by Mike Masnick
Wed, Jan 7th 2009 12:20pm
Wed, Dec 4th 2013 8:50am
Closes: 24 Dec 2013, 11:59PM PT
We've all seen the digital panic that ensues when a massive service like Gmail or Facebook goes down for even a small portion of users. Smaller versions of the same thing take place every day with services that are less widely adopted but just as important to the people who rely on them. It doesn't even take an outage to cause problems — frequent slowdowns and interruptions can quickly cause a massive productivity traffic jam. With the degree to which we live our lives and do our work online, service problems are much more than a minor inconvenience, and at the wrong moment can be a disaster.
So we want to know: how does this impact the way you use the web? Are you prepared for interruptions in the online apps and services you use most? Have you ever abandoned an app for spotty performance, or adopted one specifically for its reliability? We're looking for everything in the way of insights, anecdotes and ideas about performance issues online.
You can share your responses on the Insight Community. Remember, if you have a Techdirt account, then you're already a member and can head on over to the case page to submit your insights.
One best response chosen by New Relic and the Techdirt editorial team will receive a free one-year Watercooler subscription on Techdirt (regular price $50). The subscription includes access to the Crystal Ball and the Insider Chat, plus five monthly First Word/Last Word credits, and can be applied to your own Techdirt account or gifted to someone else.
The case will be open for four weeks, with the best response announced shortly afterwards. We look forward to your insights!
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Dec 15th 2008 12:39pm
from the how'd-that-work-out? dept
Either way, it appears that Hasbro has now dropped the lawsuit over Scrabulous, saying that the changes made to the game makes the lawsuit no longer necessary. Still, it seems like Hasbro played this game backwards. Back when Scrabulous was popular, almost everyone I knew on Facebook had a few games going -- but since Hasbro got involved, it seems people have moved on. So, even if Hasbro "won" the legal victory, they pretty much killed their real opportunity to capitalize on renewed interest in the board game. The company says that the new versions put together by the Agarwalla brothers "provides people in the U.S. and Canada with a choice of different games." Sure, it does, but wouldn't Hasbro have been better off by capitalizing on the fact that all of their interests were aligned initially -- rather than competing -- and Scrabulous was driving more sales?
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Jul 31st 2008 3:05am
from the bad-business-decision. dept
When you look this over, you begin to realize just how badly Hasbro screwed up in handling this situation. In focusing on a legal solution, it may have created the worst case scenario for the business side of the company.
When we talk about various trademark and copyright disputes, one response we often get is that a company has to react that way to "protect" its "property." This is not quite accurate. While there are some issues concerning trademark and preventing a trademark from going generic, there are almost always better business responses than suing -- and on copyright issues, there's no requirement to protect. However, in an age where lawyers all too often make business decisions based on what can be done legally, rather than what makes the most business sense, those options are all too rarely considered. In the past, there was often little that could be done for those impacted by such decisions. These days, however, things are quite different. Pissing off a large group of people, even if you have the legal right to do so, can often be a disastrous business move.
This is clearly demonstrated by Hasbro. The saga began earlier this year when Hasbro realized that Scrabulous was ridiculously popular on Facebook. Scrabulous was developed by two brothers who liked the game Scrabble and noticed that it couldn't be played online. Hasbro had done little to help put the game online, and the brothers were merely doing a much better job responding to the market need than the company that supposedly "owned" the rights.
Hasbro finally put together its own version (which got terrible reviews) and then sued Scrabulous, getting the brothers to take the game down. And, historically, that's where all this would end. Hasbro was legally in the right and had every right to push to block Scrabulous. But, as a business decision (as counterintuitive as it may seem), this reaction may be quite bad for business.
First, witness the rather loud and nearly immediate response from many Scrabulous fans, slamming Hasbro for its actions and pushing a boycott on all Hasbro products. Some will surely claim that many of these folks would probably never buy a Hasbro product in the first place and so this is a lot of noise about nothing. However, don't underestimate the reputational hit that Hasbro will take for this -- especially among younger folks who may be Hasbro's most important target audience. As Metallica is still in the process of learning, your reputation is extremely important, and damaging it by treating your fans incorrectly can do an awful lot more damage to your brand than you might expect.
Now, add in the fact that the Scrabulous guys have come back with Wordscraper, and chances are people are going to flock to it, just as vehemently as they now want to avoid Hasbro's Scrabble. That's about the worst case scenario for Hasbro, and it was entirely avoidable if they had simply realized how people would react to their decisions (which wasn't hard to guess from earlier responses prior to the lawsuit).
Update: Some folks in the comments (and via email) are pointing out the rumor that Hasbro offered to buy out Scrabulous from its creators. That's a valid point, but it doesn't really change the rest of the calculus here at all. Even given the fact that Hasbro made an effort at buying them out, that still doesn't mean that (having failed that) suing them was the proper second response -- as evidence by exactly what's happened since then.