So Michael Arrington was cc'ed on a sensitive acquisition e-mail where, presumably, only one of the parties has agreed that the information should be public. And not even explicitly so. And he chooses to publish it directly on Techcrunch....
That's despicable, and not exactly good for his reputation.
> presumably, only one of the parties has agreed that the information should be public.
Sending an email like this to Arrington and telling him he might find it 'interesting' amounts to saying 'print this'. Further, all involved parties in a story do not have to agree before it's published. If an employee is harassed by her manager, does the NYT seek the manager's permission before publishing the story? I have indulged in TC-bashing on several previous occasions, but I don't think expecting Arrington to keep this stuff confidential is reasonable under the circumstances. If anyone's to blame, it's Goodrich.
And as far as Arrington's reputation is concerned, I don't think it's going to take a hit - he's a 'journalist' and he has to make a living =) It might actually save him some trouble because now people are going to think twice before sending him 'interesting' crap.
Goodrich could have done better by doing a 'cc' instead of a 'Bcc'. If it concerns MYB they would have wrote back immediately to TC & Goodrich.
It is really bad for Goodrich now on people would restrain from sending any serious emails to him. He has closed one mode of communication for contacting him/his business.
Also MYB should have just said something like 'lets talk'. Its bad to start a deal with final numbers on an email without even knowing the intent from the other side.
So I'm wondering about those stupid legalese footers on some emails that say something to the effect of "if you weren't the intended recipient, delete this email and pretend you haven't already read it" - would that have helped in this case? Or, if the email had that footer, and Arrington published it, would that open him to legal liability? Or, are those footers just a total waste of space and time? Any lawyers in the house?
You know all these documents marked confidential that people give me. Unless I previously signed an NDA that says I will respect the confidentiality of such documents, it's just wishful thinking on your part.
In this case it seems Goodrich is the one to damage his reputation. Copying the press on this doesn't show much class and doing it as BCC is simply dishonest.
Of course, with another journalist (or a journalist) it might have ended there. With TC it ends up published.
Arrington's a member of the press that was sent a email saying "thought techcrunch might find this interesting" what do you think he was going to do with it?
I know it's fashionable to bash Arrington on HN, but I'm willing to take the karma beating and say this: couldn't the MYB CEO have requested the FunAdvice CEO submit to a confidentiality agreement for this specific reason?
Here's another, potentially more-provoking one: Isn't this what "good business" is all about? Manipulation of your opponent? Using what you can to generate PR buzz? "I'm not being a jerk, I'm just doing good business."
Please do not treat this post as a testimony of my own values.
Well yes he could, but business is basically about trust. When Warren Buffett asks you to send confidential information you'll do so because you trust him not to abuse it - his reputation is built up over many years, but can be shattered with just one major breach of it. Both parties know this.
If you lose your credibility you lose your ability to do business. Credibility is to business as intelligence is to hackers.
Good business is treating your colleagues with respect (even if you secretly want to crush them). You can be sure that Geoff Cook will never, ever, ever do business with Jeremy Goodrich after this display of unprofessionalism.
I agree with mixmax about trust in business. I'd just like to add that if you compare and contrast the writing styles of Cook and Goodrich, it is pretty clear who is the pro and who is the wannabe. There was nothing shrewd or savvy about what Goodrich did. OTOH, Arrington did squash a source in public. That just seems odd.
I think the move to B'CC Techrunch and the move to send a blind acquisition offer off of "inferences" are equally stupid and one action might deserve the other.
Also, the offer was super-cheap: Acquire a site with 1M uniques per month for $125K in cash (plus the same amount in highly volatile stock).
That's barely a 6 months of salary for the founder. Frankly, it's insulting. Even YC offers you a better valuation, and that's before you have any traffic :-)
not for an acquisition offer... so if your startup makes $2 a month, would you let someone buy you out for $48? What if your startup is losing money, is $1 a fair offer?
That's despicable, and not exactly good for his reputation.