Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spacedog
seems his activities of being arrogrant & cocky, & being condescening towards people is starting to backlash against him..
|
The sound of axes grinding is deafening...
There is no point arguing whether NATS should act as an arbiter of business ethics. They chose to market their software that way, which in view of the backlash again Mansion, was likely a smart move. But smart or not, that was their choice. End of story.
Similarly there have been lots of excuses made as to why the phonecall which started all this was answered so unprofessionally. But I haven't seen any excuses for why the guy couldn't have pulled his car over as soon as he realized what an ass he had been and made a return call to get the matter dealt with. No-one has claimed that John came to the board despite an attempt by Xclusive to work this out, so what exactly should John have done? Thrown away one of his biggest marketing tools as soon as it hit a speed bump?
How long would it have been before one of the people reporting discrepancies to NATS had come to the boards? Why should John have put his business on the line for someone who swore and hung up on him?
Attempting to put even a part of the blame on NATS also ignores the way Xclusive handled this badly all the way through. If this was all just a technical glitch, even after it hit the boards they could have got together with NATS, sorted the issue out, then jointly reported that everything was now fine and the problems had been resolved. Instead, their actions couldn't have been calculated to better reinforce the idea that the discrepancies were more than just a software hiccup.
I haven't a clue whether John could fairly be described as "arrogant and cocky", but even if yes, I don't see any relevance to this issue.