Please. Grabbing someone's logo and making them pay you not to write "[company] has not committed to open conversation about its products and services. Encourage them to join and support the Company-Customer pact" on a very official looking page with your logo on it?
I'm sorry, but them's fighting words.
At a cursory glance, it isn't entirely obvious that Get Satisfaction is unofficial. Further, particularly for new companies, Get Satisfaction might end up with better PR than the official support forums! While there is value for the consumer in having off site forums that a company can't control, compare this to reseller ratings. On the latter, there is no chance you'll think you're on an official company page. Get Satisfaction seems to me to go to lengths to give that impression.
Glance more carefully. It is now entirely obvious that Get Satisfaction is unofficial. Check out their page for 37signals: http://getsatisfaction.com/37signals
- The title is "Unofficial customer service & support for 37signals on Get Satisfaction".
- The wording has been changed from "37signals has not commited to open conversation..." to "No one from 37signals has sponsored, endorsed or joined the conversation on Get Satisfaction yet. Employees may sign up here."
- The top of the page has large text that reads "Unofficial Customer Support Community for 37signals"
So Get Satisfaction deserves some credit for changing its ways.
The large "Unofficial" was only added after word got out.
The previous title was "Customer Support Community for 37signals" with the 37signals logo next to it.
They deserve a little credit for changing it so quickly, but I see no reason why I should feel sorry for them now.
Alright. It's probably a difference of opinion, nothing more. I'm quite forgiving by nature (for better or for worse), so I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt -- if they say they truly didn't mean to cause any damage, then I believe them. So to me, the fact that they changed the wording so quickly (less than 24 hours!) is a very positive thing, and is similar to any other company responding quickly to community feedback about a design flaw. Regardless of anything else, it is at least good for companies to react so quickly.
Who, exactly, is asking you to feel sorry for Get Satisfaction?
They clearly apologized, said how they would do things differently in response, and then did those things. I'm not sure what more you can expect of human beings.
There may be other aspects to their business model that remain questionable, so yes, take them to task for those (apparently they left the fee for taking competitors adds off the page in place, for example). But I do not think talking about how their actions make you feel is especially productive.
"Who, exactly, is asking you to feel sorry for Get Satisfaction?"
At the risk of answering for someone else...At this point, I would summarize most of the criticisms of Fried and defenses of GS as "The good, kind people of GS are being bullied by 37Signals." So, those people.
Having an employee tasked with monitoring that site is probably a bigger deal than paying, especially for 37s, which runs a really lean, carefully-designed team.
Yes, as the two astute replies beforehand have pointed out, you have to have someone on your payroll provide content for someone else's site. Nice work if that other site can get it.
I'm sorry, but them's fighting words.
At a cursory glance, it isn't entirely obvious that Get Satisfaction is unofficial. Further, particularly for new companies, Get Satisfaction might end up with better PR than the official support forums! While there is value for the consumer in having off site forums that a company can't control, compare this to reseller ratings. On the latter, there is no chance you'll think you're on an official company page. Get Satisfaction seems to me to go to lengths to give that impression.