[neilv]

Agreed. When someone does something, hears the complaints, and changes, it's charitable to bin them as someone who made a mistake and wants to improve.

Not every company deserves this charity, but the social media default nowadays is to deny that charity to everyone, and to go scorched-earth.

[Thorrez]

Even if they don't want to improve, and just do it reluctantly, it's best to reward them for doing something good, because otherwise they'll have no incentive to do something good in the future.

[bloomingeek]

And therein lies the fault, they only do "good" because they were made to do it. Rewarding them for "reluctantly" improving won't change their bad behavior. They should improve because it's the decent thing to do. By doing the decent thing, the praise would have been tenfold, which is the best incentive. (I do appreciate your comment because most companies do live in a moral vacuum.)

[Thorrez]

>They should improve because it's the decent thing to do. By doing the decent thing, the praise would have been tenfold, which is the best incentive.

Those 2 sentences don't really align well. Should they be motivated by the tenfold praise? Or should they be motivated by doing the decent thing? If they should be motivated by doing the decent thing, why mention tenfold praise?

>Rewarding them for "reluctantly" improving won't change their bad behavior.

I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.

[computably]

> I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.

Suppose Anon says, "I'm going to rob a bank next Monday."

Police respond, "We will be ready there next Monday, and you will be arrested."

Anon replies, "Ah, I see! Never mind, then."

We can certainly say it's good that Anon changed their mind after being met with promises of consequences. But, in my opinion, saying something like "Anon is a fine, upstanding citizen, worthy of praise, unlike those other criminals that actually went through with it! Now that Anon understands it's bad, they'll surely never think to plan something so dastardly in the future!" is leaving reality behind. Anon has done the bare minimum, and likewise deserves the bare minimum of praise. In terms of incentive, I think such a response would only teach Anon to be sneakier, now that they've earned some trust.

[Thorrez]

I'm not saying we should say the company is overall good. Just that the decision to backtrack was good.

Similarly, we wouldn't say that Anon is overall upstanding, just that the decision to not rob that bank was good.

My point is that we should treat the company better if it backtracks. And similarly we should treat Anon better if he doesn't rob the bank. It doesn't make sense to give Anon the exact same punishment whether he robs the bank or not. If we do that, he has no incentive not to rob the bank. "If I'm going to jail either way, I might as well actually rob the bank."

[bloomingeek]

<If they should be motivated by doing the decent thing, why mention tenfold praise?>

Not that most corporations care, being trashed for decisions that hurt their consumers is run of the mill these days. Companies that get praise from their customers tend to stay in business and sell lots of product.

<I don't see why not. They see that good behavior gives a better outcome. They'll do good behavior in the future.>

Reluctantly improving means they were either going to or already screwed their customers. Companies that admit mistakes are praised. To think that a company who is called out will in the future continue to do good for consumer decisions is a little naive.

[jmye]

Encouragement of good decisions over bad decisions is how people tend towards making more good decisions. "You didn't inherently make the right choice, so even the right choice you made is actually bad" is just... really, really childish.

[bloomingeek]

<"You didn't inherently make the right choice, so even the right choice you made is actually bad" is just... really, really childish.>

Please explain.

[swyx]

no, they were not made to do it. they listened to feedback and did the work. this is better than we get in 99% of cases. try to be nicer and meet them half way instead of living in your ideal world.

[bloomingeek]

In my ideal world, corporate responsibility is a must. Making junk products or killing product updates because they can't sell you the updated version is irresponsible. They listened to feedback because they know their products are overpriced for the market, so they decided to do the right thing, but only after they were called out. That's backwards. Corporations don't know the meaning of nice, only money.

[croon]

There's the whole citizens united ruling stating companies are people, but they're not toddlers. They (the grown adults working there) should not need positive reinforcement to figure out that consumer hostile actions sour said consumers on their product in future purchase decisions. If they want an incentive to be better, start there.

[Thorrez]

The massive amount of bad publicity on the initial bad decision is a disincentive to not make bad decisions in the future.

The medium amount of good publicity on the course correction good decision is an incentive to make good decisions in the future, both initial good decisions and course correction good decisions.