not calling a lawyer. Or not at first. If it was important to my business that the issue fix itself, I'd way the costs and benefits of assorted actions. Easiest thing is to pick up the phone and take 15 minutes to politely explain our position and ask for a timeframe for resolution. If didn't feel that was going to solve the issue, I'd go the expose' route (which, as someone else mentioned-- carries a lot more weight if you can say, "I privately asked them to fix it and they pretty much told me to fuck off"). If that didn't work, I'd decide whether it was worth the $300 to spin up a form letter from my lawyer. And if that didn't work, I'd decide whether it was worth it to spin up a lawsuit (in terms of time and money). Being "pissed off" shouldn't enter into business decisions. But, again-- I don't think 37s' decision to take this public immediately was not motivated by anything but self-gratification (unless you want to go meta and credit them for a great linkbait play).
DenisM 18y ago
- Hey - you are stealing my sutff! - Oh, you noticed? Sorry, I will stop now. I will go steal someone else's stuff then. This is not to equate GS actions with stealing, but merely to demonstrate a fault in your reasoning.
GHFigs 18y ago
"I almost hit PUBLISH on the following rant-style post, but I wanted to drop you guys a line first" No, that would have been extortion in the form of: "Nice place you got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it." In case you missed it, coersion is what is being railed against. There is a world of difference between responding to public criticism and responding on threat of public criticism.
froo 18y ago
Getting a reaction from supporters and an apology from the rant-target is gratifying. That's the motivation of this post. Self-gratification. I've got to admit, I've done this before to a much larger company than GetSatisfaction with a much smaller blog than 37signals' and this was part of my motivation for doing so. I don't understand why you weren't upmodded more, you were 100% correct on this point.

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?
- enjo 18y ago
  I'm currently at my third. Even if it was placeholder content it had been on the site for more than a week, on every single non-paying customers page. That's not something that just slips by. This isn't a typo in the terms of service, it's a marketing tool. Give me a break. Your never going to convince me this was a simple mistake.
  - prawn 18y ago
    Enjo, I back your position on this 100%. Dodgy, intentional marketing tactic from GS - no doubt about it.
- troels 18y ago
  It's rather irrelevant if it was intentional or not - the damage is still very real. If you accidentally shoot someones head off, you're still accountable for the action. Of course there's a difference in how to handle the mistake (murder-one or manslaughter?), but the question of responsibility remains the same. If GS handles this matter well (And so far they seem to), they might get away with some minor damage done to their own reputation, but that's not Jason' fault - That's their own.
knowtheory 18y ago
Ridiculous. As if Fried couldn't have posted the article after an interaction w/ Get Satisfaction. But then it would be a good example of quick customer service, as opposed to a hatchet job.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  it would be a good example of quick customer service 37signals were not and are not customers of Get Satisfaction.
  - knowtheory 18y ago
    So? Clearly some of their users are.

tptacek 18y ago

I'm surprised to hear you take this position. If I set up a website with pages for companies including RescueTime, collected security vulnerability reports, provided statistics about them, included your logo and a comment about your commitment to secure software development, I'd expect to hear from your lawyers.

webwright 18y ago
Well, if you didn't otherwise appear like an asshole, you'd hear from me first. If we couldn't come to some accord, I'd weigh the lawyer involvement with the time investment that it'd require to compel you to be more reasonable.
- tptacek 18y ago
  How about this: what's an honest answer about how pissed you'd be if: (1) I was the top Google search result for "RescueTime security" (2) That page linked to a site where I collected security reports from end-users. (3) That page had your logo on it. (4) That page had copy that might suggest RescueTime didn't take the security of your customer's data seriously. We've established that you'd come talk to me first (actually, by your wording, we've establish that I'd be hearing from your lawyer). But how upset would you be?
  - webwright 18y ago
    Why are you creating a hypothetical situation about security? Seems like a hypothetical situation about customer support would be more appropriate. The answer is (for customer support)-- moderately. But the question is: What's the goal with a response? To make them suffer? Or to fix it? How does it benefit my business to invest extra time/money to make another company suffer? I think the grown up / smart way to respond to feeling pissed off/slighted isn't what 37s did. And it's not calling a lawyer. Or not at first. If it was important to my business that the issue fix itself, I'd way the costs and benefits of assorted actions. Easiest thing is to pick up the phone and take 15 minutes to politely explain our position and ask for a timeframe for resolution. If didn't feel that was going to solve the issue, I'd go the expose' route (which, as someone else mentioned-- carries a lot more weight if you can say, "I privately asked them to fix it and they pretty much told me to fuck off"). If that didn't work, I'd decide whether it was worth the $300 to spin up a form letter from my lawyer. And if that didn't work, I'd decide whether it was worth it to spin up a lawsuit (in terms of time and money). Being "pissed off" shouldn't enter into business decisions. But, again-- I don't think 37s' decision to take this public immediately was not motivated by anything but self-gratification (unless you want to go meta and credit them for a great linkbait play).

DenisM 18y ago

- Hey - you are stealing my sutff! - Oh, you noticed? Sorry, I will stop now. I will go steal someone else's stuff then. This is not to equate GS actions with stealing, but merely to demonstrate a fault in your reasoning.

GHFigs 18y ago

"I almost hit PUBLISH on the following rant-style post, but I wanted to drop you guys a line first" No, that would have been extortion in the form of: "Nice place you got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it." In case you missed it, coersion is what is being railed against. There is a world of difference between responding to public criticism and responding on threat of public criticism.

froo 18y ago

Getting a reaction from supporters and an apology from the rant-target is gratifying. That's the motivation of this post. Self-gratification. I've got to admit, I've done this before to a much larger company than GetSatisfaction with a much smaller blog than 37signals' and this was part of my motivation for doing so. I don't understand why you weren't upmodded more, you were 100% correct on this point.