Ghost CEO lectures locked out customer about empathy(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Ghost CEO lectures locked out customer about empathy
https://twitter.com/amyhoy/status/1449093879546843137
118 comments
That checks. Ghost CEO launched massive e-mail flame at me when I asked them to clarify their migration policy (it used to say you could "request" your data but gave no indication as to whether they honor such requests). Dude is outright abusive.
Same experience here with the CTO... I was trying to notify some terrible security problems in their product. What she doesn't like she dismisses, deflects, and deletes. edit - it was the CTO, not CEO
Have you disclosed the issues publicly?
I wonder how they'd respond to a GDPR request.
Well they're based on Singapore (at least as far as it appears from the Contact page) so they're outside of any EU jurisdiction unless they have servers there.
You're subject to gdpr if you're serving eu customers, where your hq is doesn't matter. Enforcement is a problem tho.
If you can't enforce a law, saying you're "subject" to it is mostly an academic exercise.
It's definetly hard to enforce, but not impossible, if EU is dealing with a party in a random country which clearly shows no intention of doing business in the EU. I.e. the internet is practically lawless a lot of the time. But it depends on whether you're accepting payments and whether you have paying customers in EU.
Horrific CX. I'm sure if Ghost discovered a bug causing data loss it would become an engineering priority.
From a customer's perspective this is the same thing. This shows a complete lack of empathy with what customers feel when they use your platform.
Stories like these stick with me. When I evaluate using a product, hearing about customer pain like this makes it a no go. Similarly I've told friends that I wouldn't work for a company they've applied to based on bad c-level engagement with customers.
Stuff like this spreads. If you won't fix it for your customers sake, fix it out of self interest.
From a customer's perspective this is the same thing. This shows a complete lack of empathy with what customers feel when they use your platform.
Stories like these stick with me. When I evaluate using a product, hearing about customer pain like this makes it a no go. Similarly I've told friends that I wouldn't work for a company they've applied to based on bad c-level engagement with customers.
Stuff like this spreads. If you won't fix it for your customers sake, fix it out of self interest.
Some people have since reached out to me and told me:
1. The CEO randomly picks on women on twitter he thinks subtweeted him and writes their bosses
2. The same lock-out mechanism — plus the queue for deletion — happens if eg your credit card expires or has an issue or sometimes randomly
1. The CEO randomly picks on women on twitter he thinks subtweeted him and writes their bosses
2. The same lock-out mechanism — plus the queue for deletion — happens if eg your credit card expires or has an issue or sometimes randomly
I often test our product by recording a speedrun video of the main functionality, not to be shared, but to reveal all the learned helplessness and clunky user experience.
It is amazing how recording a video going through the product does: the video is full of swear words and cursing. All the things that were invisible suddenly become glaring. All the un-necessary clicking and convoluted flows become torture with cognitive dissonance: "And you can easily just do [steps that clearly are not easy]" and it hits you. Hard.
Hence, some things trigger that agression, especially in a more mature product. For example, I only used YouTube as a consumer of videos, but recently I was putting a lot of videos there in my personal account.
I then created another account and wanted to transfer the videos. Easy, right? No. I looked and looked, and read documentation, and searched on the web, and people said you need to download the videos from one account, then upload them back again to the second account. That can't be, right? I mean I clearly am not the first one to want to do that, and YouTube has existed for ages. There has to be a way I'm stupid enough to have overlooked. I contact them on Twitter, and they link to the documentation that tells you to download videos somewhere, then upload them back again. This is insanity. They're already on YouTube's infra, why do the round trip. Just move the darn thing? I'm not privy to how their infrastructure works, but I have a feeling that this is not the flow I want.
One other example... I have one Android phone that was not physically in the same place as me. I wanted to get the call history (which is backed up in Drive) to urgently call the last number that called me. I could clearly see that the call history was backed up in Drive, and it shows you a "Preview" button that, when you click on, shows a modal that tells you the call history is backed up, and has a button that says "Delete".
I can use Find my Phone and pin-point the location, I can erase it, I can make it ring, I can download all my data and Drive. I can download the device settings. I can Delete a backup, but not download it.
Now I need to wait for tomorrow to be able to get that phone for that call log.
Here's what is interesting: it's almost impossible that I be the first one that hits something like this (either for YouTube or Drive) for products with this many users existing for this long. Moving a video around is practically so obvious, you don't think there would be a documentation for it, let alone a documentation that tells you you can't do it. Heck I'll run my mouth and say it's harder to write and maintain the docs that tell you you can't do it, than add that no-brainer functionality... But then again, I'm running my mouth.
It is amazing how recording a video going through the product does: the video is full of swear words and cursing. All the things that were invisible suddenly become glaring. All the un-necessary clicking and convoluted flows become torture with cognitive dissonance: "And you can easily just do [steps that clearly are not easy]" and it hits you. Hard.
Hence, some things trigger that agression, especially in a more mature product. For example, I only used YouTube as a consumer of videos, but recently I was putting a lot of videos there in my personal account.
I then created another account and wanted to transfer the videos. Easy, right? No. I looked and looked, and read documentation, and searched on the web, and people said you need to download the videos from one account, then upload them back again to the second account. That can't be, right? I mean I clearly am not the first one to want to do that, and YouTube has existed for ages. There has to be a way I'm stupid enough to have overlooked. I contact them on Twitter, and they link to the documentation that tells you to download videos somewhere, then upload them back again. This is insanity. They're already on YouTube's infra, why do the round trip. Just move the darn thing? I'm not privy to how their infrastructure works, but I have a feeling that this is not the flow I want.
One other example... I have one Android phone that was not physically in the same place as me. I wanted to get the call history (which is backed up in Drive) to urgently call the last number that called me. I could clearly see that the call history was backed up in Drive, and it shows you a "Preview" button that, when you click on, shows a modal that tells you the call history is backed up, and has a button that says "Delete".
I can use Find my Phone and pin-point the location, I can erase it, I can make it ring, I can download all my data and Drive. I can download the device settings. I can Delete a backup, but not download it.
Now I need to wait for tomorrow to be able to get that phone for that call log.
Here's what is interesting: it's almost impossible that I be the first one that hits something like this (either for YouTube or Drive) for products with this many users existing for this long. Moving a video around is practically so obvious, you don't think there would be a documentation for it, let alone a documentation that tells you you can't do it. Heck I'll run my mouth and say it's harder to write and maintain the docs that tell you you can't do it, than add that no-brainer functionality... But then again, I'm running my mouth.
The YouTube issue you describe could be on purpose to limit abuse/gaming of the system. Since we don’t deal in YouTube’s moderation day to day we aren’t privy to the reasoning that feature was never developed. Maybe they did it early on and realized before they released it could be abused to make copies of your YouTube channel with slightly different language optimized for different search terms. Hard to say intent without working on it day to day. Sometimes things are hard on purpose because a small part of the population suck and will abuse a feature.
Yes, that was my point. I know that the current flow is not what I want, but I understand there obviously are reasons I'm not privy to, but then again it looks obvious to me from the outside.... but then again I'm not aware of all the reasons they've done it like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
The fact there exist reasons something sucks does not make it suck less for the user, even taking into account the user's awareness of these reasons' existence.
It's the "Of course, but maybe...": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLGzFQg_1xc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
The fact there exist reasons something sucks does not make it suck less for the user, even taking into account the user's awareness of these reasons' existence.
It's the "Of course, but maybe...": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLGzFQg_1xc
this doesn't make it suck any less for the user
What's the really common use case for changing the ownership of individual videos? It seems super niche, and seems like a feature with a lot of really sharp edges that will be hard to get right.
While if you wanted to move all the videos, couldn't you just have moved the entire channel to a brand account, and then moved the brand account to a different Google account?
While if you wanted to move all the videos, couldn't you just have moved the entire channel to a brand account, and then moved the brand account to a different Google account?
>What's the really common use case for changing the ownership of individual videos? It seems super niche, and seems like a feature with a lot of really sharp edges that will be hard to get right.
What's the really common use case for changing the location of a file from one directory to the other?
>While if you wanted to move all the videos, couldn't you just have moved the entire channel to a brand account, and then moved the brand account to a different Google account?
This blows. Is the word here "just"? Did you read how when I record videos and I say "And you can easily just do [steps that clearly are not easy]" and then it hits me that I'm using "simply" and "just" incorrectly because the steps are not easy.
The above is YouTube specific and requires to know channels and brand accounts. We're talking about moving something from A to B in the same context: like a file from one directory to the other on your interface, you should be able to move a video from one account to the other.
What's the really common use case for changing the location of a file from one directory to the other?
>While if you wanted to move all the videos, couldn't you just have moved the entire channel to a brand account, and then moved the brand account to a different Google account?
This blows. Is the word here "just"? Did you read how when I record videos and I say "And you can easily just do [steps that clearly are not easy]" and then it hits me that I'm using "simply" and "just" incorrectly because the steps are not easy.
The above is YouTube specific and requires to know channels and brand accounts. We're talking about moving something from A to B in the same context: like a file from one directory to the other on your interface, you should be able to move a video from one account to the other.
So I take it you did indeed not have a use for transferring individual videos to a different channel? I think "just" is a pretty reasonable word to use here, it is two well documented steps. Happy to help!
Look, you're claiming that videos are obviously analogous to files, and should thus support the same operations that files do. But that's not the case, they're more complex objects.
For example, moving a video can't be unilateral. For reasons that should be pretty obvious, you have to have both the old and new owner consent to the transfer, which is going to be a fairly complex flow. There's no analogous concept in any filesystem I've ever seen.
Look, you're claiming that videos are obviously analogous to files, and should thus support the same operations that files do. But that's not the case, they're more complex objects.
For example, moving a video can't be unilateral. For reasons that should be pretty obvious, you have to have both the old and new owner consent to the transfer, which is going to be a fairly complex flow. There's no analogous concept in any filesystem I've ever seen.
>So I take it you did indeed not have a use for transferring individual videos to a different channel? I think "just" is a pretty reasonable word to use here, it is two well documented steps. Happy to help!
Given that my original comment described an actual, real, use case with the actual problem I faced, your take that I did not have a use would be wrong.
The solution in your first comment of moving the "channel" to a brand account is not acceptable. Therefore, the fact they were "just" two well documented steps is irrelevant because it's not the right solution. If I want to move a TV from one house to the other, I shouldn't have to transfer the house as well.
>Look, you're claiming that videos are obviously analogous to files, and should thus support the same operations that files do. But that's not the case, they're more complex objects.
At some point, they are stored somewhere, right? Database, object storage, filesystem: something on disk.
>For example, moving a video can't be unilateral. For reasons that should be pretty obvious, you have to have both the old and new owner consent to the transfer, which is going to be a fairly complex flow. There's no analogous concept in any filesystem I've ever seen.
I am the owner of both. Simple enough scenario in my case.
Are you using words like complex and obvious without really giving details because you're speaking knowingly of the internal challenges YouTube is having to move one video from one place to the other but can't go into details, or do you not know of the inner workings of YouTube?
Would you agree that the user experience of being unable to move a video from one place to another sucks, notwithstanding the existence (or inexistence) of technical challenges?
Would you agree that you start with a desired user experience and then solve the engineering challenges, not get a user experience that sucks and spend too much time telling the user why they're wrong and how it doesn't make sense to want to move one video from one place to the other, and that there are complexities for obvious reasons, and that they're not like files...
Given that my original comment described an actual, real, use case with the actual problem I faced, your take that I did not have a use would be wrong.
The solution in your first comment of moving the "channel" to a brand account is not acceptable. Therefore, the fact they were "just" two well documented steps is irrelevant because it's not the right solution. If I want to move a TV from one house to the other, I shouldn't have to transfer the house as well.
>Look, you're claiming that videos are obviously analogous to files, and should thus support the same operations that files do. But that's not the case, they're more complex objects.
At some point, they are stored somewhere, right? Database, object storage, filesystem: something on disk.
>For example, moving a video can't be unilateral. For reasons that should be pretty obvious, you have to have both the old and new owner consent to the transfer, which is going to be a fairly complex flow. There's no analogous concept in any filesystem I've ever seen.
I am the owner of both. Simple enough scenario in my case.
Are you using words like complex and obvious without really giving details because you're speaking knowingly of the internal challenges YouTube is having to move one video from one place to the other but can't go into details, or do you not know of the inner workings of YouTube?
Would you agree that the user experience of being unable to move a video from one place to another sucks, notwithstanding the existence (or inexistence) of technical challenges?
Would you agree that you start with a desired user experience and then solve the engineering challenges, not get a user experience that sucks and spend too much time telling the user why they're wrong and how it doesn't make sense to want to move one video from one place to the other, and that there are complexities for obvious reasons, and that they're not like files...
Are we using HN to amplify Twitter flame wars? Submitting negative stories of people we don’t like?
This is not news it’s just red meat for clicks.
This is not news it’s just red meat for clicks.
HN isn't just for news
Its a startup, business, and tech link aggregator
This covers the ramifications of poor customer treatment (business practices), and also acts as a warning to startups that might be looking at ghost as an option for their company's blog
Its a startup, business, and tech link aggregator
This covers the ramifications of poor customer treatment (business practices), and also acts as a warning to startups that might be looking at ghost as an option for their company's blog
Not the first time that this issue with Ghost has been discussed on HN either. This article described a similar experience:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200815091537/https://postapath...
https://web.archive.org/web/20210407222630/https://news.ycom...
https://web.archive.org/web/20200815091537/https://postapath...
https://web.archive.org/web/20210407222630/https://news.ycom...
Eh, for my vote, I think social justice can stay on twitter and reddit.
This is not social justice. This is about commerce.
[deleted]
Frustrated users are an opportunity to learn and improve. As I read the rant about how his system is needlessly complicated web of "tens of thousands of apps, orchestrated by a complex billing management layer which has no link to the software itself, blah blah, blah" I couldn't help but think how much more fruitful the conversation would be if he had sent it to the engineering team instead of getting defensive to the customer.
Even Steve Jobs would commonly take customer complaints about Apple's products sent to his E-mail address, and forward them down to engineering with a terse note "Why?"
"Sorry, this is a bug and we're working on fixing it" would have been such a better response.
Even Steve Jobs would commonly take customer complaints about Apple's products sent to his E-mail address, and forward them down to engineering with a terse note "Why?"
"Sorry, this is a bug and we're working on fixing it" would have been such a better response.
Seems like the CEO told OP that they would provide her an archive download link upon request. I'm confused what the problem is?
I buy that the trial lockout thing is annoying, but... Are we supposed to be up in arms that a user has to email support for... support?
I'm annoyed primarily by OP's entitlement and vitriol, and secondarily by the CEO's typos and grammar.
I'm annoyed primarily by OP's entitlement and vitriol, and secondarily by the CEO's typos and grammar.
Also OP claimed that she never mistreated support staff and then posted emails of her being unnecessarily condescending to support staff.
EDIT: not extremely rude and condescending, just unnecessarily condescending
EDIT: not extremely rude and condescending, just unnecessarily condescending
I read the emails. Didn't seem rude or condescending to me. Unless there are other emails you're referring to?
https://twitter.com/amyhoy/status/1449194810749845512/photo/...
https://twitter.com/amyhoy/status/1449194810749845512/photo/...
Those were the ones I was referring to. I'll agree that they aren't really rude, but I do think they're condescending.
I guess by rude I meant the negative comments seemed overwrought and unnecessary in the context of a support thread.
Shrug, I guess I've vented at support before, but usually in a tone that I hope better acknowledged that it wasn't the agent's fault. More commiseration than lecturing. Again, I hope.
Shrug, I guess I've vented at support before, but usually in a tone that I hope better acknowledged that it wasn't the agent's fault. More commiseration than lecturing. Again, I hope.
In the various forms of support I've done, I've always encountered rude customers at some point. It's the job. If you feel like you have to be defensive (per other comments here, it sounds like this isn't the first time), you shouldn't be responding.
> I guess I've vented at support before, but usually in a tone that I hope better acknowledged that it wasn't the agent's fault.
I had a very bad experience with Chase. (They took $900 without explanation, and still haven't returned it) In my many calls, I had some heated venting sessions. I usually at least once told the person it wasn't personal, but they were the Chase rep at that moment.
As an aside, responding to this thread with a throwaway created during this thread, everyone is going to assume you work for Ghost.
> I guess I've vented at support before, but usually in a tone that I hope better acknowledged that it wasn't the agent's fault.
I had a very bad experience with Chase. (They took $900 without explanation, and still haven't returned it) In my many calls, I had some heated venting sessions. I usually at least once told the person it wasn't personal, but they were the Chase rep at that moment.
As an aside, responding to this thread with a throwaway created during this thread, everyone is going to assume you work for Ghost.
> If you feel like you have to be defensive (per other comments here, it sounds like this isn't the first time), you shouldn't be responding.
Huh?
> I usually at least once told the person it wasn't personal
:thumbsup: Common courtesy
> As an aside ... everyone is going to assume you work for Ghost.
Fair. I don't, I make a new throwaway for every hn thread I bother to comment on (happens roughly every 4 - 6 months), but there's no reason to believe me. I don't even really know what ghost is; pretty confused why you have to pay for it at all if it's decentralized.
Could be shitty — just thought the thread author's reaction was unjustified from the facts she posted.
Huh?
> I usually at least once told the person it wasn't personal
:thumbsup: Common courtesy
> As an aside ... everyone is going to assume you work for Ghost.
Fair. I don't, I make a new throwaway for every hn thread I bother to comment on (happens roughly every 4 - 6 months), but there's no reason to believe me. I don't even really know what ghost is; pretty confused why you have to pay for it at all if it's decentralized.
Could be shitty — just thought the thread author's reaction was unjustified from the facts she posted.
>> If you feel like you have to be defensive (per other comments here, it sounds like this isn't the first time), you shouldn't be responding.
> Huh?
Did a poor job of mixing pronouns. By "you", I was referring to the CEO, not you the HN commenter.
Did a poor job of mixing pronouns. By "you", I was referring to the CEO, not you the HN commenter.
From Ghost CEO's email:
> Years ago, when l was younger and knew better, used to be very aggressive to companies on Twitter and lecture them about how they should do business. It was awful, honestly, and I regret how I behaved.
Even ignoring the obvious typo, it is a little condescending indeed.
> Years ago, when l was younger and knew better, used to be very aggressive to companies on Twitter and lecture them about how they should do business. It was awful, honestly, and I regret how I behaved.
Even ignoring the obvious typo, it is a little condescending indeed.
I think he's making fun of his past self, thinking he knew everything when he was younger.
When I was young and foolish, I also used to defend random CEOs on Hacker News. But now I'm older, and rationalizing their absurd and offensive rhetoric is too time consuming for my desired lifestyle.
Bit he's actually making fun of his current self because now he has the gig and doesn't want to ruin a good thing.
The rest of the paragraph:
> Later, I started my own business. Ghost. And after 9 years of doing this, my perspective changed a great deal.
The cycle is complete.
> Later, I started my own business. Ghost. And after 9 years of doing this, my perspective changed a great deal.
The cycle is complete.
Honestly, both sides of this conversation seem pretty obnoxious.
But as a bystander I can ignore the obnoxious demands of a free tier customer and just look at how Ghost negotiates the facts of customer experience laid out before them, and how reassuring one might find their response.
For example, I note that nobody is contending the facts regarding the customer onboarding and payment process. I also note that the Ghost CEO provided an ad hoc fix with no discussion on whether their policy is good. That implies there will be a next customer who faces the same situation, notwithstanding any obnoxious Twitter followup — and who knows, perhaps another ad hoc fix.
For example, I note that nobody is contending the facts regarding the customer onboarding and payment process. I also note that the Ghost CEO provided an ad hoc fix with no discussion on whether their policy is good. That implies there will be a next customer who faces the same situation, notwithstanding any obnoxious Twitter followup — and who knows, perhaps another ad hoc fix.
How is it obnoxious to expect to be able to log in and add a payment plan yourself? Literally every other Saas that serves business customers does that. None glibly say “oh yeah and your data’s queued for deletion, but you can ASK to be let in to add a payment plan”
That is beyond unprofessional
That is beyond unprofessional
Sorry, I shouldn't have said that you are obnoxious. I originally thought that a free tier customer shouldn't load harsh criticism onto customer support when you know they can't ever respond.
But when I thought it over, I believe that industry rules will eventually catch up to your customer expectations. I would never expect a mainstream company that deals with data, such as Notion or Airbase, to replicate the same behavior as Ghost.
But when I thought it over, I believe that industry rules will eventually catch up to your customer expectations. I would never expect a mainstream company that deals with data, such as Notion or Airbase, to replicate the same behavior as Ghost.
In a customer/company interaction, the company should ALWAYS take the high road. They don't get to be offended or defensive. They have more to lose by doing so.
Yes, hence why both sides are obnoxious here.
I think the difference is a customer is an individual; a representative for the company, and the CEO especially, is representing the company.
Ghost is B2B. Their whole value proposition is that they help you make more money from your customers.
So technically they're both businesses.
This is a bit different than say... Walmart talking down to a single mother who tried to use an out of date coupon.
This is a bit different than say... Walmart talking down to a single mother who tried to use an out of date coupon.
A business is still an individual customer. (Whether that customer has 1 employee or 1 million) I'm talking "individual" in the many to one sense, not the C in B2C sense.
[deleted]
Twitter has become so annoying. I can't even see what @ghost is without signing in.
Twitter's had a login wall for a few weeks now. The company is pretty user-hostile.
edit: There were some threads on this in the past that are worth checking out. Public service announcements like fire notifications are pushed out by public agencies through these services and they can't go to the intended audience when put behind the wall. Public sector really needs to be compelled to adopt interoperable and freely consumable protocols.
https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+login+wall+site:news...
edit: There were some threads on this in the past that are worth checking out. Public service announcements like fire notifications are pushed out by public agencies through these services and they can't go to the intended audience when put behind the wall. Public sector really needs to be compelled to adopt interoperable and freely consumable protocols.
https://www.google.com/search?q=twitter+login+wall+site:news...
Ironically I couldn’t see Amy’s tweet when signed in I had to sign out!
“ You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. ”
Limited to friends and completely anonymous people I guess!
“ You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. ”
Limited to friends and completely anonymous people I guess!
I respectfully asked a question about something she blogged about years ago and she blocked me. It was rather bizarre. Perhaps you met a similar fate at one time.
[deleted]
You must be blocked… either for a reason, or part of a block list or I blocked you accidentally when blocking ads which has happened a few times. What’s your username?
Ok thanks for the reply. I’ll send you a message some other way with the account.
You can email me at [email protected]
To anyone else reading: that’s a shared inbox, behave.
To anyone else reading: that’s a shared inbox, behave.
kragen(1)
I understand why, but a lot of social media has gone this direction. It feels like a bit of a bait and switch over time.
The deal was we give them free content for eyeballs to serve ads and they give us a platform for exposure. Requiring login as well is a long trend I don’t like.
The deal was we give them free content for eyeballs to serve ads and they give us a platform for exposure. Requiring login as well is a long trend I don’t like.
I use the Privacy Redirect [1] extension to redirect Twitter to nitter [2] which is a much better experience for someone without an account.
1 https://github.com/SimonBrazell/privacy-redirect 2 https://nitter.net/
1 https://github.com/SimonBrazell/privacy-redirect 2 https://nitter.net/
After reading the initial Tweets, and then the email exchange, I can empathise with both sides.
If the Ghost CEO really knew better about Twitter they’d recognize that this person is flaming for attention, not trying to get their problem resolved, so sending condescending emails is just throwing fuel on the fire.
Don't stand in the way of customers trying to give you money. Isn't that a basic rule of doing business?
I reckon some of the powerful distribution that can give you a centralized platform like Ghost, Medium, Substack or similar. But the long-term solution is to own your website.
At the very start the reach is not very enticing... but your home, your rules. (As long as you don't break the law, you'll be fine).
At the very start the reach is not very enticing... but your home, your rules. (As long as you don't break the law, you'll be fine).
Its odd that Twitter flame wars are being discussed here. Though, I have steered clear of Ghost- their paid plans are too expensive. Yes, I can host it but what if I can't? Luckily WordPress works.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The best part is saying that you have learned so much about why you shouldn't be mean to companies on Twitter, and how embarrassing that behaviour is...and doing it in a whiny email to a customer.
Some people go through life "learning" the same lesson over and over.
Some people go through life "learning" the same lesson over and over.
Ghost ghosted their trial customer. Perhaps the reason of the name
[deleted]
I don't know. This is clearly not a HN kind of submission, but I actually agree with the CEO. OP sounds more like an activist looking for attention.