What's wrong is simply deleting the data/site. All the data should have been returned to the (now ex-)customer.
> ...please don't run a service for public usage.
I run multiple services, and I expect people to give me a chance to resolve problems before taking to Twitter. If they don't then I contact them to express my disappointment that they haven't done so, and then I have, on occasion, refunded people, returned their data, and terminated their service.
Admittedly my communities aren't the public in general, but I do have some relevant experience.
Comments here are clearly divided, and it gives me pause to consider how many people are commenting as those who have, and those who have never, had to deal with customers.
What I meant is that flow of the events seem to have been something like:
- User received notification about impeding upgrade
- User replies to Ghost and tweets about the event
- CEO replies on Twitter
- ??? (Here it feels like some information is missing)
- Ghost terminates the users service
I cannot fathom that a user complains once via Twitter, and Ghost terminates their account. Has to be something else that have happened, otherwise this is way beyond crazy to do (from Ghosts side)
> I run multiple services, and I expect people to give me a chance to resolve problems before taking to Twitter. If they don't then I contact them to express my disappointment that they haven't done so, and then I have, on occasion, refunded people, returned their data, and terminated their service.
Same here, with lots of people complaining about bunch of different things and I have never, paying user or not, terminated their service unless I've asked before if I can terminate it or not.
Interesting to see that there are others who simply terminate users service when the user complains (gives feedback), wonder how that impacts the bottom line?
But I have certainly terminated services from one side, without asking permission, after trying multiple times to resolve the issues.
The Ghost CEO might as well have just put out an advert saying “We’re not ready to compete with Wordpress.”
You have terminated a customer's account without notice because they made a complaint?
I have not terminated someone's account without notice. I have always first tried to find out what the problem is so we can resolve it. But when someone has raised an issue, not given us time to resolve or even investigate, and then accused us publicly of inappropriate behaviour, I've contacted them to say that I think it better we go separate ways, returned their data, refunded their money, and gave them 48 hours before considering the issue closed.
We (you and I) probably agree that the CEO did not get it entirely right, and certainly I would not have done what he did. But in this situation, where neither party comes off looking good, my sympathies still lie somewhat with the CEO.
So ...
It wasn't just making the complaint on social media that got the response, it was the wording of the original email as well. Already in that email he has said:
> This is an extremely shady business practice ...
and
> ... makes me question my commitment to moving to Ghost.
I think the CEO got it wrong, yes, but as I said, I have some sympathy.
> I ... never in a million years would have guessed that making a complaint on social media ... would be grounds for my account being terminated.
You might want to double-check the fine-print on some of the services you use. Often there's a clause about "publicly disparaging the service provider" or similar.
Let me finish by saying I think the CEO acted wrongly, but I have some sympathy.
> You might want to double-check the fine-print on some of the services you use. Often there's a clause about "publicly disparaging the service provider" or similar.
Yeah, ToS and similar usually have language like that + "we can terminate your service for any reason, without telling you", but companies who do terminate peoples service for any reason, without justifying it, will rightly get less business because it´s a shitty thing to do. Just because it´s legal doesn´t mean it´s right.
It does feel like that. Perhaps it's not being said out loud, but there is a sense that that's what people think/mean. But you're right, no one has said that explicitly.
> The issue is that you're still feeling sympathy for the CEO, even though you believe he did wrong
The implication there is that if someone does something wrong, somehow you're not allowed to understand their motivations and sympathise, even if you don't agree. I find that disappointing, but I'm getting used to being disappointed by people.
>> ... the fine-print ...
> ... companies who do terminate people's service for any reason, without justifying it, will rightly get less business because it's a shitty thing to do. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
Absolutely.
The user complained about something, then the company deleted his content? Feels like it's missing something in the middle. Why would Ghost simply delete his website because he's complaining? Feels like they are making the decision for him, instead of just leaving things as they are, and if the user doesn't upgrade, then they don't.
> If I'm providing a service and someone has a problem with it, I expect them to look to resolve it with me first, before tweeting about "shady practices".
Yeah, you might want to readjust your expectation if you ever end up running a service on the internet. This happens _constantly_ and if you start feeling you need to delete users content when this happens, then please don't run a service for public usage.