5 ms·

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 37signal

by 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.

by enjo 18y ago

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.