There’s a flash flood warning for all of Chicago today. Unfortunately there’s water in my basement (like other Chicago home owners)...
The flood fixing company U.S. Waterproofing has a cool feature on their website. Look at who we’ve helped in your neighborhood. As you can see, they get around! Gives me confidence to give them a call—which I might do right now.
Francis
on 18 Apr 13This would cause me to NEVER recommend them.
I’m a private person and for a company to advertise that I’m a customer of theirs without my permission, to me, feels like an invasion of my privacy. I know I might be in the minority here on this, and others might say they are simply putting a marker on top of my house location – but regardless, they are identifying me as a customer.
This is also why I cringe whenever I see a product/SaaS site that advertises that XYZ Company is a customer of theirs. It always makes me think … “did this company get permission to use their customers name in marketing materials, probably not. If they disregard customer privacy this way, what else do they disregard that I should be concerned with”.
Here’s an example (Basecamp Classic) of a product that use to name drop their customers (aka “pimp out their customers”) like crazy on their frontpage that always turned me off to using them.
Joe
on 18 Apr 13Seems like a good site to check before buying a house in Chicagoland to see if it has potentially had water damage.
Miles
on 18 Apr 13hey! I’m on that map!
Seriously though, what a weird morning.
As for Francis’s privacy/paranoia concerns, it’s usually an agreed upon term in the business services contract. That’s how my company does it. Assumed consent unless the client crosses it out.
Tom
on 18 Apr 13Jamie, I used them to seal some leaky basement windows and they were fantastic. Francis, when I used them they asked me if it would be okay for them to use my location as someone they helped on their website. I said sure, but they did ask for permission before using my info.
GeeIWonder
on 18 Apr 13As for Francis’s privacy/paranoia concerns
Well as Joe says, but also as anyone who has ever investigated flood insurance (good luck with that one!) would know, there’s a real tangible financial outcome here. It’s not paranoia, it’s common sense.
That’s how my company does it. Assumed consent unless the client crosses it out.
Keep an eye on that, depending on where you’re planning on doing business.
Francis
on 18 Apr 13@Miles
I shared this with 37signals (via Support) years ago because they where breaking their own Privacy Policy
“37signals does not share your personal information with third parties, unless explicitly approved by you.”
MikeH
on 18 Apr 13I’ve used them twice-they did an excellent job both times (dry basement today!)-and I’m not on the map. I don’t recall being asked if they could use my location (it was a few years ago), but the fact that I’m not there is an indicator that they don’t post every customer’s location.
Jjj
on 18 Apr 13Francis: You think that 37signals posted the logos of, or filmed elaborate videos with, their customers without their consent? You’re crazy.
Also, the US Waterproofing site doesn’t include street-level address information. So your paranoia is unfounded. Honestly, I checked the comments to see if anyone had asked the obvious question – how do you know they’re not lying on the map?
“Social proof” is the most powerful marketing tool a company can use. So this approach makes total sense.
Sergeant Hulka
on 18 Apr 13Lighten up, Francis.
Travis
on 18 Apr 13@Jjj
Obviously Francis is not referring to the customer videos. Francis is referring to the company logos on the link he provided … Not the current web site that has customer employee photos.
I too agree when I see company logos plastered on product site, it’s alarming.
Francis
on 18 Apr 13@Sergeant Hulka
Why should I lighten up.
Numerous nationals (including USA) have laws against this exact practice. More information is below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information
The reason why company’s can’t share Personally Identifiable Information is because it might have financial implications on me.
Case in point, there’s a decent chance at simply putting a a marker on my house could prevent a buyer from purchasing my home. Just as @Joe mentioned above.
Another example, what happens if the company behind Viagra creates a marketing campaign and says “Sergeant Hulka is a user of Viagra because once, in your own private medical history past, you purchased some Viagra pills”.
The list goes on-and-on.
Jason Fried
on 18 Apr 13To clear up the record, we only display a company’s logo with permission from someone at the company.
Sergeant Hulka
on 18 Apr 13Francis, you should lighten up… because you seriously need to. Good example with Viagra. But truth be told my wife says I need to find a product that is the exact opposite of Viagra. BOO YAH!!!
Steve
on 18 Apr 13Angie’s List has a similar feature that I have found to be very useful.
Farquad
on 19 Apr 13@francis,
nutjob
Greg H
on 19 Apr 13+1 Francis
NotScaredOfEverything
on 22 Apr 13I think people get a little over-protective about their privacy. First, there’s more free info about you than you’ll ever know. Ask any decent private detective.
There are a couple things than cannot be violated to make it OK for companies to list some of their clients.
1) You were actually hired by the client and can prove it 2) The client did not expressly tell you not to mention them in your marketing
Companies should have the following mindset (excluding some types of companies, like medical companies and others).
“Client so-and-so hired us and we did work for them. It’s the truth, and we are not ashamed of it, nor do we apologize for being proud of it. It we lose more business than we gain because of this practice, we’ll change our philosophy.”
Everything is on the record until one party states that it is off the record.
GeeIWonder
on 22 Apr 13If you’re an American and have strong feeling about this one way or the other, you should at least be aware of this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/privacy-final.pdf—Appendix A is probably most relevant
I take the view “Everything is on the record until one party states that it is off the record” as impracticable and often immoral—in a world where every interaction, every action has a retrievable footprint the burden needs to be on those who actively record and disseminate the actions of others. I don’t really think the ethics here are up for debate, but if you choose to debate it, the above document is a place to start.
You don’t need to be an immoral person to hold the ‘let’s disclose anything we want about others’ view of course. You can just be naive, and ironically be one of the likely victims.
This discussion is closed.