Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's logical reasoning, not corporation reasoning.

Nobody involved in the decision making cares about the customers. They only care about the potential hit to the bottom line, and if that's perceived as callous silence, they don't care. Unless, of course, they decide that appearing to care and being responsive results in less of a hit.

Silences like these are strategic and dependably predictable - engaging with customers on average costs more than remaining silent for whatever metric they've applied to the fix. If it takes longer than they thought, they might feel compelled to speak out, or they could just depend on the issue to fade into the 24 hour news cycle. Engaging with a customer runs the risk of them interacting with some threshold of people that will keep the negative story in the headlines for longer than it might otherwise be.



> They only care about the potential hit to the bottom line, and if that's perceived as callous silence, they don't care.

I don't think that is true. I think people care a lot... just not about the consumers. People care about themselves - they also don't want to be fired. So the decision is punted up the chain, all the way to executives. And executives want to mitigate the damage to themselves first, their orgs second, maybe consumers third.


Which is ultimately another way of saying they don’t care about customers and only care about their bottom line (?)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: