Why are we live-tooting (ugh) our client's private disasters? The indiscretion is staggering.
This account casts its author in as bad a light as it does their client. I wouldn't want to work with either.
If the writing was nasty and exposing specifics, sure, but it very much is not.
Journalists and other outside observers can and should write about corporate incompetence wherever they find it. When you're in a paid position of trust, though, talking about your client's failings is tacky.
I agree that the writing isn't nasty. The specificity is the key. I guess to some people this came across as sufficiently anonymized. To me, it seems like anybody working at this place knows that the auther is talking about their company, which is a problem in and of itself. But it also means we're just one equally-indiscreet reply away from knowing exactly who this is (something like "yeah, I work here and..."). Though I really don't think that even that much additional info is necessary to deanonymize this. Just a hunch; obviously you disagree.
Do you actually truly believe this?
What I do think happened is that they saw how much pain it would cause people, then they looked at some fucking dollar amount and some spreadsheet and said "that's fine". I think that's fucked up.
I don't think the reporting being 'live' makes it much better or worse, though it probably wastes more of the readers' time.
Also he made pretty clear that he was anonymzing it to the point it would be incredibly difficult to tell.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike this person. It's not a "boycott". I'd just prefer not to be their customer, because this story goes a bit over where I'd draw the line of oversharing. I don't imagine that it will every actually come up, and I hope it never does.
Indeed. I'm glad they are, because it is fascinating but very odd. I'm sure it's not hard to identify the customer either.
OP seems rather sure of the opposite:
>But I felt I needed to address one particular concern that has been repeatedly raised. That of the identity of the company in question.
>I’m a professional, and I’ve been doing this a long ol’ time. There is no way I’m going to risk the identity of the company, or my reputation, or the potential legal consequences for some interaction on social media.
>So to clarify, enough details of the incident and those involved have been changed to protect their identity and everyone else involved. I am confident that you could work at the company involved and not even be aware this happened, even after reading this Partly due to scale and partly due to managerial secrecy.