Man, those hype machines 37Signals really know how to squeeze every last drop out of one idea, don't they? They're conducting workshops on contingency design, writing articles on it, publishing whitepapers, and even writing a book.

This article is just a carbon copy of their whitepaper. The difference is that they got paid for this article. Nuts! As Ron Zeno often says, this is high on propoganda, low on quality.

Sounds an awful lot like some management gurus who coin a term and beat it to death.

Do they know anything else? I think they're overrated. On one of their sites, clicking on a thumbnail opens up the image in a new window. Click on another image, and the stupid thing opens in the SAME window as the previous image. What if I want to see two images? Usability my big fanny.

And Scott Upton, I feel for you buddy... receding into the shadows while your partners hog all the glory.

Posted by: Kung Pao on August 16, 2002 02:25 AM

 

Actually, I rated the article as:
    Information quality:    High
    Propaganda quality:  Medium
    Propaganda level:     Medium

The information the author gives about "contingency design" is very good. He doesn't overly promote himself or his company. Yes, much of the article reads like something from the dot-bomb years, but he does a good job supporting his position.

those hype machines 37Signals really know how to squeeze every last drop out of one idea

Being good at one thing isn't necessarily bad - it's often the mark of success.

And Scott Upton, I feel for you buddy... receding into the shadows while your partners hog all the glory.

One of the interesting things about 37signals is how they do not promote their individual partners. I've been unable to even find a list of them on their site...

So why all the hostility, "Kung Pao"?

Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 16, 2002 11:41 AM

 

My $0.02

37signals is doing exactly the right thing, at least in terms of branding. They have created a new category of usability and they own the market in this category. They are smart and determined; I've enjoyed every interaction I have had with them.

I've said many times that usability needs an injection of marketing. They have done it. To that I say...bravo!

So, Kung Pao, please feed us. Tell us more. It is important for me to know why you are so hostile. I'm not upset by your hostility, I'm just curious about it and if you can justify it. (Thanks in advance!)

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 16, 2002 11:53 AM

 

I love their 37 Better FedEx. I like deconstruction that makes you think in new ways.

Posted by: Lydia on August 16, 2002 05:23 PM

 

Wait one minute bub. If Kung Pao was hostile in that post, then I must be a regular Ray Milland*. Kung may be a little wound up, but who hasn't - for example - expressed the same depth of emotion when talking about Filbert**?

*Google search for "hostile" and "celebrities" turned up Ray Milland on the first link, a page featuring his filmography. Oh Google, you're better than that. Don't disappoint us again.

**If you need clarification, you should read more WebWord.

Posted by: Jack on August 16, 2002 05:39 PM

 

People get upset...but they express the details. They often explain why they are upset. There is logic. There are anecdotes. That is all I am asking for here. I don't mind hostility; it can be very useful.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 16, 2002 11:10 PM

 

I often wonder how much of this kind of hostility is poorly disguised jealousy. If you have problems with the content, refute it properly, give detail, make your own point.

I found the contingency white paper to be quite useful as a selling tool around the office, and it was free. Can't complain about that.

If they make money of it themselves, more power to them.

Posted by: Mathew on August 18, 2002 11:44 PM

 

I often wonder how much of this kind of hostility is poorly disguised jealousy.

All of it? Most of it? I think Mathew is on to something here...

Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 19, 2002 08:51 PM