
Apology from Geeklist - thinkzig
http://gklst.tumblr.com/post/19734620901/geeklist-and-a-public-apology
======
tptacek
I could care less about Geeklist but from a purely analytical perspective:
this is so "how not to write an apology" that someone ought to take it apart
and do an annotated version of it as a lesson to the community. It literally
starts out in its _first sentence_ by undermining itself.

Incidentally, publicly threatening the job of someone who criticizes you (as a
tit-for-tat for them "threatening your brand") is one of those slip-ups for
which no apology is going to stem the tide of drama. I'm sure this will all be
forgotten in a week, but until then: Geeklist is the villain and just needs to
roll with it. As long as they're in this PR hole, maybe they should tie
someone to a train track and make some demands.

~~~
psykotic
> that someone ought to take it apart and do an annotated version of it as a
> lesson to the community.

I'm sure this isn't what you had in mind, but I couldn't help myself. I'm not
claiming this is what they were actually thinking, but it's how an upset,
uncharitable reader might take it, which is who you'd want to address in an
apology.

>Hi everyone. We never meant to offend any person and are very sorry as we
clearly have.

Read: If you felt offended, there is something wrong with you, not us.

> Geeklist is all about inclusion of every geek. Male and Female alike. We
> hope you’ll forgive the company and founders and use this as an opportunity
> to hire more women, support women in tech and their great achievements and
> promote a healthy work environment for all.

Read: Diversity boilerplate goes here.

> We did not create the video at question. It was created out of love for
> Geeklist by a great Woman entrepreneur at Design Like Woah for us.

Read: Some of our best friends are women.

> She makes shirts and made awesome ones for us. She also goes way out of her
> way to help us ship to our men and women alike globally who love our brand.

Read: "Ship to our men and women alike"? Sorry, that awkward phrase was a
result of our last minute copy-paste effort to make our language more gender
neutral.

> She is fighting to grow in a male dominant sector and marketing to her
> client. Please support her and buy her shirts.
> <http://www.designlikewhoa.com/>

Read: If you don't support the video she made for us, you are anti-female-
empowerment. Flipped the script on you, didn't I?

> [ Correction: Just spoke to Gemma, her videographer owns it and she is
> trying to contact him (thanks so much Gemma)]

Read: Oops, disregard everything I just said.

> As for our handling of the twittersphere. We could have handled it better. I
> know Shanley personally, have skyped and emailed her many times and
> interviewed her for a job at Geeklist. She is an awesome candidate that as a
> startup I was very sad the timing was not right to work together.

Read: We turned down Shanley for a job because she's an incompetent, crazy
bitch. Ignore everything bad she says about us--it's just sour grapes.

> She is an awesome candidate that as a startup I was very sad the timing was
> not right to work together.

Read: Did I mention she is crazy and you shouldn't listen to her? Bullet
dodged.

> Of our 5 person team 2 are women and I am certain they can speak on our
> behalf as respectful gentlemen in the workplace who create a welcome
> environment for all.

Read: We are so gentlemanly we come to work wearing top hats and monocles.

> I also own a business with my wife where we have over 350+ women employees.

Read: I have a wife. Someone who has a wife cannot be sexist or gender-biased.
QED, motherfucker.

> I’ve built my career over 15 years working to make this world a better place
> for women, mothers, and children.

Read: I am Mother Theresa. My personal conduct is above reproach.

> In my wildest dreams we would never wish to offend any woman [or anyone].

Read: No-one likes PR shitstorms.

> The initial request made sense and we were discussing finding Gemma to take
> it down, when we got taken off guard a bit by her continued comments.

Read: The bitch kept mouthing off to me, which hurt my fragile male ego.

> We handled those poorly. We apologize as well if our handling of the tweets
> offended anyone.

Read: To reiterate: if you were offended, you are a thin-skinned whiny
weakling.

> In exchange, please direct this media attention to Gemma’s company and
> support her company by buying her shirts.

Read: Did I mention she's a woman?

> A women entrepreneur in the valley who used our logo and the fact we wanted
> shirts to help promote her business to her clients too. Tech geeks.

Read: DID I MENTION SHE'S A WOMAN?

> We are sorry.

Read: Fuck you.

~~~
tptacek
For comparison's sake, look how Coda Hale handles this problem:

<https://twitter.com/#!/coda/status/182858775382851585>

140 characters. Note the advanced trick he employs of explaining himself while
_simultaneously owning the problem_. The fundamental technique there:
demonstrate (somehow) that you understand the concern and that the concern is
_valid_.

(Your annotation is more cynical than mine would be; the interesting
discussion though as far as I'm concerned is "the mechanics of how to
apologize effectively in an open letter").

~~~
psykotic
Exactly. We fucked up. We are sorry. We have taken down the video. It won't
happen again. Done. That's all you need to say. Anything more and you're just
making it worse.

------
ForrestN
"We never meant to offend any woman and are very sorry as we clearly have."
and "In my wildest dreams we would never wish to offend any woman."

This is pretty frustrating, although I certainly accept that it's probably
unintentional. I was offended by their behavior, and I'm not a woman.

I also don't appreciate the defensive "but I have tons of black friends"
rhetoric. I don't care that they don't self-identify as sexist, and that their
friends don't think they're sexist. I want to know that the really, deeply
understand the problem and the subsequent feedback, and what is going to
change moving forward. They're going to ask the producer to remove the video,
but are they going to stop threatening people on twitter?

------
untog
Hm, I wonder if this will be deleted as well? The two submissions of the
Storify article were:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740378>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3739913>

I'm a little concerned/confused as to why. If the apology is HN-appropriate
content then I'm a little surprised that the reason for the apology isn't.

~~~
ghurlman
Well, if that isn't a bunch of BS, then I don't know what is. I'm guessing a
flag army took care of them, but there's no way to know from here.

~~~
untog
Yes- if it was a flag army removing the content then that itself says
something concerning about the Hacker News community.

~~~
banane
<crickets>

------
yahelc
They still seem to be missing the point. The worst part wasn't the video,
which is a forgivable offense.

The fact that the founders openly threatened the woman who was complaining and
their contract with her company as a means of shutting her up is egregious,
and their only reference to that behavior in their apology is this:

    
    
        We could have handled it better.

------
davemel37
"Never Ruin an Apology With an Excuse!"

The best advice I ever read... from a readers digest about 15 years ago.

~~~
hluska
Wonderful comment!

------
scott_s
Against my better judgement, I figured out what this whole thing was about in
the first place: <http://storify.com/charlesarthur/oh-hai-sexism>

------
theorique
_tl;dr version_ \- We didn't mean to offend women. We love women. We even know
some women and sleep with them and stuff. (We aren't _those_ kind of geeks who
can't talk to girls.)

------
Argorak
I am still surprised that a company like geeklist runs into such a trap[1].
Shouldn't they be knowing better? I mean, social networks are what they build,
they should know the effect.

The whole internet was abuzz for a week about implied sexism and bad handling
of women. But yet, they run into just the same hole. It doesn't even require
to discuss the validity of the argument to see the problems in their handling:
someone with high twitter reach complained about a questionable thing that
they could easily drag in the trash bin (with a few phone calls). Was it even
worth to pick that fight?

[1] Just to be clear: its a trap layed by themselves.

------
snowwrestler
The lesson here is that defending a brand does not always mean getting
defensive. Brand owners have to look at what is being attacked and decide how
close it is to the core of the business. A t-shirt fashion shoot video is not
the core of the Geeklist business model, so once it became a brand liability
it needed to be cast off.

An example of a brand attack that DID call for a head-on approach was the
iPhone 4 antenna issue. Those complaints directly attacked a core feature of
one of Apple's core products. Apple needed to go on defense because they could
not just cast off the iPhone 4 hardware design without very serious financial
damage.

Brand owners also need to keep the personal and professional separate when
their brand is under attack. Brands are created by a series of decisions. It
is one or more of those decisions that are under attack, not the people who
made them. In this case the issue was the decision to associate the Geeklist
brand with this type of video. Decide whether or not that decision needs
defending--don't mistake it for a personal attack.

~~~
rhizome
"Cast off what is useless" --Bruce Lee

------
RyanMcGreal
Classic non-apology apology:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology>

------
hluska
So....is this an apology or a design like whoa marketing scheme??

------
ghurlman
I expected at least a reference to them taking down one of their repos[1] to
hide further criticism, but found none.

[1] <https://github.com/geeklist/jennifer>

~~~
abraham
What was it?

~~~
andrus
It was a repo of bug reports to geeklist. Someone opened an issue regarding
the video

See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740970>

------
tomelders
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference ~
_M. Twain_.

I for one am at a loss here.

------
badclient
Wow, this scream-sexism-at-everything police is becoming very annoying. I do
not believe that the video is offensive at all.

I do think the Geeklist founders came across as petty in their constant back
and forth with the lady. But to be clear, that has nothing to do with the
video being offensive. It isn't.

~~~
ForrestN
I have to say, your annoyance likely (assuming you're a man) from a fairly
privileged place. You can afford to be "annoyed" by other people voicing
concerns, because this issue doesn't affect your professional life everyday.

If you want to learn more about why the video itself offends some people:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification>

~~~
badclient
Sorry, your link did not help me learn more about why there is such a huge
uproar _in this specific case_ beyond "meh, someone's always offended by
everything."

Also, I'd say the said video is a very weak example of sexual objectification
and in the grand scheme of things, it actually hurts the cause.

~~~
ForrestN
I think you might be overreacting. There isn't a "huge uproar." I think I and
most of the other commenters I've seen are pretty calm. You can be offended
and say so without being out of control or irrationally angry. I don't think
that the two men in this case are evil or something. But they are emblematic
of a culture that many here have a problem with.

You seemed incredulous that people are offended by the video. I pointed you to
the link not because it would make mention of this specific case, but because
it explicated the concept of sexual objectification and its place in feminist
thinking. It's a fine example, if not an extreme one. She's being flirty in a
sexy outfit because she expects that will sell shirts and bring attention to
the Geeklist brand. She is trying to relate to viewers as an object of sexual
desire, and to transfer that desire onto the brand. It happens all the time
because, at least in our culture, it works.

~~~
badclient
I can state the same about you: you seem incredulous that people are not
offended by the video. The appearance of the women in the video on their free
will is proof enough.

~~~
ForrestN
Not at all. I haven't said that anyone should be offended. I understand why
someone might not be offended. But there is a difference between not being
personally offended and posting multiple comments around these threads to the
effect that you find those of us who are offended annoying.

The broader point is that there is reason for some (ie. feminists, or those
who care about sexism within startup culture) to be offended. Voicing that
opinion shouldn't be met with threats and complaints. And they shouldn't be
marginalized as "sexism police" or "screaming" or whatever else just because
they state their opinions.

~~~
badclient
_But there is a difference between not being personally offended and posting
multiple comments around these threads to the effect that you find those of us
who are offended annoying... And they shouldn't be marginalized as "sexism
police" or "screaming"_

Likewise, I understand this might offend some people. But there is a
difference between being offended and attacking those not offended.

And those not offended or even involved with the video shouldn't be
marginalized as "sexist" and or accused of objectifying women.

~~~
ForrestN
What you're saying in no way applies to any of my comments.

------
ttt_
I guess they didn't check this post on HN just yesterday?
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3733825>

------
joshu
Can someone do a TLDR on the video?

~~~
lzm
Or better, a link to the video itself?

~~~
zalew
it was here <http://vimeo.com/27758336>

tldw: a cute girl in panties and a tshirt with geeklist logo.

------
thwest
I hope they issued a personal one to @shanley as well. Their argumentation was
way worse than the video.

------
cdrxndr
Ignoring the issue/apology, I find it incredibly off-putting that the designer
who got up in arms about a racy video promoting Geeklist promotes t-shirts
with a pantless woman on her home, FAQ, and Pricing pages:
<http://www.designlikewhoa.com/>

Focusing on the issue, I would say we are no better off now than before the
Twitter flame-war. A personal appeal and open discussion probably would have
helped, though.

And oh - her site gets a lot of attention now. That's cool.

~~~
mjdwitt
You're missing a lot of information here. Design Like Whoa is the person who
made the racy video in question. The woman who got pointed out the sexism on
Twitter is Shanely Kane, who works as a developer for Basho and has nothing to
do with Design Like Whoa's website.

