Hacker News Reader

Comment by redleggedfrog | Hacker News Reader

Ug, is it just me, or does that he took money before actually having anyone to paint the pictures seem unethical? Would people have ordered if they had of known there were no artists as yet, or for that matter the artist were going to be friends of the website owner?

View on HN

They ordered under the promise that I would deliver the product, somehow, and I did. I hired my friends who were artists in San Francisco to do them—at a loss too.

That being said, worse case scenario would have been a refund, and most people paid via credit card which is interest free for 30 days anyways.

I guess it's just me then. :^)

For me it's the difference between purchasing a product and investing in your business. If presented as an investment, where my money is going to enable you to produce the item for me, then I'd be fine with it, because I would know the current state of your business. Now, if I knew you had no artists and were just floating an idea I would most likely refrain.

The worst case scenario also assumes that the value of the product purchased is only the cost. What if it was purchased as a gift, with a specific timeline?

I do understand that this is a tried and true business practice, just one that I am not comfortable with when the customer is not aware of it.

Worst case scenario, he'd have returned the money for any specific painting that couldn't be done, right?

well, worst-case scenario the customer wanted the painting as, e.g., a graduation gift for their kid, and suddenly got told at the last minute "we couldn't do it, here's a refund"

That could happen anyway even if he did have a painter ready; that's always a risk when you're custom ordering something.

TBH there's many cases where people sell things before actually having the capability to deliver them, as long as the customer gets the goods at the end of the day, I don't really see the problem.

Heck if you look at the idea of Kickstarter and Indiegogo they're a whole market predicated on the idea of buying things that don't exist yet (and in many cases those things are harder to deliver than the creators suggest in their pitches)

Yeah. Not only that, the money you give on KS has a risk of not being refunded if a clusterf*ck happens. In OPs story, he can just send a refund.

You pay a company to have a service or product rendered.

It's not my job to investigate Amazon's supply-chain to make sure that can actually deliver my toilet paper in 2 days. They are promising me this service and now it's their responsibility to deliver on that.

If those services/product aren't rendered, then a refund should/can be demanded.

I think this was completely within ethical bounds, assuming a promise was also made to return money if services weren't rendered.

> the artist were going to be friends of the website owner

What in the world is wrong with that part?

Just had Sears cancel an online order that was 'in stock' when we purchased because they can't fulfill it. Did they ever have it in stock? Did they just run out and have poor inventory control? Who knows, but they couldn't fill it when they implied they could. Not sure I'd call that unethical.

Many people are offering to paint a picture from a photo, initially he could have just gone to someone like that and get the product. If you resell a service that is reliably available it is ok in my mind. There was no real risk of the product being impossible to deliver, only of him loosing even more money on it.

It's a common hustle/business tactic. Read up on how Microsoft was made into the giant it is today[1], similar trick. You are basically validating your idea, if you have a lot of orders coming in you have what I call a positive problem, a way to make money.

[1] http://gizmodo.com/5825184/bill-gates-spent-the-best-money-o...

Alternative would be getting money from somewhere (credit, VC, friends, etc.) build the stuff in advanced and hope people will buy it.

Unethical is advertising a service you don't plan on fulfilling. He made a promise in good faith (and delivered). Seems pretty clean in my book.

I recently switched internet/tv providers. The new service had me sign a 2 year contract up front. The guy who did the install didn't know about it until 20 minutes before its scheduled. He's working a queue. Same as the artists I'm sure. Just saying, other companies lock you in much more deeper before knowing exactly how they'll deliver. Not weird at all.

How exactly do you think he could have actually hired the artist to do the work if he didn't take orders? Don't constrain yourself unnecessarily. It only would have been unethical if he held the money beyond the promised time to do the work or never delivered the work.

If he delivers the products, what's the problem?

It's literally a cornerstone of many/most businesses.

You seem to have some VERY backwards ideas of ethics...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com