DISQUS

Thanks you two!

Nope, not at all from The Cult...


I think Keen's version of this quote would be:



"The paid professionals are the only critics whose opinion is worth anything at all."



:)

Guy, I'd LOVE to see/hear/read that condensing!

Jason, fantastic analogy - thanks for helping me there.


Sean, you said: "You may think that what Thomas is doing as a CEO is unethical or reprehensible and that's your right to think that way. But at the same time, that's your opinion."



Absolutely, and I'm sure there's plenty out there that disagree with me. But hey, this is the place where I share my opinions, so sharing my opinion is OK :)



And yes, I do think it's (at least borderline) unethical. It's certainly intellectually dishonest, and more than that, it's incredibly bad business.



Sean said: "As far as morals go, he's doing nothing different than other "evangelists" throughout history have done."



See, that's where I disagree, or at least where I think the real learning from this issue comes from. Marketers do this kind of quasi-devious stuff all the time. But a good evangelist knows better. Evangelism, after all means "spreading the good word"... not "ripping on your competitors to make them look bad".



A good evangelist knows that you get more flies with honey, that taking the high road is almost always better than the alternative. Look at Stewart Butterfield's response in this thread and tell me who comes off better in the exchange.

Thanks Thomas, sorry about the trouble. I posted your comment as a new blog entry (along with my thoughts), and updated this post to include a link to that new post.


Thanks again for your willingness to discuss.

And just to reiterate for clarity - my point, my concern, and my blog post have nothing to do with whether or not Flickr is or is not doing something wrong.


The question is one of professional ethics.

Thomas, thanks for stopping by and responding.


The link doesn't see to be working quite right, but I assume you're trying to help me understand the issue is about flickr and censorship. Perhaps to you it is. But to me, it's a discussion about the appropriate, ethical, moral, and all around worthwhile behavior of a businessman and CEO.



I'll ask a couple of very basic questions to help me clarify my point, as well as better understand your position:



1. Do you believe that you give up anything as flickr community member by agreeing to head Zooomr, a flickr competitor?



2a. Do you believe your behavior in public has affect on your own business?



2b. Do you believe your recent drunk posts were helpful to the Zooomr business?



3. Do you believe that your participation in flickr, both in photo posting and forum posting with links and discussion that points to Zooomr drives traffic to your own business' site?



3b. If yes to 3., is that then a marketing strategy?



4. Would you feel comfortable with the CEO of Facebook blogging and creating a MySpace profile that pointed out, often and regularly, the problems with MySpace, regardless of his affiliation notification?



5. Do you feel that identifying yourself as the CEO of Zooomr is a "get out of jail free" card that allows you to say anything you want about Flickr without fear of repercussions from the blogosphere?



(More characters now to answer all this)

Now that's a scary thought, Lee. :)

Good point, Pieter. I'd even go further that it's not just belief/disbelief, but financial gain. The idea that, for example, professional journalists are influenced by nothing more than journalistic integrity is laughable. What stories run on the nightly news or the front page is highly influenced by personal politics and biases, what yields the highest attention( and thus financial) reward, and even business issues of how the news organization is being run.

Rod, that's OK. Depending on who you challenge, you may well find yourself a winner...depending on the sexiness of the code.


Or you could simply make your own set of rules about what constitutes a "win". We're open sourcing this movement, baby!

test comment - please ignore

Crickey man, I thought the payoff amount was confidential?? Ickxnay on the amentpay...

Tommie, I'm with you. But I honestly wonder if we've sorta entered into a new domain of spamming... since this is a different kind of business model, I wonder if they do better by remaining under the radar. i.e. if they don't ruffle the feathers of the blogosphere too much, does that help maintain their overall biz model?

Michelle,


Thanks for the info - makes much more sense. I totally understand that people are busy, but this is part of my beef with traditional PR (and advertising and marketing) business models - the client is NOT always right, and it's the role, the duty of the firm to help the client understand that. Service firms are FAR too scared of losing business. It's a vicious circle we get into with clients where we want to make sure they stay happy with us, so we give them what they expect/want regardless of potential success. It's a tricky balance, but I'd love to see agencies of all sorts say "no thanks" to business more often.



The other point I'd make is that a "relationship" can take many forms. Some forms take years to build, others minutes. It's a mindset as much as a tactic.

Indeed, great seeing you guys too!

Are you serious?? IE 4??


I'm not even sure what problem you're having in IE4, but considering that's a browser that's 9 years old, I'm not rushing to test against it. Seriously man, how are you even able to avoid upgrading at this point?

Dear lord, Gerry, how much more would you like me to dive into this, how much more discussion do I need to layout before you accept it?


As I mentioned on Phil's blog, I didn't sign up for a course, nor did I want an "instructor" who refused to diverge from the lesson plan he'd already created.



Please explain what a grade of "F" is based on! Don't tell me I didn't take it seriously, and that I should drop the "course". That's a ridiculous way to expect anyone to actually learn anything. Imagine if that's what teachers told their students if they failed the first lesson. That's not education, that's teaching/preaching to the educated/converted.



Clearly I stumbled into the digital equivalent of philosophy grad students at a coffee house on a mid-week afternoon. I wouldn't be welcomed there, nor am I welcomed here. Fine by me, time to move on.

Ah, so you're a friend of Phil's. Got it.


I don't think it's fair to say that I've rejected his lesson because I didn't agree with it. How can you support his argument that we need to break out of our bonds, yet you're not cool with me pushing back on Phil's "teaching"? That seems a bit hypocritical, no?



Look, I get the point - that we're so consumed with our consumption that we can't see the greater truth, the great problem because we're so blinded by the mass consumerism.



There's two problems with that line of thinking: a) It removes any discussion of free will, saying that what this thinking disagrees with is completely, undebatable and wrong, and b) that there are only certain enlightened people who can see the "truth" and that the rest of us are just unsavable drones.



Just because I don't agree with doesn't mean I don't understand it or have rejected the discussion....

testing again..

testing again

Testing, please ignore

Yeah, my favorite part is the admission. Too few execs admit fault these days, no matter how obvious.

Well, my understanding is that he's trying to say that we're all "enslaved" by what we don't know. It's the Matrix story with more confusing support materials. My understanding is that he's saying we're all "enslaved" by our desires and that we simply don't know what we don't know. Sure, we are asking (and sometimes receiving) more control as consumers, but that the system is inherently set up to keep us locked into our daily immoral lives.


OH, and that apparently I'm a modern day slave trader for trying to woo people into this soul sucking process.

It's a good goal, but not one I'm sure always makes sense.


At the end of the day, every company has silos to some extent. You're going to have to slice and dice budgets, responsibilities, and tasks at some point. The key isn't eliminating silos, it's finding ways to ensure quick and easy interchange between them. How do you ensure that everyone has a healthy communication that includes, not squashes debate? How do you ensure that teams are honestly helping each other fulfill each team's goals?



With the story of the $1700, it's easy to say that I should have just worked harder to convince my colleagues, but if the community interaction efforts are successful, there'll always be "one more thing" that the community is looking for. That's a sign of a healthy community and a healthy company/community interaction.

And last point...


"It is about time that people who know the difference between a market and a polis gave the Jakes of the world some remedial education in the public square"



and



"Community at its best is a polis, where we as citizens meet, not in an owned or enchanted space, but as human beings."



Interestingly, you seem to overlook a significant part of the polis definition. According to Wikipedia:



"Polis was frequently divided into 3 types of inhabitants. The first, and highest, 'group' of inhabitants are citizens with political rights. Then are the citizens without political rights. Lastly are the non-citizen."



Are you saying you believe that community is best when it's divided into levels of acceptance??



Please, I'd like to hear from you (not ancient philosophers) what the difference between market and polis is, in your interpretation.