EVEN MORE: cleaned-up that comment (also deleted my follow-up comments to it): I'll try to keep everything not relevant to the topic off this blog (thanks for your pacience!) D.
MORE: you may want to skip the comment to this entry of my blog (a bit on the odd side...) D.
UPDATE:
my follow-up comment:
yeah, you'd *have* to read...; hint: the first post is a good starting point:)-- tells you what it's all about (I couldn't believe there wasn't hardly *any* earnest craigslist criticism in the MSM or the blogosphere when I started this...)
Delia
P.S. Happy New Year!
I think sellsius will post my comment, they are probably just taking their time but here is my recreation from memory (I'm usually not bad at remembering things)
my comment (I *think*...)
Hi! (to whoever is writing this blog -- couldn't quite figure it out).
I think it remains to be seen just how "wild" Craig really is...
Delia
P.S. spooky picture, BTW
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Rethink again!
UPDATE:
my follow-up comment:
Jon,
I’m suggesting it doesn’t work… (users' needs aren’t being met).
re: the *combination* of human-intensive customer service AND severely understaffed “customer service team” a la craigslist
Delia
a comment on Jon Udell's blog (sounds like a nice guy: most people honestly writing enthusiastically re: craigslist do... it's just hard to understand why the facts of the issue -- assuming they know them -- don't seem to make them at least wonder...)
re: "Although human-intensive customer service is usually regarded as costly and inefficient, operations like craigslist — where Craig Newmark’s title is, famously, customer service representative and founder — invite us to rethink that conventional wisdom"
well... I'd rethink again! (especially the *combination* of human-intensive customer service AND severely understaffed "customer service team" a la craigslist)
Delia
my follow-up comment:
Jon,
I’m suggesting it doesn’t work… (users' needs aren’t being met).
re: the *combination* of human-intensive customer service AND severely understaffed “customer service team” a la craigslist
Delia
a comment on Jon Udell's blog (sounds like a nice guy: most people honestly writing enthusiastically re: craigslist do... it's just hard to understand why the facts of the issue -- assuming they know them -- don't seem to make them at least wonder...)
re: "Although human-intensive customer service is usually regarded as costly and inefficient, operations like craigslist — where Craig Newmark’s title is, famously, customer service representative and founder — invite us to rethink that conventional wisdom"
well... I'd rethink again! (especially the *combination* of human-intensive customer service AND severely understaffed "customer service team" a la craigslist)
Delia
Friday, December 29, 2006
Larry&Sergei versus Craig
a comment to a Google related entry on Dan Gillmor's blog:
re: “For now, Google is taking no commission for brokering ad sales, though it intends to do so later. Such finer points of how a business relationship might work between newspapers and Google have yet to be worked out.”
Dan:
This is what I was talking about… Larry and Sergei are upfront about it (this is a business move and the players’ expectation is that Google will look after its financial interest, not necessarily nickel and dime everything but even if they don’t start by charging there is no suggestion that Google is not in it for the money).
Now, it *seems* to me that if this would have been one of Craig’s enterprises it would have STARTED something like this:
“We just want to help folks out, ok? How much money does a guy need, anyways?” (“just trust our fabulous moral compass and … no! I’m not gonna tell you how much I will *profit* from this down the road — that just confuses me silly!” – well… It should! It certainly doesn’t make any sense to me, either…)
Delia
re: “For now, Google is taking no commission for brokering ad sales, though it intends to do so later. Such finer points of how a business relationship might work between newspapers and Google have yet to be worked out.”
Dan:
This is what I was talking about… Larry and Sergei are upfront about it (this is a business move and the players’ expectation is that Google will look after its financial interest, not necessarily nickel and dime everything but even if they don’t start by charging there is no suggestion that Google is not in it for the money).
Now, it *seems* to me that if this would have been one of Craig’s enterprises it would have STARTED something like this:
“We just want to help folks out, ok? How much money does a guy need, anyways?” (“just trust our fabulous moral compass and … no! I’m not gonna tell you how much I will *profit* from this down the road — that just confuses me silly!” – well… It should! It certainly doesn’t make any sense to me, either…)
Delia
Craig's own press...
almost nobody seems to do their own research when writing craigslist related articles... they seem to just adopt without question whatever craigslist (Craig/Jim) says... no wonder Craig keeps saying that he doesn't believe his own press; a BBC interviewer told him that it *wasn't* his own press (unless he's orchestrated it all...) -- may not be far from the truth at all... if you can get people to just print what you say without questioning it... isn't that your own press?
anyways... here's my comment (the site moderates comments, I don't see any good reason for them not to post it but...just in case)
Hi, Joe! As to pretty much anybody else writing craigslist related articles, I suggest you check the facts...
e.g. “So I do think that's an advantage to be able to respond first and foremost to user wants and needs.”
(one of Jim's statements you quoted)
in order to respond to user *needs* (let's not even worry about their wants for now), you need enough people employed in customers service; craigslist is severely understaffed in this respect and appears to have no intention to hire the number of people that would be needed.
Delia
anyways... here's my comment (the site moderates comments, I don't see any good reason for them not to post it but...just in case)
Hi, Joe! As to pretty much anybody else writing craigslist related articles, I suggest you check the facts...
e.g. “So I do think that's an advantage to be able to respond first and foremost to user wants and needs.”
(one of Jim's statements you quoted)
in order to respond to user *needs* (let's not even worry about their wants for now), you need enough people employed in customers service; craigslist is severely understaffed in this respect and appears to have no intention to hire the number of people that would be needed.
Delia
Friday, December 22, 2006
too much for the New York Times?
MORE: so at least some people must be still reading this stuff
my comment (pre-posting to the site, so this time it should be identical):
Tasha & whoever else is still listening...
I don't see anything wrong with for profits that are upfront about it (people know what they are getting themselves into -- there is no deceit).
I'd like to see a law that prevents a company from starting as a NON-PROFIT, garnering huge support as such (donations, expertise, word of mouth etc.) and THEN turning for profit...
Also, if you *claim* to be for profit but with a "philanthropic mindset" (which means you will get rewarded if people believe you)... you should be REQUIRED to disclose your profits so people could see what you are made of... If the numbers add-up...again! I don't see any problem...
Delia
http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/index.html
UPDATE: Eileen West (according to her own post, "girlfriend of Craig") volunteers some info off the craigslist site re: craigslist being a for profit since 1999 and the fact that they don't *have* to disclose their profits... nothing new there...
my response (I had to recreate it again) not sure if New York Times will post it this time either... -- oh, well...) :
hi Eileen! Here is may intended response to Jay, above (it somehow didn’t get posted):
http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/12/too-much-for-new-york-times.html
it (together with the rest of my craigslist criticism blog) should clarify to you why I believe that although craigslist turned for profit in 1999, from the ethical stand point, they should have voluntarily disclosed their profits
anyways, best of luck! D.
or are they just slow to post it for some reason? or did it get lost somehow? (don't know, nor do I care too much... -- definitely not going to look into it; I just wish I wouldn't have to recreate it from memory, wasn't at home when I posted it...well... *attempted to*...)
it was a response to comment 214
I was basically saying that:
-- it *seems* to me that keeping people in the dark as to how much they profit from what was supposed to be a non-profit is the "key (hidden) reason" for craigslist's continually increasing financial success
-- if people would know the cold basic facts re:CL (especially people *new* to craigslist) it appears that they wouldn't be willing to do much enthusiastic word of mouth -- it may be still worth giving it a try if you need a job etc. -- but it would be very unlikely to continue to have the "cult" following that results in huge growth rates
--that information (how much they make in *pure profit*) would be in the open if it would have stayed a NON-profit (legally, they can get away with not disclosing that info because they are now set up as a FOR profit; morally... it's a different issue...)
-- meanwhile, the places and things they charge for are increasing... and they keep talking about their fabulous moral compass and the great customer service (you should try going in the feedback forum sometimes and see how frustrated people in need of help get -- craigslist doesn't have nearly enough people to handle the customer service needs and appears to have no intention to hire the number of people that would be needed)
there! was that so bad? I don't see how...
Delia
my comment (pre-posting to the site, so this time it should be identical):
Tasha & whoever else is still listening...
I don't see anything wrong with for profits that are upfront about it (people know what they are getting themselves into -- there is no deceit).
I'd like to see a law that prevents a company from starting as a NON-PROFIT, garnering huge support as such (donations, expertise, word of mouth etc.) and THEN turning for profit...
Also, if you *claim* to be for profit but with a "philanthropic mindset" (which means you will get rewarded if people believe you)... you should be REQUIRED to disclose your profits so people could see what you are made of... If the numbers add-up...again! I don't see any problem...
Delia
http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/index.html
UPDATE: Eileen West (according to her own post, "girlfriend of Craig") volunteers some info off the craigslist site re: craigslist being a for profit since 1999 and the fact that they don't *have* to disclose their profits... nothing new there...
my response (I had to recreate it again) not sure if New York Times will post it this time either... -- oh, well...) :
hi Eileen! Here is may intended response to Jay, above (it somehow didn’t get posted):
http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/12/too-much-for-new-york-times.html
it (together with the rest of my craigslist criticism blog) should clarify to you why I believe that although craigslist turned for profit in 1999, from the ethical stand point, they should have voluntarily disclosed their profits
anyways, best of luck! D.
or are they just slow to post it for some reason? or did it get lost somehow? (don't know, nor do I care too much... -- definitely not going to look into it; I just wish I wouldn't have to recreate it from memory, wasn't at home when I posted it...well... *attempted to*...)
it was a response to comment 214
I was basically saying that:
-- it *seems* to me that keeping people in the dark as to how much they profit from what was supposed to be a non-profit is the "key (hidden) reason" for craigslist's continually increasing financial success
-- if people would know the cold basic facts re:CL (especially people *new* to craigslist) it appears that they wouldn't be willing to do much enthusiastic word of mouth -- it may be still worth giving it a try if you need a job etc. -- but it would be very unlikely to continue to have the "cult" following that results in huge growth rates
--that information (how much they make in *pure profit*) would be in the open if it would have stayed a NON-profit (legally, they can get away with not disclosing that info because they are now set up as a FOR profit; morally... it's a different issue...)
-- meanwhile, the places and things they charge for are increasing... and they keep talking about their fabulous moral compass and the great customer service (you should try going in the feedback forum sometimes and see how frustrated people in need of help get -- craigslist doesn't have nearly enough people to handle the customer service needs and appears to have no intention to hire the number of people that would be needed)
there! was that so bad? I don't see how...
Delia
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Craig's *salary*?
Who cares...
and here's my comment:
the relevant question in Craig's case is how much he *profits* from CL -- salary (which I would expect to be relatively low doesn't really matter, he certainly appears to be in the position to volunteer...)
Delia
and here's my comment:
the relevant question in Craig's case is how much he *profits* from CL -- salary (which I would expect to be relatively low doesn't really matter, he certainly appears to be in the position to volunteer...)
Delia
Late to the party! (almost didn't go...)
New York Times article: pleased to see some good points ... still they don't seem to go to the *core* of the issue... D.
P.S. just in case it will require registration at some point, here is my comment:
I’d reserve judgment until Jim and Craig disclose how much they *profit* from what was supposed to be a non-profit… As to now, they *refuse* to do that — I wonder why…
Delia
(http://www.craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com)
P.S. Oh..and… looks like a great publicity stunt to me!(http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/12/craigslist-publicity-stunts.html)
P.S. just in case it will require registration at some point, here is my comment:
I’d reserve judgment until Jim and Craig disclose how much they *profit* from what was supposed to be a non-profit… As to now, they *refuse* to do that — I wonder why…
Delia
(http://www.craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com)
P.S. Oh..and… looks like a great publicity stunt to me!(http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/12/craigslist-publicity-stunts.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)