[sama]

We're trying something new and innovative, and of course we'll have to iterate on it. We're moving as quickly as we can to fix this and make it work for consumers and businesses--obviously, it doesn't work for us unless it works for both of those groups. We have a chance to really improve local commerce, and I hope we do.

As soon as a business wants to opt out, we block them permanently in the system and remove any pending deals. We're changing the product right now to make the language more clear, and we're not going to use any trademarked images until the business approves the deal. We're going to make it really clear that a business hasn't approved a deal until they do.

We've certainly gotten negative feedback from a few businesses, but in general people seem excited about this--word of mouth is a great referral, and businesses understand that. The promise of u-Deals, if it works, is that your best customers become your big advocates.

Should we have gotten this right from the beginning? Yes, and I'm sorry we didn't. We've gotten things wrong in the past, and we're going to get things wrong again. As always, we'll try not to get the big things wrong, we'll do everything we can to make it up to our users, and we'll get it fixed as fast as possible. That's the nature of trying new things, and it's how the world gets better.

[wccrawford]

If you should learn anything from reading tech sites it's this: Opt-in.

Always, always, ALWAYS Opt-in.

Using the names of others to promote yourself until they tell you to stop is unethical and possibly illegal.

This is a stain you can never cleanse from your business. Everyone will always say 'Loopt? Wasn't that the company that used other companies without the approval?' And that's if you're lucky.

Because it if goes any further and a company gets a bad name from this, it'll be 'Loopt? Wasn't that the company that destroyed the reputation of Company X?'

Saying you were 'trying to iterate on it' is not enough. Saying you're trying to fix it is not enough. You need to outright admit how wrong it was and publicly apologize to every company you did this to.

[sama]

I've sent apologies to the companies that were at all upset, and I apologize again here (and we're working to get the companies that are excited about this up and running as soon as possible). They've been understanding.

I think if we use the name of a business in a "Loopt users want a deal at Place X. If enough users express interest, Loopt will talk to the business owners to try to make it happen" that's ok. But we definitely shouldn't imply that a business has given any sort of consent before they have, and we shouldn't use their logo or images.

[rockya]

Sam-

There's no way this should be an opt out. Loopt is trading on the business's good name and offering a "deal" that doesn't exist.

It's inconveniencing the business and potentially damaging their relationships with customers to the benefit of Loopt.

It's just plain wrong and indefensible.

(Author of the original post.)

[netcan]

Do you think clearer messaging would fix this? Seems to me like a problem only if it seems to people that this business is offering the deal. If its clear that isn't the case, would you still have issues with this?

[rockya]

Associating discounts with businesses who haven't agreed to them is problematic for me.

Many manufacturers have MAP guidelines so that they don't get to be perceived as bargain basement providers. Some (e.g. Bose) also require that their products be excluded from all storewide discounts.

They have high affinity and a premium value and want to protect that.

Sam claimed that they posted what they think is a reasonable discount. That's not for him to decide. If I'm as popular as Bi-Rite, I don't consider 33% a reasonable discount for my product.

[netcan]

Again, I think it may be about messaging. The problem comes from the association with daily deal sites. If you think about it (and communicate it clearly) as an offer/demand/bargaining attempt and less like an existing discount/offer, which it is not, I'm not sure there would be a problem.

Imagine the business had started this way: You have lots of friends who like to do the kind of stuff they're promoting. You have some guy in the group who is willing to call around and bargain. We'll fill 10 tables @ 4pm tomorrow if you give us the free appetizers & desert. Then he decides to create a scalable process for this kind of bargaining to happen. That might look similar to the business they're building here.

[rockya]

That negotiation happens in private and some businesses might be willing to entertain that.

The fact that this happens in the open has significant potential to devalue the brand.

Under very specific conditions, I will do free or discounted consulting. But I don't want "free" or $25/hour associated with my brand when someone does a Google search.

[zaidf]

Associating discounts with businesses who haven't agreed to them is problematic for me.

That's a much broader net than this specific issue.

Run of the mill coupon websites have been associating businesses with coupon/discount verbiage for a long time, some even profitably.

To be clear, where do you stand on verbiage such as "If x people vote to request a 50% off coupon at Premium Brand, we will talk to Premium Brand."

Personally I have no problem with this - it may screw up the premium brand when it comes to SEO but that is Team Google's problem to improve search quality.

[rockya]

a) Coupon/discount verbiage is typically done with the consent of the business.

b) Please try doing this with Bose and Apple. Let me know how it works out.

[zaidf]

http://www.retailmenot.com/view/apple.com

http://www.retailmenot.com/view/bose.com

http://www.bargainist.com/deals/stores/amazon/#b

http://dealspl.us/zappos-coupons

[rdl]

I think there is something one or two steps away from what you're doing now which will be a success. Especially if you can figure out a way to lower marginal costs to deliver a service through this kind of shared pre-buy (for instance, it's only worthwhile for a business to open late at night if customer demand exists; this way customers could prepay for midnight meals at a place which normally closes at 9pm on weeknights).

Or really any service where a business might be capital constrained and where economies of scale exist.

[sama]

We're certainly trying to figure out how to make this work the best for businesses. Certainly helping better utilize resources is part of it, and so is driving repeat visits.

[extension]

I think it's a great idea.

The only problem here is the deceptive presentation. If the site was crystal clear about how it works then you wouldn't have to apologize to anybody. There's nothing wrong with a bunch of people getting together to ask for group discounts.

Just be upfront about the scheme. I think people will go for it.

[chailatte]

When in doubt, use common sense.