[pavel_lishin]

> The simple way to solve this is to take them to court. Is there anything more to the story than you trusted them with your money and they kept it?

It seems like the point of the post is to publicize what happened, and make sure other people are aware of the dangers of working with this agency:

> If we don’t tell people what happened, it could happen to someone else.

> We are cutting our losses and doing what we can on a legal front, but we need to warn the community.

The legal system moves slowly; this appears to be their way of holding them accountable for their actions, and for helping others avoid their fate.

[spelunker]

Or possibly damaging a reputation of a company unreasonably because we're only hearing one side of the story: https://twitter.com/Woodshedagency/status/943508162002513923

I mean there's a reason why the "court of public opinion" isn't the best way to resolve issues...

edit: well, looks like Woodshead Agency protected their twitter account so you can't see the tweet now. That's not great.

[valuearb]

If there is another side to the story, whats taking so long to tell it?

And if they have a good explanation, why have they been blocking people on twitter for asking for it?

[kjrose]

The blocking people asking about it on Twitter is what leads me to be concerned. While there may be an explanation, blocking third parties trying to get your side of the story seems to imply there’s something they feel they need to hide from.

[pavel_lishin]

> If there is another side to the story, whats taking so long to tell it?

To play devil's advocate, they need to be able to respond to the accusation well. They can't just jot something down and fire it off, right? They're starting off in a defensive position, and need to address the accusation in away that paints them as the good guys (which they might be).

[chrisbennet]

They had months to form a response. Instead they cut off communication.

[pavel_lishin]

To form a response to Upstart, yes - but not to form a response to this blog post. (Which, to be fair, as a PR company they should have known was coming, and should have had contingency planning to deal with this.)

[true_religion]

If you have no response, it's acceptable to write "We are deeply concerned about this situation regarding our former client, and will prepare a more comprehensive response to be publicized later".

[late2part]

seems like a reasonable explanation to me - noone's blameless but noone's twirling mustaches either...

https://medium.com/@jeff_52578/how-a-failed-kickstarter-camp...

[pavel_lishin]

That's absolutely true.