Re: What about the client's needs? (was: What would Andrew do)

[Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

<ccallen -at- beckman -dot- com> wrote:

> I am puzzled over Andrew's repeated insistence that Elna's relating of
this
> experience was somehow "wrong" or unprofessional.

Let's say you an your spouse divorce. And your spouse publishes a
detailed, blow-by-blow account of all the horrible things you did in a
public forum. You discover these postings later. Even though your spouse
did not name you specifically, details of your relationship are now
public. 

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that this wouldn't anger
you? You would respect your spouse's need to "remind others that there are
some very difficult people out there." 

Elna's posts, in my opinion, are not "case studies." They are long,
in-depth, one-sided accounts of an argument. A real case study is written
by a third party attempting to OBJECTIVELY analyze an event. You are not
going to convince me that somehow the meaning of a case study has changed.
I've read hundreds of them, and not a single one of them was a detailed
account of a lawsuit, written by one of the litigants. 

I own a firm and I can very much sympathize with Elna's struggle. Probably
more than most TECHWR-L members. However, I would never even think of
posting such detailed messages. Because it would only invite speculation
and advertise a bad situation. Therefore, I am posting my messages "as a
service" to the TECHWR_L community to say...be careful what you reveal.
Not everybody will accept your words at face value. 

The simple fact is, we have no way of knowing the truth. Just because
everything Elna says sounds reasonable, we have no way of knowing if that
is what really happened. Do you honestly think somebody embroiled in a
nasty litigation is going to objectively describe the events to the
public? 

> It was intended to remind us
> to be prepared because there are sometimes very difficult clients out
there, and
> there was no hint of whining or self-rightousness in her post. (But even
if she
> just felt the need to vent--as sometimes happens on all lists--there was
nothing
> wrong about her message.) She obviously took all of the steps available
to
> satisfy the client and meet the requirements of the contract. There was
> absolutely no revelation of the CFH identity anywhere in her post--she
is way
> too savvy a businessperson to make that kind of slip.

You're speculating based on what Elna has told you. How do you know for
FACT that Elna and her writers didn't ignore every last one of the
client's requests? This is why posting the detailed account of a
disagreement is not a good idea. It invites speculation. While you and
most every other TECHWR-L member are speculating in Elna's favor, I am
speculating the other direction. The fact is, we are all doing the same
thing - interpreting Elna's words and assigning our own judgment. Since we
will never hear from Elna's client, we have no way of knowing what really
happened. 

Now, if Elna wants to let her client post their side of the tale, we could
start getting an objective picture of this situation and really analyze
the events. I suspect, they won't be as clean and tidy as Elna has
presented them. 

Elna could have easily avoided my criticism by refocusing her "case
studies" to discuss the point (bad clients) and not the details (her
failed business relationship.) 

> >Beyond that - if you have a process and it works: good. If you think
your
> process is perfect: you're wrong. Process can NEVER replace
intelligence.
> 
> There was also no indication that Elna is convinced of the infallability
of her
> processes. She HAS demonstrated over the years, through her always
insightful,
> helpful, professional (and nonjudgemental) posts, that she has plenty of
> intelligence combined with processes that have served her company well
over the
> long haul. Her company is among the most respected in the Bay Area (and
no doubt
> beyond).

And now when a new potential client does a search on her company, they
will pull up an extended, detailed thread of posts off TECHWR-L that prove
there is at least one company out there that completely disagrees with
everything you just said. Bad publicity is bad, no matter how right you
might be. 

Hey, you know what, if you want to post the intimate details of your
private affiairs, go ahead. Far be it for any of you to listen to me. But
don't fool yourself. Some people will use that information against you.
And it does not matter how right, proper, correct, accomplished, decent,
human, sensitive, or organized you are. The more you reveal, the more
likely people will use those revelations against you. 

Andrew Plato 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you 
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of 
your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr

Have you looked at the new content on TECHWR-L lately?
See http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ and check it out.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.