5 ms·

Yes, but had they not had their pages looking semi-official, there would be no reason to use GS, now would there? As I've said somewhere lower in the comments,

Yes, but had they not had their pages looking semi-official, there would be no reason to use GS, now would there? As I've said somewhere lower in the comments, two things would have made a world of difference here. 1. GS should have had an e-mail notification system in place. They should notify any company, much less 37Signals, that there's been a question posted on their forums. Same can be said for UserVoice and any other third-party site who wants to get into this game. Had they notified the support people at 37Signals, none of this would have come to bear. 2. Jason, no matter how angry he is/was, should have NOT used a public forum for dealing with this issue immediately. Had he talked to GS's admins/support through e-mail privately, there'd be no need for this hubbub. If the e-mail route did not work, then I agree with denouncing GS publicly. All I'm alluding to here is maturity. There are good ways of handling issues and then there are bad ones. Even if Jason has a good point about GS's business conduct, it's lost, not just on me, based solely on his approach to it.

tptacek 18y ago
If the only way to make your product work is to co-opt the branding and identity of another company, you have a business model problem. Are you sure you're really advocating for GS here?
- batasrki 18y ago
  No, they can advocate for themselves. I'm advocating for maturity in the resolution of such problems. I've never denied that what GS was at best misleading, however, I don't think that going public without trying to resolve matters privately is very mature. In this case, GS has responded positively, but things could have shaped differently had there been another Jason Fried on the other side.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Just a guess, but I think if GS had a Jason Fried, the "conversation" would look more like this: 37s: The Get Satisfaction business model is dangerously close to extortion. GS: We didn't realize it, but you're right. We're doing X, Y, and Z to fix it right now. We're sorry. 37s: Also there's 10x more 37s branding on your pages than GS branding, which is misleading. GS: You know what? You're right about that too. We thought the branding would help our users, but it's turning out to be misleading. We're doing X, Y, and Z to rebadge the pages, and we're sorry. 37s: ... Peanut Gallery 1: GS misled the whole Internet? Peanut Gallery 2: Yeah, and they apologized. That all you got? Peanut Gallery 1: ... Peanut Gallery 2: ... Instead, because GS apparently doesn't know how to concede a point cleanly and end the discussion, they're going to remain the center of attention for awhile. And while all publicity is in a sense good publicity, the people they make money from are hearing nothing except "trademark infringement" and "customer service horror story".
    - batasrki 18y ago
      I don't that that's how it'd go, for the simple reason that if Jason Fried was so outraged at the GS's behaviour, it only stands to reason that had there been another JF on the other side, he'd be outraged by the 37S's one that he'd flame him back. You know what this is just getting too complicated.
      - Semiapies 18y ago
        Assuming no ill intent and simple (if major) ignorance being GS's problem, having someone around like Fried with an understanding of trademark and branding would have probably prevented the whole issue.
        batasrki 18y ago
        I'll give you that point.
    - wallflower 18y ago
      > they're going to remain the center of attention for awhile. Everyone on the Internet has a soapbox. Jason Fried/37S has a much bigger soapbox than the average disgruntled blogger/user because of their huge reader base.
      - dhimes 18y ago
        Thank God. If this had happened to me, I'd have no recourse. Keep in mind, even a public flogging didn't work for GS. This is the second post. Will this work? We'll see.
    - potatolicious 18y ago
      The guys behind GS are not stupid... the sheer volume of evidence against them would suggest that much of this was intentional. The initial reply from GS that promised to change the phrasing on their site seemed, to me at least, disingenuous, like a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
calambrac 18y ago
That's just not scalable. You can't politely contact every company that's screwing you over and ask nicely for them to stop. It's a bit naive to think that a blog post was the nuclear option - this very well could have been a lawsuit.
- batasrki 18y ago
  A trademark lawsuit would have actually made more sense. The blog post was intended to embarrass GS and therefore diminish their status in the Internet world, while at the same time airing your grievance. That can be especially said for this follow-up post. If there was no need for the original one, there's absolutely no need for this one. If Jason thought that there are design considerations GS needed to think about, this whole post should have then gone privately. However, opting to blog about it publicly so that one of GS's founders can go and say "Right, we got it. We will include it in our redesign" is, at best, pulling rank. Sarah Hatter had said that she answers thousands of support e-mails every year. Saying it's not scalable to send an e-mail to a company you have a grievance with is childish.
  - Semiapies 18y ago
    So it's better to sue someone than shame them into better behavior?
    - batasrki 18y ago
      Let me offer an analogy: Your neighbour trespasses on your farm. Moreover, he builds a small store on it with no permits and when he gets tagged for it by the inspector, he points to you as it's your farm. Do you: a) Find him, take him to the town square and publicly whip him in front of the whole town? b) Take him to court for trespassing?
      - Semiapies 18y ago
        Terrible metaphor: a critical blog post is not aggravated assault. You seem to have a bit of a fixation on criticism as some sort of injury.
smoody 18y ago
"2. Jason, no matter how angry he is/was, should have NOT used a public forum for dealing with this issue immediately." The funny thing is, the same could be said for people using GS for airing their grievances. A company that hosts a public forum that solicits features/changes/complaints from people can't seriously expect someone to use a private channel to suggest features/changes/complaints, can they? That's downright hypocritical in my book.
- batasrki 18y ago
  They can, if they respond to those complaints/support requests in a timely manner. The only way GS makes sense is if you've tried to contact a company in order to register a complaint and were not successful: 1) You got a generic e-mail back, knowing that your issue will never be looked at. 2) The company does not have any sort of contact information available on their site. If users of GS register complaints there, GS should forward those complaints to the company in question. That makes sense to me. If GS does not do that, then that's a problem. However, that does not mean that you can air your grievance with them publicly until all other means have failed. It's logical, no?
dhotson 18y ago
I disagree with #2. I think that 37signals did the right thing. This issue doesn't just affect 37signals, it affects a lot of other companies. In my opinion, 37signals were obliged to talk about this publicly. If they sent some private mails, a lot of people and companies would still be in the dark regarding the issue. They had a responsibility to call bullshit.

tptacek 18y ago

If the only way to make your product work is to co-opt the branding and identity of another company, you have a business model problem. Are you sure you're really advocating for GS here?

batasrki 18y ago
No, they can advocate for themselves. I'm advocating for maturity in the resolution of such problems. I've never denied that what GS was at best misleading, however, I don't think that going public without trying to resolve matters privately is very mature. In this case, GS has responded positively, but things could have shaped differently had there been another Jason Fried on the other side.
- tptacek 18y ago
  Just a guess, but I think if GS had a Jason Fried, the "conversation" would look more like this: 37s: The Get Satisfaction business model is dangerously close to extortion. GS: We didn't realize it, but you're right. We're doing X, Y, and Z to fix it right now. We're sorry. 37s: Also there's 10x more 37s branding on your pages than GS branding, which is misleading. GS: You know what? You're right about that too. We thought the branding would help our users, but it's turning out to be misleading. We're doing X, Y, and Z to rebadge the pages, and we're sorry. 37s: ... Peanut Gallery 1: GS misled the whole Internet? Peanut Gallery 2: Yeah, and they apologized. That all you got? Peanut Gallery 1: ... Peanut Gallery 2: ... Instead, because GS apparently doesn't know how to concede a point cleanly and end the discussion, they're going to remain the center of attention for awhile. And while all publicity is in a sense good publicity, the people they make money from are hearing nothing except "trademark infringement" and "customer service horror story".
  - batasrki 18y ago
    I don't that that's how it'd go, for the simple reason that if Jason Fried was so outraged at the GS's behaviour, it only stands to reason that had there been another JF on the other side, he'd be outraged by the 37S's one that he'd flame him back. You know what this is just getting too complicated.
    - Semiapies 18y ago
      Assuming no ill intent and simple (if major) ignorance being GS's problem, having someone around like Fried with an understanding of trademark and branding would have probably prevented the whole issue.
      - batasrki 18y ago
        I'll give you that point.
  - wallflower 18y ago
    > they're going to remain the center of attention for awhile. Everyone on the Internet has a soapbox. Jason Fried/37S has a much bigger soapbox than the average disgruntled blogger/user because of their huge reader base.
    - dhimes 18y ago
      Thank God. If this had happened to me, I'd have no recourse. Keep in mind, even a public flogging didn't work for GS. This is the second post. Will this work? We'll see.
  - potatolicious 18y ago
    The guys behind GS are not stupid... the sheer volume of evidence against them would suggest that much of this was intentional. The initial reply from GS that promised to change the phrasing on their site seemed, to me at least, disingenuous, like a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

calambrac 18y ago

That's just not scalable. You can't politely contact every company that's screwing you over and ask nicely for them to stop. It's a bit naive to think that a blog post was the nuclear option - this very well could have been a lawsuit.

batasrki 18y ago
A trademark lawsuit would have actually made more sense. The blog post was intended to embarrass GS and therefore diminish their status in the Internet world, while at the same time airing your grievance. That can be especially said for this follow-up post. If there was no need for the original one, there's absolutely no need for this one. If Jason thought that there are design considerations GS needed to think about, this whole post should have then gone privately. However, opting to blog about it publicly so that one of GS's founders can go and say "Right, we got it. We will include it in our redesign" is, at best, pulling rank. Sarah Hatter had said that she answers thousands of support e-mails every year. Saying it's not scalable to send an e-mail to a company you have a grievance with is childish.
- Semiapies 18y ago
  So it's better to sue someone than shame them into better behavior?
  - batasrki 18y ago
    Let me offer an analogy: Your neighbour trespasses on your farm. Moreover, he builds a small store on it with no permits and when he gets tagged for it by the inspector, he points to you as it's your farm. Do you: a) Find him, take him to the town square and publicly whip him in front of the whole town? b) Take him to court for trespassing?
    - Semiapies 18y ago
      Terrible metaphor: a critical blog post is not aggravated assault. You seem to have a bit of a fixation on criticism as some sort of injury.

smoody 18y ago

"2. Jason, no matter how angry he is/was, should have NOT used a public forum for dealing with this issue immediately." The funny thing is, the same could be said for people using GS for airing their grievances. A company that hosts a public forum that solicits features/changes/complaints from people can't seriously expect someone to use a private channel to suggest features/changes/complaints, can they? That's downright hypocritical in my book.

batasrki 18y ago
They can, if they respond to those complaints/support requests in a timely manner. The only way GS makes sense is if you've tried to contact a company in order to register a complaint and were not successful: 1) You got a generic e-mail back, knowing that your issue will never be looked at. 2) The company does not have any sort of contact information available on their site. If users of GS register complaints there, GS should forward those complaints to the company in question. That makes sense to me. If GS does not do that, then that's a problem. However, that does not mean that you can air your grievance with them publicly until all other means have failed. It's logical, no?

dhotson 18y ago

I disagree with #2. I think that 37signals did the right thing. This issue doesn't just affect 37signals, it affects a lot of other companies. In my opinion, 37signals were obliged to talk about this publicly. If they sent some private mails, a lot of people and companies would still be in the dark regarding the issue. They had a responsibility to call bullshit.