
Creating Controversy for its own Sake (AA.com redesign fiasco) - antidaily
http://soserio.us/creating-controversy/
======
wmeredith
I'm glad someone wrote this. Dustin Curtis is an ass. An insightful ass, but
an ass all the same. Maybe there's no such thing as bad publicity; but while
I'll keep reading his blog, I'd hate to work with him.

I like his website, but his hubris is monstrous. Anyone can crank out a clean
design in a few hours when they're working with no specs, business goals,
market research, investors or actual customers to answer to. (I liked his
AA.com design, but it was one page deep and dumped critical parts of the
original's site map.) As for the guy getting canned and the faux 'net outrage,
gimme a break. He should've known better. Fortune 500 companies that employ
tens of thousands of people aren't known for deviating from policies as basic
as you keep your mouth shut about the inner workings of the company in a
published public forum.

~~~
rantfoil
Hubris? Hubris is a loaded term that is purely subjective. He's one of the
most talented designers I know, and he deserves to speak strongly. Humility
doesn't need to enter here.

A humble designer is one who affects no change indeed.

Designers should be less humble. When engineers or business guys or management
or _anyone_ makes a product lousier, they should get up and shout, and raise
hell.

Apple wins because the guy who cares the most about user experience happens to
run the show. And last I checked, humble wasn’t really a word you could use to
describe him.

~~~
unalone
And when Steve Jobs was 30, he was kicked out of his company because it turned
out he was an asshole before he actually knew what he was doing. He almost
ruined Apple, remember? And people hated him because he talked about things he
didn't actually understand.

Twelve years later, he'd matured enough to know what he was doing, and then
came back in and blew us all away. But Jobs was a stupid kid too, and arguably
he'd have had an easier time in the eighties if he'd known ahead of time just
how ignorant he was.

He's talented if you think knowing big fonts are pretty is talent. He's got a
good eye for design, absolutely, but I've never seen him design anything with
any complexity, and that's where things get tricky. If I'm designing rinky-
dinky gadgets and HTML pages I can make them look good too. But the whole
point of this post is that when you're designing major things, dumping a
bucket of white paint on everything isn't enough.

I think you ought to know that most, Garry, seeing as Posterous is the
posterchild (ahem) of web sites that work brilliantly but aren't at all
comely. It's hard to make complex things beautiful.

~~~
mcav
Jobs isn't a designer. That's why Apple hires people like Ives. The best
visionaries/CEOs aren't good at everything -- they're good at critiquing
others' work and letting the experts do what they do best.

~~~
unalone
I absolutely agree. But my point was that saying being an asshole is okay
because Steve Jobs was an asshole is a bit lopsided. Jobs was an asshole when
he was ignorant, too, but he was still ignorant. Similarly, Dustin might be an
ass, but that doesn't give his words an instant mandate.

------
dcurtis
I agree with a lot of the points in this article. Yes, my original letter to
AA was, admittedly, a bit vitriolic. But I don't apologize for that, nor do I
regret it. I'm a designer and an entrepreneur. I'm passionate about great user
experiences. I think fighting for great user experiences from companies is a
good thing. What is passion if you don't fight for what you love?

We're on the cusp of a changing society. Customer experience is becoming, in a
very literal way, the brand of a company. And when I come across companies so
clueless that they won't spend 50k to hire a design firm to design their
online identity/experience, I can't help but wonder what kind of negative
effect that has on the evolution of the internet and on customer experience
design as an industry.

Fixing AA.com would be [strike]ridiculously[/strike] relatively cheap and
simple, especially if it was just a new skin based on the logic they already
have built (even though there are serious flaws there as well). Yet the
company has not done this. It hasn't even hinted at this, and it fired the one
guy who seemed to care about it in the organization. This is a management
problem, not a design problem. When I mention this, and when I call out the
CEO specifically, people call me arrogant, young, naive, and stupid. But I
honestly believe the fault for a failing like this, a failing so visceral that
it affects the image of the entire company in the eyes of its customers, rests
solely in lap of the CEO.

American Airlines is no doubt a terrible company, and not just from a design
perspective. The culture there is broken, the "business" is failing (it loses
billions of dollars a year), and the majority of customers hate the
experience. Something is wrong. Bringing attention to it, I think, can't
possibly be a bad thing.

~~~
dannyr
Dustin,

It is always easy to say that things are easy to fix on an outsider's
perspective. In reality, it isn't. I have worked for a big company before and
changing things, even the obvious ones, are often difficult.

You may not like the user experience of the site but it is possible that
conversion is still high.

There is definitely management problem based on their finances. Redesigning
their site may not be in their top priority now.

~~~
pyre
> _It is always easy to say that things are easy to fix on an outsider's
> perspective. In reality, it isn't. I have worked for a big company before
> and changing things, even the obvious ones, are often difficult._

Let's call a spade a spade here though. In a lot of these large companies the
barriers are artificial. Especially when your redesign will 'encroach' on
someone's little fiefdom that they've cultivated over the years. I've heard
stories of people that were left to their own devices (even in a small
company) and when it became a dictate that he/she had to open up to others in
the company they quit rather than give up their little 'kingdom.'

These barriers are not there to protect the company in any way, shape, or
form. They are there due to petty politicking and stuff that should best be
left on the 3rd grade schoolyard. Sure we have to deal with them if we are
going to exist in 'corporate culture' but they don't _need_ to be there. This
happens in large companies because at some point it becomes harder to
control/eliminate, _not_ because it's a necessary part of being a large
company.

~~~
mattm
Maybe they are artificial but they are still there. It doesn't really change
anything.

Like the parent poster, I too have worked in a large company. I was hired
mainly to re-develop the intranet (it looked like it was designed in 1995).
When I resigned 9 months later I still hadn't done any work on it. Now I had
access to the files. I could have just changed it myself but there would have
been an uproar and I probably would have been fired. In fact, just making
minor changes such as cleaning up the CSS got me in trouble because other
people used Dreamweaver to edit some pages and my changes made things look
different in Dreamweaver.

I imagine the people responsible for the AA website are in a similar boat.
They have access to change things but there are these barriers - artificial or
not.

Now I've worked at some different sized companies and I've realised that is
the way things were supposed to be at that company. This company handled
people's pensions and needed to be conservative. The systems in place were
DESIGNED to slow things down to make sure that everything was done right.

Startups have their own speed of work and large companies have a much slower
pace. There are reasons for both.

------
marcusbooster
I'm tired of this meme of unsolicited and superficial redesigns of Company X's
front page. I understand this economy is tough for designers and there's not a
lot of portfolio jobs around, but I think it's more impressive to design for a
little nonsense webapp that actually _does something_. At the very least if
would demonstrate you can take something from Photoshop into the real world.

~~~
djb_hackernews
I've spammed my twitter app enough to get feedback, but one thing I was hoping
to get when I posted it to HN was some design critiques. If someone wants to
put a design together for it check my past submissions for the link and email
me.

------
madair
Corporations are so very dehumanizing. The good of the few shareholders at the
expense of the human experience for the individuals who labor typically a
minimum of 1/2 of their waking hours but are summarily fired if they so much
as speak their mind.

We've accepted this system. Many people at this site will vote me down for
questioning the good of the corporate body over the good of the individual.
Many will simply vote me down just because it was in the poor guy's contract.
But the bottom line is that American Airlines fires people who try to
reasonably speak their mind. Simple as that. And the people who vote down
against the good of people in favor of the good of the corporate body are the
enemy.

~~~
philwelch
For the record, I almost voted you down because when I read things like "many
people at this site will vote me down", I take it as a dare. Your point is no
weaker if you leave out the baiting and reverse psychology.

~~~
madair
It's not reverse psychology. It's my disappointment at this public forum when
it collectively decides something is too far out of the norm of opinion.

~~~
Pahalial
You could easily have phrased that to avoid coming across as reverse
psychology - "Since when is HN so defensive of <bigco policy> and shareholder
interests at the detriment of users" etc - as a few other posts in this thread
have done. Note how most of them are not tremendously downvoted. You, on the
other hand, mention voting down your post three times in a single paragraph,
each time attacking potential reasons - not covering every reason of course,
only the ones that everyone sane should agree are Bad Things. Philosophy class
is a bit far now, but isn't this a classic red herring?

"And the people who vote down against the good of people in favor of the good
of the corporate body are the enemy."

Clearly meant to make people think that if they vote you down they are the
enemy of the Good of the People, rather than letting them form their own
responses based on the merits of your argument. Bullshit rhethoric likes this
is what has no place here. Discuss the facts or the ethics of matters as you
will, but please leave karma-baiting rhethoric out of your posts.

~~~
madair
An interesting response. Thanks. My wording was lame and included
unnecessarily expressed social forum fears.

However, it's incorrect that I'm karma baiting. Rightly or wrongly I mention
that I essentially worry I'll be attacked. But my central, and I admit
strongly worded point, is genuine and I stand by it. I think that we as a
society have allowed the corporate mindset to dominate us in a way that our
civilization will hopefully grow out of at some point.

While my rhetoric is abrasive, what I'm specifically opposing is the corporate
dehumanization that is considered normal and even good by many people. It's
very hard not to be abrasive when talking about such things. On the one hand
you have a person who's fired for a technical breach of contract when it's
clear that he was operating reasonably and in good faith, and on the other you
have many people who's eyes glaze over at the injustice and harm to an
individual's career because, hell, he screwed up and he breached his contract.

How to unglaze those eyes? I think one way is by making them take a side in
the issue.

That whole "freedom isn't free" doesn't just apply to sticks and guns, but
also to ideas, as you clearly know. It costs to say strong things, for me it
costs me fear that people just won't like me.

------
lionhearted
This seems like a little cognitive dissonance to me:

> So where does that leave us? A 21-year-old wrote a blog post. A guy broke
> the corporate rules and got fired. The internet (and the blogger!) is
> outraged.

> But the web will still be full of arrogant, uninformed, polarizing, self-
> promoting, controversy-creating content that has ramifications no one wants
> to own up to. And consequently, the web will still be lacking in common
> courtesy, humility, and the admittance that most of us don’t know best.
> Which is sad, mostly because it’s true.

What irony! The So Serious guy is calling out others on being not courteous
and not humble in a discourteous, unhumble guy.

~~~
tbrooks
Really? How is Joshua's position arrogant and discourteous?

He never attacks Dustin as a person. He calls Dustin's methods and actions
into question. I fail to see the irony in this...

~~~
ellyagg
For one, he repeatedly makes a point of dcurtis' age. That's not really
appropriate.

~~~
unalone
It is if part of his point's that the Internet's letting itself get worked up
over what a not-completely-mature kid said.

The fact that Hacker News and other sites have had this raging debate over
Dustin's writing belies the fact that basically he's a college student
mouthing off a big company, and that we're assuming against the odds that he
knows more than an industry professional does. At that point it's absolutely
appropriate to remind us of who Dustin is.

------
cj
Controversy? I'd call it holding people accountable for their actions. AA has
a terrible website and their employees know it. Mr. X shared "corporate
secrets" and got fired for it. AA fired an (seemingly excellent) employee for
no substantial reason. Dustin got called out for shoving a design in a
companies's face.

Holding people accountable is respectable. And for that, I respect. I respect
you and Dustin. Accountability is a rare bird these days indeed.

------
ratsbane
I'm sure the "Creating Controversy..." writer has some reasonable points.
Perhaps Dustin Curtis really is only fourteen years old and is a frightful
bounder who drops his aitches and has cocoa and bloaters for supper.*

But really, Dustin Curtis makes some good points. The reason sites like AA's
are so much worse than they could be is precisely because of bloated and
poorly-organized infrastructure and competing interests. That excuse isn't
going to stop customers from going to better, more easily-navigable sites if
they have a choice. I have bought plane tickets more than once from airline B
instead of airline A just because I couldn't get what I needed on airline A's
site. About a year ago USAirways.com charged me eight times for the same
flight and never sent an e-ticket. I don't buy from them any more. If I can't
find and buy the best flight from airline A because their web site doesn't
work well it's the same result to me as if they don't have that flight.

Look at how much more market value has been created by companies like
Kayak.com who have used a lot less resources to create a much more effective
buying experience than the most of the big lumbering airlines. Their gain has
come about because the airlines have not been able to overcome their
organizational problems.

Also, what Mister X* wrote was quite tactful. While it acknowledged some
internal problems at AA (which certainly are obvious anyway) it did so in a
very graceful way and provide a pretty good counter-argument. It was about the
best statement American Airlines could have hoped anyone would have put out in
response to Dustin Curtis' piece. You might argue that they were justified in
firing him. You might be right (and you might not) but they were also very
clearly very stupid to fire him. Had they merely given him a mild rebuke and
then promoted him then they could have maintained control over what has turned
into a small scandal for AA. Instead, he's no longer bound to watch his words
so carefully. I hope he'll have more to say.

So if Dustin Curtis really does chew broken bottles and turn into a werewolf
at the time of the full moon __* that's too bad. All I know about him is that
he seems like a pretty decent designer who has strong opinions and isn't
afraid to voice them but who probably hasn't read Frederick Brooks.

Maybe if someone upstairs at AA had an attitude like Dustin Curtis and Mister
X I wouldn't be putting them on my list of "companies to avoid doing business
with whenever there's a reasonable alternative."

* P.G Wodehouse "Service With a Smile"

* Why does this name make me think of "For British Eyes Only..."

* Another P.G. Wodehouse reference I can't place.

------
nzmsv
OK, I get the point about being nice, but the AA.com design is ugly. I'm sure
as a giant company AA is used to criticism.

There are many big companies with sites not only ugly, but unusable. For
example, Rogers.com (Canada's cell phone almost-monopoly). Half the site (the
account management interface) seems not to work with anything _except_ IE6.
Are the people responsible for that abomination incompetent? I'd say so. But
we are all supposed to be nice to the slow big companies and not talk about it
on the Internet :)

------
txxxxd
This author undervalues criticism. Being polite is not always the most
effective way to create change.

~~~
diN0bot
it depends on what kind of change you want and at what cost.

great changers focus so purely on the matter at hand that they do not let
their causes get dragged down by insults or violence. Mahatma Gandhi and
Martin Luther King, Jr come to mind.

ps - "I don't apologize for that, nor do I regret it." a little humility goes
a long way. defensiveness and pigheadedness are quite different from intention
and stance. passion is different than fighting everyone. making friends and
spreading passion might even be more effective.

------
apsec112
"It’s easy to “design” when you’re unencumbered by things like metrics,
creative direction, business acumen, sales experience, actual functionality,
enterprise scale, or any thought about how a site with millions of page views
and users has to function."

Wait... what? None of this makes much sense at all.

"Metrics"? Metrics for what? A metric is just a way of measuring things. What
are we measuring? Pixels? Number of visitors? Number of bytes transferred?

"Creative direction"? Again, what does that mean, exactly? It's an airline
website. It's supposed to be elegant and functional, not a work of
postmodernist art.

"Business acumen"? Business = getting people to pay you, and people will be
more inclined to pay you, all other things being equal, if your website is
better designed. Is there some reason why a website redesign would cause AA to
_lose_ money? The cost of designing a website is trivial, in comparison to
AA's annual budget of $22,935,000,000.

"Sales experience"? "Sales" usually means selling things to people in person,
or over the phone, which is a very different business from designing a website
to sell people things (ask anyone who's done both).

"Actual functionality" is the only legitimate criticism here. It's quite a bit
harder to make a website that actually works than to draw it.

"Enterprise scale" is a myth. Justin.TV, according to their website, currently
has 29 employees (including the founders). Justin.TV's Alexa rank is #222.
American Airlines has 85,500 employees, and their website is _less_ popular
(rank #1,465), and almost certainly requires less bandwidth and storage space
to boot.

I won't comment on whether the guy is or isn't a jerk, but the ability to spit
out a long list of fancy words ("metrics"? Come on) does not a legitimate
criticism make.

------
radley
Serious irony...

------
angusdavis
I have two stories to add to this discussion, although perhaps this discussion
does not need more fuel to the fire.

First, when I was 21 (in 1999), I was the founder of my last startup, Tellme.
So I have been a young entrepreneur.

Second, one of Tellme's customers (in 2002) was American Airlines. So I
understand how they work and the challenges they face.

At Tellme, we built a lost baggage voice application for AA. They figured if
we could make their 800 number keep customers happy when the airline lost your
bag, we'd be able to do a decent job on the rest of their apps. I'm proud to
say that today Tellme answers every call to American Airlines, but back to
lost bags. In the course of building that initial application, I learned
things like: airlines issue a ticket number, a PNR, a bag tracking number and
a lost bag ID to customers. These numbers are all different and customers
don't know which is which. I also learned that at that time, American could
not pull up a list of reservations (PNRs) based on your Frequent Flyer number,
which was celebrating its 25th anniversary that year. Finally, I learned that
passenger names for the lost bags database contained only the first 8
characters of a passenger's last name. Projects were underway with major
subcontractors such as Sabre and EDS at that time to resolve and improve some
of these issues. But the point is, big companies have complex systems. Some of
these things were unbelievably bad at first glance to a tech guy like me, but
they were all there for a reason. We also take for granted the fact they
manage the incredible operational logistics of taking off a few thousand
airplanes and moving millions of people around at 500+ mph in the air every
year -- not too shabby! So my takeaway #1 is that it is far too easy for
geeks, especially inexperienced geeks, to bash the complexities of big
enterprises. At Tellme, we were successful by working within the constraints
we had. For the lost bags app, we figured a consumer would never know which
bag ID or ticket number we were asking for, so we built an app that found the
user's lost bag record by asking the caller for 1) city where bag was reported
lost; 2) date of loss and 3) last name of the passenger. Since the last names
in the lost bags database contained only the first 8 characters of a user's
last name, we used the US Census database of all names to automatically expand
all 8-character last names into all the possible last names (e.g. Williams
would be expanded to also include Williamson, etc., as a possible match).
Throughout our deployment and work with AA, I became really impressed with the
talent and dedication of their employees. A woman I worked with closely wore a
necklace with a charm she had been awarded for 15 years of loyal service to
the company. In 2002 the company was 4 months post-9/11 and to see the people
there move full speed ahead on new applications amidst the greatest challenge
to their existence in the history of their industry -- not to mention a
national tragedy -- was inspiring.

Second, I was a 21-year old entrepreneur once. I was brash, insensitive, and
abrasive. I grew up an only child. You do the math. At times I made cynical
remarks that were not helpful. I was smart, and I seldom doubted my own
opinions. As my mother would say, "Often wrong, but seldom in doubt." One of
the folks on our founding team suggested I read Dale Carnegie. Another gave me
the Steven Covey book. In the end I became a more effective communicator not
just from reading books but by growing a little older. Yes, Dustin's remarks
about AA where he paints them as some sort of completely incompetent idiots
are wholly inappropriate and abrasive and unfair. I think that's in large part
because the guy is 21. I also understand that designers can be an especially
opinionated bunch. Of course, this type of vitriol is not limited to youth.
For example, folks on one end of the political spectrum or the other often
refer to Nancy Pilosi or George Bush with disdain that ignores the humanity of
these individuals. Whether due to youth or passion, people lose their
perspective, and when we do this, our message gets lost in the heat of its
delivery.

My recommendations would be to try to put yourself in the shoes of the guy
you're criticizing. You can be frank in your criticism, but you don't need to
be callous. It gets easier with age. I'm still to this day critical of some
things, and often I am passionate about those opinions, but it's possible to
be a passionate critic without coming off as a jerk. It's something I work at
all the time.

It's also possible to be an airline and have a good web site. As an American
Airlines customer, I hope they improve a lot in that area soon, as Virgin
America is definitely setting the bar today for in-air customer experience,
and neither has a particularly great Web site. Yet.

------
scotty79
It's actually quite funny that they fired him for violation of NDA.

It's like an old joke that someone got punished for disclosing military
secrets after he said that general is stupid.

------
metalab
My Comment to Joshua:

I appreciate what you're saying here, but I think you're mischaracterizing the
point of both of our articles. Neither of us proposed our mockups as
comprehensive redesigns or attempted to address anything past the basic
visuals. I wanted to buy shoes, and I found it to be a really frustrating
experience, so I said something.

If the door to a retail store is hard to open and you complain about it, does
it make you an arrogant prick for failing to think through all the potential
reasons for the problem? Maybe the company handyman only comes every two
weeks. Maybe there's a mountain of paperwork required before any repairs can
be made. Maybe the staff needs approval from management. Does that make your
frustration with the door situation any less relevant? It definitely makes you
empathize with the staff, and speaks volumes about the company's ineffective
management, but that doesn't change the fact that the door is _really_ hard to
open, and this is a problem for you as well as other customers. Understanding
the context is important, but it doesn't make our critiques any less relevant.

You argue that, "it’s easy to 'design' when you’re unencumbered by things like
metrics, creative direction, business acumen, sales experience, actual
functionality". Of course, but think about all the companies that manage to
get it right. Huge, lumbering corporations like Amazon, JetBlue, and Virgin
all manage to pull off great user experience despite facing the same
challenges. Why shouldn't Zappos and American Airlines be held to the same
standard?

I found the Zappos website insanely frustrating to use, so I spent an evening
identifying some of the problems I spotted and added a mockup to clarify. Yes,
I was a little inflammatory, but the overarching message was a positive one. I
wasn't trying to tell them how to sell shoes or reinvent their business - my
article was intended to show how a few simple changes overtop of the existing
website could help make it easier to use. Blurry images have nothing to do
with metrics, business acumen, or sales experience. If this helped push them
towards making their website easier to use in any way, then I'm happy.

I feel awful for any designer who has to deal with Dilbertian management and
bureaucracy, and I agree with the previous commenter - our frustration should
have been primarily directed at the management team at either company. That
still doesn't change the fact that there are designers responsible for
crafting the pixels, and the pixels show a general lack of care. This might be
due to the culture of the company, poor direction, or a myriad of other
factors, but it doesn't make the work itself any less sloppy.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a brash 23-year-old, but I'd rather say
something and risk looking like an asshole than continue to patronize a
company that doesn't care about their customer experience.

-Andrew

------
muhfuhkuh
All this for what basically amounts to the flickr homepage flipped
horizontally and an extra text box added? Dustin Curtis doesn't seem very
creative to me.

~~~
scotty79
Mr. X got fired because Dustin published his email.

What reasonable man could publish somebody's email in which author bitches
about his corporate workplace and expect not to get him fired by this?

Corporations perceive them selves as saint. If anyone complains about the
smell in their cathedral he gets kicked out. You can probably get away with
such offense if you are customer but never if you are employee.

Another question is: Is money worth so much to justify visiting such smelly
place daily?

------
kyro
This article is outright stupid.

Let's say for a second that Dustin really is a ridiculously ignorant designer
(he's not) - who gives a crap? He's a customer who is really displeased not
only with the AA website but with the total experience. And the majority of
the comments on the other submissions were about how even people here hated
the company, before you found out about the firing of Mr. X.

Ignorant, fine. Harsh, fine. You guys are getting caught up in criticizing
Dustin because it's the easiest thing to do. It's weird how all you anti bigco
people are so riled up in the way someone expressed their poor customer
experience and overlooking the fact that AA fired an employee trying to reach
out. I know it violated the contract, whatever, but that just shows us where
AA's mind is. Mr. X didn't say anything that made me look down upon AA. We
know big companies run slowly, that's a constant. I doubt there's one person
out there who read Mr. X's statement and learned something uniquely bad about
AA that they didn't know of before. If anything, it made them look more
humane.

You're right though, a 21 year old's ignorance is the real issue here. Forget
widespread displeasure with AA, or the fact that they fired an employee for
personally reaching out to a customer that else wouldn't have been reached out
to, it's the arrogance that really kills you.

~~~
unalone
Oy, Kyro. Usually I side with what you've got to say but this time I think
you're in the wrong.

> Let's say for a second that Dustin really is a ridiculously ignorant
> designer (he's not)

He is in that he's never worked for a major company in a design position.

> He's a customer who is really displeased not only with the AA website but
> with the total experience.

I've had to deal with customers before. I've had customers tell me to fire
everybody in a movie theatre for incompetence. Usually we pretend like we care
in front of them, then roll our eyes once they're gone.

> And the majority of the comments on the other submissions were about how
> even people here hated the company, before you found out about the firing of
> Mr. X.

There was just as much criticism before. The summary of mass opinion is: We
hate American Airlines and their design, but the issue has been oversimplified
here.

> I know it violated the contract, whatever, but that just shows us where AA's
> mind is. Mr. X didn't say anything that made me look down upon AA.

The deal is when you sign an agreement, you follow it. What if Mr. X had been
an Apple employee leaking a new product? That's what he did here. Perhaps not
as severely, but it's the same corporate crime. And his response let Dustin
write a second article bashing people at American Airlines, so it invited even
more bad PR.

> If anything, it made them look more humane.

Mr. X was paid to design web sites. AA has other people who're meant to make
them look humane. Right now they're sucking, but it's sound in theory because
it lets everybody know what they're supposed to do. It works well for other
companies. AA is bad, but they won't fix the problem by growing laxer.

