Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

This is exactly what I would do if I was an evil publication: make a prediction as to the trendlines of a business, write up a report full of false evidence, send a draft to the target and then declare it was the target's responsibility, not mine, to ensure that my report was correct.

What's different after this followup is that now CNN/Fortune is suspect too, because repeating this verbatim is unethical.

View on HN

I don't have a firm opinion on the matter yet. I was initially suspicious of the initial report as I had never heard of them (PrivCo). However, I do work in advertising/PR and if someone submitted a claim like this to a spokesperson within four hours, we would at least say there are considerable and factual errors with your report, etc. This of course may have happened.

My interest in following this story is personal as I live in DC and have many friends still employed at the company.

I'd disagree that CNN is being unethical here, their story/angle is about the process and getting to the bottom of the PrivCo report.

FOUR HOURS. That's how much time they claim to have given LivingSocial before running the report. Horsewhip these clowns off the stage now.

It's actually even worse if underlying trend they're "reporting" on is true, because they've poisoned the well.

PrivCo looks even worse now with this additional update to CNN's story:

"I don't think the real story here is the details of the financing," Hamadeh [PrivCo CEO] said. "It's what's going to happen to the little guys, all of the merchants who are really the company's unsecured creditors, if LivingSocial goes bankrupt... You'll see that we were right in six or nine months."

I think that's exactly right - this wouldn't be a story if PrivCo wasn't mostly right about the big picture. The big picture is one of impending doom at LS, and yes, if that comes to bear, the little guys will get nothing.

Sure, they come off as slimy (and maybe they are - I have no idea). But the details matter less than the overall story here.

That's what PrivCo would say to defend what's happened. Like you, they'd be careful to couch the defense in terms of ideas that are hard to falsify. Of course, they got to this point in the conversation by reporting a series of material falsehoods; their initial specificity is what scored them a seat at the table. But let's ignore that they have no credibility anymore and instead entertain our own biases about what's happened.

It is especially easy to pull this off when the topic is a company we don't like.

I can't say I disagree. They displayed some pretty aggressive, and possibly unethical tactics here. But honestly, I don't much care about their account (as it seems to be inaccurate). I do care about LivingSocial's account, which is interesting to me, and paints pretty much the same picture.

That is the audience sentiment PrivCo is counting on.

They're counting on me wanting to see the truth and thinking that they're scammy and unreliable? Seems like an odd strategy.

Do you really feel like your perspective on LivingSocial's core business is underrepresented, and that continually reminding us of how little regard you have for it is a contribution?

Because I actually do think that the untrustworthiness of this report, and, more importantly, the implications of that untrustworthiness is underrepresented and is worth talking about more. Whereas a chin-wagging circle of commentary about how unsustainable daily-deals sites are does not seem particularly valuable.

(This comment reads meaner than I intend it to be.)

Fair point. The dishonesty is simple to me: open and shut. It's in the state filings. PrivCo at best got pretty bad information and published it without verifying it, and at worst made a bunch of stuff up to drive traffic. Not much to discuss there - it's bad.

LivingSocial's business, though, changes over time, and is worth discussing from time to time. Down rounds are always interesting to me. The decreasing margin in the deals business is interesting to me. That LS still apparently plans an IPO, in the face of a fairly brutal down round is interesting to me. That they think they can be worth $1B is interesting. (As is the current valuation when you read between the lines). The sliding liquidation preference is whole discussion unto itself. But yes, it's a pretty well trodden topic when reduced to "LS's business model is flawed". So I'm guilty there.

> What's different after this followup is that now CNN/Fortune is suspect too, because repeating this verbatim is unethical.

You trusted them before?

More than I trust TechCrunch, less than I trust Reuters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com