[gxs]

The author of the article didn’t name the agency he was engaged with.

In other words, he essentially wrote a really long, detailed review but never mentioned the actual product.

My question to you was simply how would you take it if someone named you in an article like this.

[napbree]

I believe he should have named the agency.

Obviously you never want that to happen to your own agency and would like to think any responsible CEO / owner wouldn’t allow these situations to happen (don’t get me wrong, I appreciate mistakes do occur - but this smells very different), so unless they suffer some consequence, they’ll do it to the next unsuspecting client and keep doing so.

[raegis]

> I believe he should have named the agency.

I disagree. (1) There is evidence that his company may profit from the redesign, and (2) he risks being sued for even the slightest mischaracterization in his blog, which requires tens of thousands to defend (at least). I don't see the point in risking the family business over this. Both parties learned a lesson. Perhaps the WebAgency will decide never to have hourly clients again.

[bornfreddy]

Respectfully disagree. There is only one side that suffered the consequences, and it's not the agency. There is no incentive for them to change anything.

[leaflets2]

I find it odd that there are people here who believe that the agency regrets anything,

Or that it learnt anything more than "yes this really works for us to maximize revenue and we can get away with it".

(I do guess it's better to not name them though -- because naming them risks making actually well behaved agencies or freelancers nervous about working with the client in the future?)

[gervwyk]

How would this be different from a review? and could one be sued for posting a opinionated review?

I guess the title intro and conclusion should be changed as a review..