- https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/11/26/20930374/nathan-latka-...
Latka's argument is that he is clear in the podcast and many other places that is what he does.
It sounds like he is playing startup founders with their own game. Provide a service that the founder/company wants for free or little cost. Then turn around and sell their data to 3rd parties.
I would be willing to bet that is the business model of many of the companies that have appeared on the podcast and are mad at having their data packaged and sold.
And Latka's response is the same as all the founders of those types of companies.
"It's in the fine print, bro!"
It drives a stake in the heart of their hypocrisy.
They take your private info and sell it for marketing and he takes their marketing and sells their private info. The desire for HN'ers to silence this publication of private data speaks to the nature of the community being blind to their own wrongs.
I believe Michael Seibel had some choice words on Twitter last week about this guy.
If you want to see one of the interviews, the one from Workato is particularly memorable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8q6RqpefM. The founder couldn't handle the pressure.
1. Postpone investment in marketing for the first few years and focus on the product. No need to spend time on social media.
2. Bid on competitors brand names in Google Ads.
3. When you buy other SaaS, give them testimonials with back links to boost your SEO.
4. Be comfortable selling a product that almost all customers use to send spam to strangers.
Even today, the leftovers exist on their Web site. https://support.outreach.io/hc/en-us/articles/216288348-Avoi... is one example: "When using Outreach, it is up to the individual to follow these requirements. Remember, being marked as spam can have a detrimental impact on your organization's deliverability rates."
If there's a universal lesson, it might be to find a market, customer, or delivery method that you are uniquely suited for. Outreach's founders cared less than average about enforcing policies or making a positive overall impact, and they found a field where caring about paying customers at the expense of all other stakeholders (like recipients) was rewarded. While I sure wouldn't encourage differentiating that way, the concept works.
Didn't realize you were privy to the founders' nefarious intentions, do you have evidence to back this claim up? That's a huge story if you're telling the truth.
I wouldn’t personally be comfortable with the tradeoffs that Outreach made, but it’s legal and making them doesn’t make them evil. One might describe it as greedy.
(I don’t think greed is newsworthy and I’m far from the only person to see it here. Regarding evidence of Outreach’s spot on the continuum, https://twitter.com/annepmitchell/status/671386007850192896, https://twitter.com/dswiese/status/713039678287405056, and
https://twitter.com/troyd/status/753721604081799168 are 3 of many examples.)
We can debate if that's a good or a bad idea ethically, but to a lot of people including myself, increasing sales meetings 10x = spamming the hell out of people, regardless of what "workflow" you're using. It's rather like increasing your ad clicks 10x with dark patterns and claiming you're totally helping people.
I'm guessing this advice shouldn't be taken completely literally, but rather, the point is that one shouldn't fear signing up your first 100 customers in an unscalable, high-touch way. In fact, he seems to argue that by doing it this way you are more likely to get real, raw, and candid feedback from those users