Why I Won’t Be Using BetaPunch for User Testing

Wooooooooow. I don't know who is running things over there, but they need to be fired immediately.

It's this kind of thing that makes you want to see a service fail, because that sort of behavior doesn't deserve any measure of success.

But I thought this was what growth hackers do? ;)

I'm really sorry about the site, it went down so hard that I can't even get a cached version for Cloudflare to serve. Time to upgrade some things... personal blog is so neglected.

Update: Google cached version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&tbo=d...

Being a (former) user of Betapunch, I'm speechless. Good job on your response.

I have also interacted with this guy in the past. I remembered our interactions to be fairly pleasant, so I was really shocked to see some of this nastiness.

Made me want to figure out what kind of person would pull stuff like this.

Turns out he's a kind of serial entrepreneur[1]. And not that it matters, but he didn't build BetaPunch himself.

[1]: http://www.marylandbailbondsblog.com/2010/05/big-boyz-bail-b...

You're certainly entitled to your personal opinion, but really? You're saying that it reflects poorly on someone to relay a story of poor treatment toward them? You don't find any value in knowing this? Have the experiences of others never influenced your own decisions?

The author let the other party's tweets speak for themselves. There was no unnecessary or subjective sensationalization. Personally, I found this an informative (and weighty) data point.

I couldn't disagree with this more. When people do something you find shady, you should complain! Loudly! This "keep your head down and don't stir up trouble" attitude is a huge part of why so many things never get fixed. And pointing out that a business has poor practices isn't drama; it's more like a review.

So I'm not allowed to talk about bad experiences? This seems vastly overly reductionary and "nice" to a weird fault. If I eat at a restaurant and the service is bad, I'll tell my friends to avoid it. If someone representing a company offers poor customer service and acts like a jerk, I'm going to warn my friends.

Personally, when I see a comment like this I make a mental note about the commenter. I generally avoid them in the future. Yes, the OP did in fact cause some drama, but it also tells me the commenter reacts irrationally. When I do business, I like to do business with those companies that you don't here [sic] about, acting rationally or irrationally. They don't comment about how someone was stirring up drama. And I just realized this was a comment on Hacker News, but hey guess what, that's enough for me.

Yep. In fact you could say "Why I won't be reading posts that start with Why I won't be..."

Or maybe she is doing a public service by warning others about an unsteady business. That would be my interpretation.

So let me get this straight.

A company she'd had a bad experience with in the past tried to, in a tacky manner, engage her again by dismissing their competitor. She clearly cites why she does't use them anymore (because the company publicly tweeted she was using them, which anyone would be bent over), and the kid had the gall to say that she lacked class for not thanking him for a free trial. A. Free. Trial. And his biggest issue is that she never gave him free publicity for a service that she was trialing. Not "We're sorry about the previous confusion, we'd love to have you back," not "This was a misstep for us, how can we do better?" not "We took your feedback to heart and no longer announce this publicly."

We're talking about a personal Twitter account vs. a business one. Unless you're dealing with an absolute troll, you don't engage potential customers like this - especially when they have a completely valid point. Companies tweeting on your behalf or trying to use your likeness for publicity purposes is an issue that has come up multiple times here with much dismay. Why is it any different here?

This attitude is why I don't blog; I have a lot ideas for posts but a lot of them are how X can improve Y, and I tend to write with a "charged/enthusiastic" tone because, surprise, I'm passionate about this stuff.

I agree with Jeremy Bee on that comment page, her so-called attitude (which I'm failing to see at all here) in these tweets would be a non-issue if Danielle were male. Back-and-forths like this happen every day on Twitter; this is what the platform is best at. I'm honestly astounded that people are trying to shift any of the blame here on her for calling the guy out. She couldn't have been more indifferent about stating the truth of the matter, but apparently that makes her a drama bomb, "not a queen herself" and other ridiculously gender-charged labels.

Ouch, from your third link: "Paul Nochumowitz used a racial slur during the confrontation and, at one point, asked if Stansbury, who is African-American, 'wanted a banana.'"

I found myself thinking of the apocryphal Mark Twain saying: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Well, Danielle isn't really trying to solve problems here. They're not getting her business, and that's that. She's simply calling them out on their Twitter BS, because eventually somebody had to.

> That said. Danielle, this is NOT how a CEO solve problems.

I'm obviously missing something here... what exactly did the author of the blog post do wrong?

A person who trialled a free service was asked why she no longer used the service, and she provided free feedback on why. They didn't like the answer and got mean (publicly).

In what universe is she even remotely in the wrong here?

> But I wasn't a CEO

> this is NOT how a CEO solve problems

Please stop mythologising Chief Executives. They're just people that run businesses for shareholders. There's no magic "CEO" approach to disagreement. Danielle is just unhappy with the approach of another company and is talking about it.

Being pragmatic is fine, but being open and forthright about others is sometimes part of it.

Actually, having now gone through some twitter history, @betapunch says "The public test was posted for less than 1 hour then deleted / apologized and sent 2 additional tests as a make-up and not a single thanks.."

So they actually wanted her to say thanks for trying to make up for the way they screwed up in the first place. I guess at least I'm clear if I were to just use their service and they don't screw up?

Yep, not just of business, my rule for any personal conduct.

That is rule number 1 of business like "be nice" is rule number 1 of dating.

Many great personal brands and businesses are launched and made with antagonism. Steve Jobs, Donald Trump, Richard Branson, Larry Flynt, Steve Ballmer, Rush Limbaugh, George W Bush, ... the list goes on of characters who have used antagonism successfully for personal and corporate marketing, and to divide the world between strong followers and detractors instead of a sea of disinterest.

If you are right or interesting, there is nothing wrong with being a little antagonistic. Intelligently picking a fight can bring much needed attention.

That said, this is not a case of being right or interesting - only immature and asinine. They did successfully get a major influencer to write about them, and if the old adage about any press applies, then it was a success. This is not the way I would want to appear or conduct business, but it may actually be better than being ignored.

It doesn't sound like they really understand the point of user testing.

User testing is not about being critical/positive, it's about if the user can complete the and if not why?

I don't care what my user testers think; I care what they are thinking. A very important distinction.

TIL about beermoney

You can see for yourself Ross Nochumowitz pitching BetaPunch at the Baltimore TechBreakfast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAdI5mhpKsA. This is from just a month and a half ago.

This is soooo cringe worthy.

Thanks for the link, this looks great. I love the idea of peer-review for websites.

Critcue sounds a bit like feedback roulette.

I think it strikes the wrong chord because it shouldn't matter whether the person is an "influencer" or not — that's just not the way to talk to anybody when you're trying to build a brand, unless your brand is built on public spats

Hi - I'm said twitter user; guess I said it wrong! Really anyone with a Twitter account and/or blog is an "influencer". The point is being in a netwide pissing match with customers is (obviously?) a bad idea.

Tech has a small but noticeable celebrity culture to it. Danielle has a decent number of twitter followers and has had articles at the top of HN at least a few times. I don't find it too surprising that she has some fans willing to defend her with a "You don't know who you're messing with!" message to the BetaPunch people.

I felt the same way. It's like celebrities who yell "don't you know who I am?!", but instead of being an A-lister, it's just someone with a few thousand Twitter followers.

It's probably a one-man-show...

I think it is kind of amazing that "don’t be mean to customers" is a lesson that would ever need to be learned. I guess nothing is obvious.

They're not in a position of power. They're offering a commodity service, and they're positioning themselves as "the option with poor customer service."

I don't think that's going to attract much in the way of customers, or investment.

I don't wish them ill; but they really need to stop digging, and they haven't figured that out yet.

Who knows, you might be right about it being a "designed controversy". I expect an apology post to be top on hacker news in the next few hours.

In the crowded market of user testing, just getting people know you exist for any reason (either liking you or hating you) is a winning formula.

IMHO it reflects poorly on both parties involved.

They're publicly berating a user for not being grateful, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to publicly point out how ridiculous their behavior is.

While it's useful to know he was nice to you (and I also had good interactions with him), it's still only one data point. That there are more than a few data points showing a profound inability to play nicely with others is far more enlightening. We all make mistakes, but I'm guessing most of us here seldom make very public, mean-spirited mistakes like his.

Sorry, but come on, "social strategy?" What is that, exactly? Antagonizing your potential customers?

I agree - I worked on the other side of the fence doing some back-end dev for Ross and would happily do it again.

Hopefully this all blows over and his fingers get burnt and everyone can get on with it.

One satisfied customer is enough to offset roughly 0.0000000001% of a public tweet from the official company Twitter account calling another customer a "silicon valley douche".

Actually, it seemed to be more like this: D: Company A is awesome. B: Why not use our product? It's cheaper! [Spam] [Certainly, it could have ended here. But they asked the question - why is it wrong to answer them why you don't use it? Perhaps they don't realize their public posts are alienating customers, and the feedback would be helpful. Perhaps she might want to give them another chance if they 'fess up and apologize (Perhaps not, she has no obligation to do so). At this point, she is not being mean at all (not that she is later, either). At this point, there is no argument to end. It's still just a conversation.] D: I did use your product. You inappropriately and publicly broadcast private information. [Answering the question they asked, honestly and without pulling punches - something advocated constantly by popular and applauded posts on HN, I might add.] B: Yeah? Well you didn't thank us for the free trial of a service we were trying to sell you. whine whine whine [Completely inappropriate and rude. This is the first sign of actual hostility, as opposed to honesty.] D: This is why I'm not using you [Again, answering their question. Rhetorical or not, they asked it.] You probably should not say that publicly. [Helpful and useful criticism. Again, something recommended by HN on a public basis.]

Now, I'm not saying she wasn't pissed by the end. She probably was (I would be). But she never said anything rude or explicitly hostile. In addition, she didn't escalate it to public status. Twitter is a public forum, and they started accusing her of... not thanking them for their sales pitch? Her response on Twitter was entirely appropriate.

As to the blog post, this is the exact same thing that something like Amazon reviews does - publicly states the quality (in this case, in regards to courtesy) of a company or product. She is the customer. This has no bearing on her relationship with her customers (which I will not comment on, having never experienced it). This only affects her relationship with someone trying to sell her something - and the onus of making the interaction positive is entirely on the salesman, who completely screwed up.

She was never rude. Since she is not the seller in this situation, common courtesy (as you'd give a stranger you were talking to) is the only obligation she has, and she meets it.

A little colorful drama never hurts. You can only read so many articles about Lisp...

nope - it's Wednesday. Or possibly even Thursday, depending on your part of the world, but definitely not tuesday.

It's relevant because it was voted to the top by the Hacker News community. That's why.

It's relevant as many here are entrepreneurs. There is a very good lesson here about proper social media etiquette for companies. There are an incredible multitude of ways this situation could have been handled better, especially on a forum as public as Twitter.