Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephg | Hacker News Reader

I used to do some work with a software consulting firm. There was a ping pong table in the office, and while talking about rates, our CEO liked to offer clients a 15% discount on our services if they could beat Joe from accounting at ping pong. He did it as a bit of a running joke, and to see how people reacted to the offer.

What our clients didn't know was that Joe was terrible at ping pong. But that didn't matter - from memory he was only ever challenged once in the many years I was there.

View on HN

A mate of mine's consulting company offers a 10% discount on any work if the client buys them a plant, any plant, for the office. Apparently they've only had two clients take them up on the offer.

Why do they offer that?

Because they want plants.

You can trade money for plants

Explain how?

Something to do with blockchain, I assume.

NFT for physical objects is the new hotness. That way they can just demonstrate ownership of the plant instead of having to move it around.

Transparent OLED screens on window sills cycling through simulations of virtual plants, together with their NFT tags...

I want the future back, we were promised hoverboards!

NFT is revoked when physical plant dies.

Some plants are useful after they're cactus. ;)

Thanks, I audibly laughed.

Plants can be exchanged for goods and services

Press F2 to go into "Buy Mode", then you can buy houseplants with your Simoleons.

It demonstrates that the client actually read the contract.

Brown M&M's clause, I like it.

Was it brown or green?

Brown M&Ms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IxqdAgNJck

Does it? If someone from legal reads the contract, why would they bother dealing with this gimmicky clause? The budget has already been approved and sending someone a plant might cost another 30min of their time they rather spent on doing their job.

"I can think of a hypothetical reason why you might be wrong in very specific circumstances, so I'll suggest that could be a reason why the general case is wrong" is such a dumb argument. Obviously there might be occasions where a client reads the clause and chooses to ignore it. Very rarely, someone in legal might decide to ignore the clause because they're a bit lazy and don't care about saving their employer some money. That isn't an argument against what I said though.

Plus, if the budget has already been approved, someone didn't read the contract before signing it. That's the same as not reading it.

Fair enough. My experience is limited to large corporations with bloated, slow procurement processes. So I would be really surprised if legal would get back to me about something like this. That said, I don't think I've ever encoutered these type of jokes.

If legal reads it you're at least gonna get an email to the tune of "hey WTF is this? did someone sneak a joke into the draft?" which is sufficient for proving they read it.

If they decide to actually send a plant and this is in the US, dealing with actually selecting and sending it won't take much time. You can order a plant online for delivery [1]. Plants at that site start at $35 for the plant and pot, and shipping is a flat $7 on orders under $75.

[1] https://bloomscape.com/

If they'd made the clause a kickback and they'd have gotten 100% uptake.

Discounts after the contract is approved are actually a headache in some large orgs. You will have to answer multiple questions each quarter as to why your numbers are off. You won't get to spend the money elsewhere, but will have more work. Plus, you'll never get budget approval for buying or shipping a plant.

I'm not them but I could see how, for some services, having a savvy client who pays attention to these details will result in a cheaper client to service. Perhaps that particular product/service costs more to deliver when clients are missing on some very elementary diligence.

memorable marketing engagement that you’d tell your friends about

Or at least random people on the internet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

Good answer.

> [...] [H]e was only ever challenged once in the many years I was there.

I suspect that's because your client's spending their company's money, and it made no difference if the rate were cheaper. They'd rather sign the deal quickly then GTFO. Challenging Joe would only prolong the process.

But it would be fun?

Fun doesn't make money.

You must never have heard of clowns

Relationships do, though, and people also tend to like having them. And having fun.

You could have almost 3X your money with FUN if you bought at the right time.

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/fun

If they are higher salary relative to the discount it could be a losing prospect monetarily just by wasting their time.

I'm always wary of a Sir Gawain and Greenknight sort of situation. And sure you'll say it's only ping pong: But that's how they get you.

I'm intrigued. In the fable the game is a clever test of knightsmanship. What makes you wary of this sort of situation?

It's been a while since I've read it, but doesn't someone get decapitated in that clever test of knightsmanship?

Well yes, Greenknight gets his head lobed off, but he then puts it back on. The scary part is that in a year's time he'll get to return the favor (but doesn't, because it was a test of chivalry (and the protagonist was chivalrous)). Wikipedia has a synopsis.

Sure, but Gawain only finds that it's a test after the fact (by surviving the test due to his virtuousness). So my take away was always something along the lines of don't play games whose stakes you may not fully understand against people whose power you may not fully appreciate especially if it doesn't seem like there is a downside.

> against people whose power you may not fully appreciate especially if it doesn't seem like there is a downside.

But that's the part that makes it fun!

>Greenknight gets his head lobed off

Brilliant typo

It's supposed to be "loped off", right?

"lopped off"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com