How about this: what's an honest answer about how pissed you'd be if:
(1) I was the top Google search result for "RescueTime security"
(2) That page linked to a site where I collected security reports from end-users.
(3) That page had your logo on it.
(4) That page had copy that might suggest RescueTime didn't take the security of your customer's data seriously.
We've established that you'd come talk to me first (actually, by your wording, we've establish that I'd be hearing from your lawyer). But how upset would you be?
Why are you creating a hypothetical situation about security? Seems like a hypothetical situation about customer support would be more appropriate. The answer is (for customer support)-- moderately. But the question is: What's the goal with a response? To make them suffer? Or to fix it? How does it benefit my business to invest extra time/money to make another company suffer?
I think the grown up / smart way to respond to feeling pissed off/slighted isn't what 37s did. And it's not calling a lawyer. Or not at first.
If it was important to my business that the issue fix itself, I'd way the costs and benefits of assorted actions. Easiest thing is to pick up the phone and take 15 minutes to politely explain our position and ask for a timeframe for resolution. If didn't feel that was going to solve the issue, I'd go the expose' route (which, as someone else mentioned-- carries a lot more weight if you can say, "I privately asked them to fix it and they pretty much told me to fuck off"). If that didn't work, I'd decide whether it was worth the $300 to spin up a form letter from my lawyer. And if that didn't work, I'd decide whether it was worth it to spin up a lawsuit (in terms of time and money).
Being "pissed off" shouldn't enter into business decisions. But, again-- I don't think 37s' decision to take this public immediately was not motivated by anything but self-gratification (unless you want to go meta and credit them for a great linkbait play).
As I've said elsewhere in this thread: To reach the people -- potentially thousands of people -- who cared enough to type the name of your company into a search engine, but who then read some misleading but official-looking information, came away thinking that your company is kind of lame, and will never be heard of again unless you act.
Just because your prospective customers are invisible to you doesn't mean that they don't matter.
No, I was saying: "What is 37s trying to achieve with a response?"
I think the correct answer is: "To get GS to make the site look less official/confusing and a bit less insulting".
If that's the goal, which gets their business there faster? A 15 minute phone call or a well-worded 1 hour rant on the blog?
I TOTALLY agree that GS is confusing, especially for novice users. In fact, I'll go farther and say that the changes they are making aren't enough to fix that. They need to change the page titles/descriptions so that they are obviously 3rd party in the SERP.
In short, I agree with the offense. I'm not sure about intent/malice. Because of that, I think the response falls into the self-gratifying torch-and-pitchfork vigilantism that plays so well on the internet. Humanity should be better than that and give companies the benefit of the doubt unless they have obvious malicious intent and/or a track record of evil.
For all we know, a call to GS could've gotten a response of: "Ya know-- we never looked at it that way and have been so darn focused on stuff that I think we didn't see the forest for the trees."
"To get GS to make the site look less official/confusing and bit less insulting" is only part of the answer.
The other part, as mechanical_fish has elqouently pointed out above, is to reach present/past/potential customers of 37s who were mislead by GS into thinking that 37s does not answer customer questions. Contacting GS alone would not have solved the damage GS already did. It was not enough for 37s to prevent future abuse, but also to turn back the damage already done in the past.
I'm trying to separate the legitimacy of 37signals' complaint --- which I care about --- from the "level of maturity" shown by their response. I don't care about that at all. Why would it? How does it affect me?
First of all, you also run a start-up, so it affects you because they might turn on you next, for some slight misunderstanding.
Secondly, it affects you as a customer, because people who act immaturely rarely do so in a single area. They might treat you, as a customer, with a similar level of immaturity, if you tick them off.
You walk on a very thin rope here. I don't at all buy the 'slight misunderstanding' thing concerning the case they had.
The damage to 37signals image could have been very real. Even if it wasn't done purposedly.
What is more important is, i don't get why you see 37signals as the porentially harmful actor here. If i had a startup i would be very happy that 37signals did the job to stop this company to potentially harm My work too !
Also the argument that this public response is gonna 'harm' getsatisfaction in anyway doesn't hold up at all. At the very worse, this is bad publicity, and if they're smart they can still turn that around easily.
Personally, I'm struck by the premise that Get Satisfaction, of all people, are being wronged by people publicly airing real, acknowledged grievances against them.
(1) I was the top Google search result for "RescueTime security"
(2) That page linked to a site where I collected security reports from end-users.
(3) That page had your logo on it.
(4) That page had copy that might suggest RescueTime didn't take the security of your customer's data seriously.
We've established that you'd come talk to me first (actually, by your wording, we've establish that I'd be hearing from your lawyer). But how upset would you be?