Hacker News Reader

People complain when you're a robot, people complain when you're a human.

> It's made worse by people thinking that anything about the content of the apology matters. It was literally crafted by an expert actor.

Yes they are a money making organization...that's why they were able to build such a useful service in the first place and yes they paid people to write this letter... who happen to be people that are good at communicating. Does that mean we should question every action they make as insincere because they are self-interested?

Most free/open-source projects are so over-burdened with work/bug reports that they neglect PR pieces like this as they simply don't have the time. It's a good thing it was written by an expert writer IMO, even if it does contain a bit of spin people typically have enough common-sense to know the difference where it matters.

The whole reason they rolled back this change is because they were ultimately self-interested... the customers were very unhappy about it and protested, which may hurt their business, so they rolled it back. It's win-win for everyone. They aren't forcing anyone to use the service, people use it because it's useful and the company gets rewarded for not pissing them off.

Not to mention there is a real action/behaviour behind this letter... it's not just PR-speak sidestepping an issue, as we've seen in the past. It's an announcement that they made a mistake and listened to consumer feedback and are reversing a bad decision.

I find many of these types of complaints (see: every FB group made after changes made to FB) are just people looking for something to whine about, or to feel superior to a company, and they typically aren't representing the average consumer. Most messaging like this is considering the interests of the average/majority customer. Not the cynical/high iq minority who is touchy about copywriting in press releases.

>Yes they are a money making organization...that's why they were able to build such a useful service in the first place and yes they paid people to write this letter... who happen to be people that are good at communicating. Does that mean we should question every action they make as insincere because they are self-interested?

Yes! As customers in a cold, realist world, we're doomed to have an adversarial relationship with the organizations trying to profit from us. The question is who wins: Joe Six-pack like you and me, or the suits with the lawyers and PR teams?

> The question is who wins: Joe Six-pack like you and me, or the suits with the lawyers and PR teams?

... who wins what? The most value which the company provides?

Apologies if I missed some sarcasm here, it’s hard to tell these days.

I’m curious what customers are potentially losing or being ‘manipulated’ here ... because a company wrote a human personal-style press release.

We’re not talking about the special advantages large companies or wealthy individuals get as a result of government policy or in the court room... where politicians and law makers can be bought off or influenced in in their favour, over competitors or consumer interests.

And if customers occasionally reacting negatively, in regards to a service they clearly care about enough to protect and protest to making a change, is ‘adversarial’ then you’re engaging in your own spin. This seems like a healthy give and take. The fundamental basis on which our society is built.

I disagree. The company needs to restore trust. An incorrect way to restore trust is to babble word-salad about feelings that don't exist in whatever business unit made this decision. A correct way to restore trust is to 1. rollback the decision (check) and 2. articulate and implement a plan of action so that it doesn't happen again (missing, and more important).

Trust is immensely valuable. They lost a trust fortune over night. No amount of posturing or PR babble can fix that, and accepting PR babble as trust currency is deeply misguided when dealing with a corporation. A good-faith plan of action is something we can put some stock in.

> 2. articulate and implement a plan of action so that it doesn't happen again.

It seems to me like they did? The plan of action is articulated here:

"we’re going to fix them in a different way, and we’re going to work with you to come up with the specifics, as we should have done the first time around."

And it is implemented here:

"If you haven’t sent us a note yet, or if you don’t see your concerns listed above, please leave us your feedback here[LINK]."

(And of course part of the implementation is actually listening to the feedback in the future.)

I understand that you don't find this satisfactory. However, I don't know what you would find satisfactory. What would a response that legitimately addressed #2 look like, concretely? Could someone give an example response?

EDIT: Ah, you say elsewhere that the people involved in the decision should be "replaced, retrained, or otherwise required to alter their behavior". Do you want Patreon's press release to say, e.g., that people were fired/demoted/retrained as a result of the decision? If so, you should have said so!

Was there really any kind of apology you would have accepted? I'm not sure how they could have been more mea culpa than this.

I think his point is that any words used in an apology are meaningless, because we have no way to differentiate between a genuine apology and a PR apology based on the words.

Instead, only pay attention to the actions that follow, because those cannot be faked.

Exactly. I could have used more positive phrasing: "they have an opportunity to demonstrate sincerity by taking substantive action to correct their decision making process," but I missed that opportunity.

I am also not exactly sure what makes an apology from a company that much different than an apology from an individual; in both cases, they could either be sincere or lying, and there is no real way to tell from the words alone.

Individuals lie, just like companies do. The rate of lying might be different, but that doesn't really change much.

True, companys just have professional liers, called marketing/pr.

But well, yes. It might be an exaggeration. To look at it positively, marketing people are just good at communicating ... only the borders to missleading and plain lying are very blurry ...

I care about the actions, not the words. Was substantial action taken to prevent this from happening again? That's what I actually care about.

The fact that this was a dramatic mea culpa does not matter. I have every reason to not pay attention to how contrite they sound.

It's like being apologized to by a drug addict, for stealing. The apology has no content.

What kind of action could they have taken that you would believe would actually stop this from happening again?

You're complaining that a company is framing a certain situation in a given way and yet that's exactly what you're doing here, framing it in a different way trying to convince us of your point. I don't see the difference.

All words have framing. Don't make me link Zizek.

More seriously. My takeaway is not "I wish Patreon hadn't issued an apology", but to beware promises without binding contracts or strong signals of fidelity.

I am saying that substantive action is the criterion upon which to base your judgment of their contrition, not their words.

It seems to me that at this point in time, the only substantive action they can take is

- cancel this change

- consult with the community about how to solve the perceived problem

Both of which they appear to be doing. I get that the proof of sincerity is in what solution they eventually move forward with, but I think what people are pushing back at you on is your apparent argument that what they've done so far to fix this isn't good enough. I think what they've done so far to fix this is literally all they can do at this moment.

The same strategy works with people. Intentions matter because they let you reason about a person's likely future actions, but often the only way to ascertain another's intentions is to scrutinize their actions as opposed to their words.

>It creeps me out when organizations of individuals employ someone to communicate their organization's intentions and policy updates in a clear manner.

> We messed up.

If they are acting in a clear manner they would explain how they undo the damage. This is a business after all and they can be sued for things they "mess up"

> This is a business after all and they can be sued for things they "mess up"

Only if the things they mess up are illegal. Are you implying they could be sued for making a stupid business decision? The overwhelming majority of business screw-ups aren't illegal, just bad decisions.

> The overwhelming majority of business screw-ups aren't illegal, just bad decisions.

The overwhelming majority of business lawsuits aren't due to crimes, just torts.

Clear communication means cutting the fluff and getting to the point. The point I'm looking for isn't there. Did the PR unit responsible for writing this even have access to the information that would allow them to communicate a real point? I doubt it.

Sure, it's creepy, but unfortunately many people are still predominantly looking for tone and little else. It's hard to ask companies to stop doing it when people keep rewarding it.

Aren't most advertisements also creepy and manipulative? Do you expect companies to start having informative ads? Maybe when people stop rewarding bad behavior. If you don't do it, people will say you are tone deaf!

You are spot on. They only provide excuses, no explanations as to how something like this could pass (ie. pure greed from a business standpoint).

This sort of thing should have been preceded by trying to get creators and patreons on board long before actually implementing it.

My trust in Patreon has expired, and I look forward to creators shifting to another platform.

> It's made worse by people thinking that anything about the content of the apology matters.

Is it inaccurate to think that they will not be enacting the fee structure change they had announced before? What are you even talking about? They said "sorry", and "we won't do the thing that made us have to apologize", what more are they supposed to do?

What about their message indicates that they won't repeat the same mistake in one year's time?

Thanks and I agree. We've got a lot of very naive people in the comments section here, it seems.

Corporations are composed of people. That is part of the reason they act like people.

Where the people in charge of this decision replaced, retrained, or otherwise required to alter their behavior?

People are comprised of neurons. That is part of the reason they act like neurons.

...wait, that isn't quite the whole picture is it? It's almost like a group of entities, considered as a whole, has different properties than the individuals that comprise it.

Except OP was saying that groups of people do act like people, and was disturbed about that.

Thanks for saying that. I find this behaviour slimey and disgusting tbh. A honest business should act like professionals

people will down vote you because anything counter corporate/capital is blasphemy and this kind of messaging has been so noticed that almost no one even considers it for a second but you're completely correct and I agree with you.

It's probably not so black and white. Companies are ultimately comprised of people, who may or may not be trying to manipulate you. With all the hostile corporate nonsense out there, it seems strange to categorize every supposed act in good faith towards the customer as a manipulative lie.