Agreed. I am always confused about the smackdown following a reversal from an arguably bad decision. We should be welcoming in hopes other companies note that being responsive is a good thing.
Otherwise, it is just being stuck between rock and a hard place with no place to move.
We do not want to set a precedent whereby a company responds to customer feedback, and then gets hit by a huge lawsuit anyhow. That just incentivizes companies to dig their heels in, because it means there's no change in outcome between speedily responding and trying to stay the course, at which point staying the course is the only sensible choice.
There's a time and a place for mercy, and giving positive feedback to the company for rapidly reversing course. They ate their crow; save the nuclear escalation for a company that refuses to.
OK, i understand. I'm pretty surprised at how jumbled this message came across here on hn, can't tell if the blame lies heavier on hn cynicism or on a problematic pitch. Could be because your company is so provocatively named. I wish I could get to see if this move is treated as a success or failure a year down the line.
I don't understand why all of these replies from the big companies come with something like "we are not able to revert this decision" somewhere in the text. It shows such an arrogance!
that's the kind of response from a ceo i want to see. normally, i would just expect “We did something that was unpopular. please buy our other product. also, the word apologize occurs somwhere here but it does not carry any of its significance” but this ammon person actually explained what he did and why
And the response each time seems to be along the lines of "We're sorry... but also we didn't do anything wrong and it was just a misunderstanding... and also people are being mean to us". I can't see this company ever growing past the controversy that hangs over it, because it keeps fueling it with extreme defensiveness and half-apologies.
How about a little contrition? Something like 'Yeah, we know we've screwed up our delivery over and over again. And we've never really delivered anything as promised. And our model has been repeatedly shown to be a failure. And we know you told us for years this would be the case if nothing changed, and we ignored you anyway. So we are sorry to ALL of you. Here's how we're going to change everything or here's how we're going to refund you.' Pretending there is one marginal, disgruntled group is a cynical, face-saying decoy designed to ignore the fact that virtually everyone is disgruntled. Pure arrogance.
Sure it's better to never make a mistake but so long as they don't make a habit of things like this I'm not going to think anything of it until I see more cracks in the wall.
A screw up is inevitable. A mature response is not. So the fact they gave mature response goes a long way. Although it's unfortunate that social media seems to be their emergency support channel...
I totally agree. A simple reply with the word "no" would have sufficed. If they push it, sure go public, but to make such a big issue of it at this point is just dis-respecting your employer (or owner, or whatever).
Agreed on your second point too... not surprising coming from TechCrunch.
Yeah, really weird that after an apology announcement they’re still defending the original message at all. Not too hard to say “Yes, those messages contradict each other. The first one did not communicate our actual plan. The second message is a correction and clarification.”
I'm just amazed at our inability to keep to our word, why would any company care to reconsider their decisions if even highly informed and agitated consumers go right back to them?
The funny thing is, it's only on circles like these at HN that it seems the corporation should "take the criticism."
As far as investors/Wall Street/the wider public goes, the non-answer might actually be the better response. Appearing to take the criticism seriously could be more damaging--hopefully internally, they are indeed taking the criticism seriously.
This is a separate issue now though. Just because something isn't completely proven (yet, anyway) doesn't mean that it doesn't already look bad from the outset.
And if you listen to what they're actually saying, they're alleging retaliation, not merely disagreeing with the direction the company is going on.
It's almost becoming a cliche for companies to release damage control follow-ups like this after they pull a bait and switch.
It's always "we're sorry that we didn't communicate our bait and switch effectively". Not we're sorry that we pulled a bait and switch. We're sorry you didn't understand the value in this bait and switch. It's your fault, actually. But we're sorry you're angry. Now stop giving us negative attention.
Appreciate you taking part in the conversation. So often people complain about companies not communicating like humans, but when they do people almost seem to get more pissed off. You can't win really.
Yet another case of big corp attacking someone, that someone having an online voice and complaining, big corp doing damage control spinning some tale about how they'll endeavor to do better in the future and how much they agree with the little guy.
For once I'd like companies to be honest, just say you reversed it when it was found out it would be more cost efficient to do so.
The only positive way to respond to a letter like that is to go out and do it. A press release reiterating the same old lines isn't going to solve anything; addressing concerns internally and releasing real products should be their response.
Not criticizing the timing. Criticizing the tone. My rule in life is politely ask first, if no response then by all means, bring the wrath. Does anyone know if they've ignored the concern?
Everybody assumes every company is a villain these days. Maybe this was an overlooking and they'll happily fix? Anybody ever think of that?
Otherwise, it is just being stuck between rock and a hard place with no place to move.
reply