Comment by inopinatus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by inopinatus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The examples of Trello and Jira are specifically problematic, because their history says otherwise: Jira built its considerable market share and brand awareness without a free plan of any kind, offering instead just a short-term trial license; I remember just a few years ago that the price of admission was thousands of dollars per server, and yet here it is. And Trello comes from the other direction, having been entirely free of charge at launch and only latterly monetizing.

The broader problem with this example is that the companies in question evidently don't value information, and have instead relied on personal hubris, which speaking as a longtime service provider is itself a red flag for "problem customer", and if not quite the horrors depicted in the article then certainly on that spectrum.

All of which illustrates that talking to anyone who self-describes as an "influencer" is generally a net negative, unless you're in the FMCG category. Influencers demanding freebies is something to be abhorred, and there is no equivalence here to seeking high quality professional advice.

I read the "influencer" in original post as descriptive not prescriptive.

> the companies in question evidently don't value information, and have instead relied on personal hubris

Nothing in the post indicated hubris to me. "I have used this service before and can give you an estimation of how well it fits our usecase" is probably the best information about a service you can get. The alternative is to spend time and money to discover that yourself.

> Nothing in the post indicated hubris to me.

Claiming that you are personally responsible for Jira and Trello's marketing cut-through is sheer hubris.

And furthermore:

> The alternative is to spend time and money to discover that yourself

That's not an "alternative", that is simply professional consulting behaviour. Making the recommendation whilst declining to invest in the quality of that recommendation is hubris. And I'll double down by adding that "influencers" demanding freebies is downright obnoxious hubris. In the last few years, some segment of the tech community has normalized this behaviour as somehow acceptable and rational, but in practice it's as toxic as the article suggests.

Noticing that due to time/money constraints familiar tech with a free testing plan gets better chances of accepting is not the same as demanding freebies. If you have time and money to do a full review of every alternative available, go for it - don't forget to add training / new tech implementation to the budget. If you're in a "we need something that we know can do X now" position, you'll likely get a recommendation from people experienced with X.

I've also got a number of solutions that just solve the problem at reasonable price. My recommendation in those categories will be "X can do it; have you got specific requirements that X doesn't match? if not, I can implement it with X and we can review that in months/years".

This simply confirms an assertion that low-quality advice is sought by companies that do not value advice, i.e. that their willingness-to-pay for information is low to nil.

Somewhat tautological perhaps, but also, thereby, not a compelling reason to offer a free plan, nor to be proud of being glib.

In addition highlighting that any comparison between an influencer and a consultant depends on false equivalence, which is why I don't consider them part of a product ecosystem (esp. when compared with ISVs, VARs and MSPs), or a substitute for thoughtful, professional advisors.

Top parent here. I originally deleted the word “influencer” but put it back in with quotes since it was the best word to use.

You’re totally correct in your assertions and the understanding of the intent and meaning of my post.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com