Hacker News Reader

Comment by UnoriginalGuy | Hacker News Reader

Why now? Why with this story?

I've been reading similar complaints to that for years. Some of which were far worse in my view (i.e. taking money out of banks to repay people who weren't even seeking a refund because PayPal changed its mind about someone's product or service).

Why does PayPal suddenly care? Is it because there is viable competition now?

View on HN

Classic case of someone who just can't win whatever he does. People have been crying out for PayPal to change - he notices this, he emails the guy with a first class email but still gets criticised. Criticise him if he doesn't act, don't criticise the guy for being big enough to say 'hey, we have a problem, I want to fix it' - that should be applauded, even if it's come later than people would have liked - at least it has come.

Honestly, that's the job he took.

Apparently he was ok with that, and I'm sure he's being well compensated for it.

PayPal has built up a lot of ill will, and no, it doesn't just go away with a promise to change. It is in fact going to take time.

Let's keep in mind that this offense just happened. It's not the distant past.

Oh come on. He can't "win" by solving one person's problems. Will he give his personal email to everyone who has got his account frozen or large chunks of money taken away by PayPal? I doubt it.

This is a non-solution, which is almost worse than doing nothing at all, because it's active disingenuity.

We must see the first step. He is trying to stop the bleeding. My guess is that the signs are there that the bleeding has started, it just hasn't hit mainstream yet.

Did you read the same note I did? He says explicitly that he's new in the CEO spot and would like to use this story as a tool for redoing how they handle holds, and how they deal with customers.

You can't win by solving just one person's problems. But you also can't win unless you start by solving one person's problems. And then fix the system, so that the kind of problem is less likely to recur.

This, IMHO, is exactly the right way to do it. As contrasted with the wrong way, which is for employees to sit in their comfy offices and avoid all direct contact with customers, making up bureaucratic solutions to imagined problems.

Looks more like he is trying to buy direct outside expertise and opinion, without it being filtered through the company, in return for personally looking after this account. The problem from there on in is whether that person can actually continue to be useful as they will no longer be having the experience of a normal customer and might start being less critical in their approach. Picking someone who is absolutely furious probably helps in this as they are likely to be very upfront about their experiences.

Ok, so how do you fix many people's problems without first starting with one?

"Real bad boys move in silence" --KRS One

I agree, that people should give him the chance to fix Paypal if he wants to try. There is always a starting point for change and if this it, he should be applauded and not ridiculed.

It says right there: "I'm driving a lot of changes at PayPal (I took over 5 months ago)"

But 5 months is a long time. Why only now? Surely there have been high-profile cases whose media frenzies can be capitalized on before now.

I think you're both underestimating how long it takes to really get settled in and take charge of a huge corporation, as well as overestimating just how long 5 months really is.

Seems like about the right amount of time for him to start really kicking things into high gear imo.

If I had to guess, I'd say because it took the ceo a few months to see how things are currently done and identify problems. The rest of the time I guess would be waiting for the right case to come along.

Five months may seem like a long time, but trying to fix something that's pretty broken probably requires a bit of time to understand just what the hell you're trying to fix.

Not for the CEO of a big company like that. 5 months is barely enough to get the lay of the land. The press may have you believe otherwise (e.g. Marissa Mayer is changing Yahoo overnight). It's a more interesting story than "she's slowly getting to know how things work while trying to fix the most obvious and visible disasters."

"I can run a 3 man startup and change things in a week! Why can't a public traded company worth billions with thousands of employees change things in a week?"

Check your ignorance and entitlement at the door, please.

Not to mention that any changes they make have to be proven not to expose them to the banking laws that they've been assiduously avoiding, and that would provide the kinds of protections that the general population expects.

They can't escape these laws on Australia as they are a financial depository institution regulated by APRA. Should they try to deny an Australuan their money like this, they will be in a world of pain.

Hey, I'm an Aussie using PayPal and this is the first time I've heard of this. Where can I go to read more?

Authority is here:

http://www.apra.gov.au/adi/Documents/cfdocs/PayPal-auth-and-...

They are classed as an ADI, which means banking rules applies to them.

disclaimer: I work for eBay Inc.

David Marcus was CEO of Zong, a small mobile payment startup who got bought by PayPal last year. When buying the company, the CEO of eBay Inc. asked him to change quiet a few things in the company culture. This email is one of the first step to improve customer service. Will he succeed I don't know, but you gotta give him the credit of trying.

eBay is even worse than PayPal! If he can fix PayPal, he might want to try his hand at the owning company...

He said he just took over 5 months ago. He's probably just finished filling out his w-2 and selecting health insurance :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com