By ignoring (accidentally) the original email, the message sent back could be interpreted as: "We're not implementing your link back, and we're not paying for your service, but we're still going to use it anyway".
I'm playing devils advocate here, but there are two ways to look at this.
By ignoring (accidentally) the original email, the message sent back could be interpreted as: "We're not implementing your link back, and we're not paying for your service, but we're still going to use it anyway".
Wait, what? So - if I ignore an unsolicited email, that suddenly becomes actionable if I don't do what the email says? I have a hard time seeing how that is not totally unreasonable.
The only reasonable nuclear option for them that I see, would be to simply terminate the user account or service, if they did not respond.
One could argue that the email was not unsolicited, if the email address was obtained during signup and acceptance of the Terms of Service.
Since it is not uncommon for free online services to have Terms of Service which allow the provider to unilaterally change those terms, the argument that an email notifying the user of the change is unsolicited is further weakened.
While I am not suggesting that the alternatives offered are or are not fair or reasonable, the follow up email did its job in getting the service consumer's attention and more importantly action in regards to the matter.
Is it right thing to sue them because they have sent 2 emails for a service that was offered free? Definitely not.
The right thing to do would be to terminate the service for such a free user & get their attention.
[IANAL] Probably not (in the US). In the US, anyone can sue anyone else over anything. [Not that I doubt email notification might present problems in court - but who is going to court over $6000?]
It is still unreasonable to send out legal threats because you did not receive a response from an email. You don't know if the email was read, or if it was even delivered to the user's inbox (it could have been flagged as spam, for instance). Or, as it appears to be in this case, it could have a poorly worded and misleading subject, causing it to be ignored.
Furthermore, did you read the email that was actually ignored? It is linked in the article, and located here: https://gist.github.com/1833289
Note that it specifically says that "if you agree to this arrangement" to implement the link back. There is actually nothing in that email that would suggest that any action was required; the next step sans link back was simply for Gigya to then send a price quote.
While I am not suggesting that the alternatives offered are or are not fair or reasonable, the follow up email did its job in getting the service consumer's attention and more importantly action in regards to the matter.
Well, naturally. I was not arguing that being unreasonable was not effective in forcing action on someone's part. I would argue, however, that it is unethical and counterproductive.
Hardly unreasonable universally - particularly when it comes to non-payment.
And it is clear from the first email that the link back is an alternative to a license fee [from your link]:
Hello,
My name is Atara Herskovics, Senior Marketing Manager at
Gigya. We're pleased that Muziboo.com has been enjoying
Gigya's Wildfire share plugin for a while;
however please note that as part of Gigya's
business model, for the last couple of years
we have been charging a license fee for the use
of our social plugins. In recognition of the
fact that you were one of Gigya’s first clients,
we would like to provide you with an alternative
option in the form of a link to Gigya
that you would place on your homepage.
If you agree to this arrangement, please
implement the exact link below:
<a href="http://www.gigya.com/">Social Media for business<a/>
Alternatively, we can send you a price quote for your
continued usage of our Wildfire product.
Thank you,
xxxx yyyyyy
Senior Marketing Manager, GigyaMoreover, that e-mail was just really ham-fisted. Why not say "your service will be discontinued if you don't respond" instead of going thermonuclear with legal threats? It reeks of desperation and disregard for their existing clients.
Prices change. I don't expect to buy a Mars Bar for 15p from my local corner shop as they sold it to me that price 20 years ago.
It is fine to say 'we're discontinuing your current plan, sorry'. Maybe be nice and offer them 3 months more free to transition if you can afford to. NEVER grandfather.
What you don't do though is threaten legal action because you changed your T&Cs, that's just stupid and regardless of you CYA 'subject to change' clause you're not going to win in court and you just made a bunch of pissed off ex-customers telling everyone you suck because you threatened them.
Grandfathered users will hold onto their subscription like it was made of gold. Even if they don't need the product anymore, you'll find them still hanging around for years because they know what a great deal they're getting. In mildly-innumerate-user-psychology, they're making money every month by keeping that old grandfathered plan.
So even though those guys are making you less money, they're going to continue making you that money pretty much forever. Way more over their lifetime than they would have had you forced them onto a more expensive plan, pissed off half of them into leaving immediately, then watched the rest trickle away through attrition.
It's worth giving an existing customer a $10/month discount by way of a grandfathered plan if it means they'll stay around.
Keeping up the service but demanding money with force would make me incredibly wary to do business with them. It's destroying trust and goodwill, and pretty much guarantees that, were I in that position, I'd be looking for alternatives with whom I could have a more healthy business relationship.
Need to make money off what used to be free? Fine, but be polite about it. A business operates on the good will of its customers, who they've just annoyed.
The articles mention of the link back being a paid for link is exactly what it is - in exchange for not paying $6000/year you have the option of placing a link on your site. It's a fair option.
The issue is not with them wanting to charge money or get links or whatever. The issue is that they escalated way too hard and way too fast when much kinder effective measures were available.