[dreeves]

It's really important for us to understand this reaction, so I'm glad you expressed it! It does seem super perverse on first blush. We've written about this a lot, actually. Eg, http://blog.beeminder.com/perverse .

Another counterargument is that any company has a monetary incentive to take your money and then under deliver on what you paid for. Beeminder, like most companies, is staking its reputation on providing some value that you'll be happy to pay for and tell others about (like the grandparent post here; thank you again!) and keep using. In Beeminder's case that value is making you more productive (or more fit or weigh less, or whatever graphable goal you have).

Eager to hear if that's convincing!

[GhotiFish]

I'm glad you guys actually recognize the perverse incentives at work here and...

  "Speaking of perverse incentives, we’re often asked about
   our own. It seems that from the perspective of those
   paying us, Beeminder is providing a ton of value and a 
   ton of motivation and the occasional cost of derailment 
   is a fair fee for Beeminder’s service..."

  "in other words, Beeminder is putting itself on the map 
   for exactly one reason: it makes people more awesome.

   But that can lead to the opposite complaint — that 
   Beeminder’s sting is so valuable as to be 
   self-defeating. In other words, it’s hard to be 
   motivated by the threat of having to pay Beeminder if 
   you feel that Beeminder has already earned that money!"

... Ok that only serves to scare me more.

This is a nasty psychological game beeminder is playing. So is GymPact. When people feel they have failed or they are at fault, a part of them wants to provide recompense for that failure. Beeminder and GymPact are not the first to fit this business model. Cable companies do it with wildly obtuse rules, ugly restriction, and massive overcharge fees, all with the line "Well it was your fault, it's written in the rules right here!"

That's what I see to be the problem. Beeminder puts itself resolutely in place as the 'go to' to seek punishment, striking where humans are at their weakest. Of course, rather than hail Marys, the punishment is money.

The fact is, because beeminder makes its money through my failure, it has a monetary insensitive to bring about that failure by any means, real or perceived. http://darkpatterns.org/ exists for exactly this reason! On what grounds do I have to believe beeminder would be immune to such an influence? Because beeminder loves me and wants me to get better?

That is how I saw it, from the outside looking in. I liked the idea, I really did, but with beeminder standing to benefit from the pledge, rather than say, a charity of some kind, I could never trust them.