Bob Caswell: How Much Is All Your Email Worth? Answer: $50
Paul Ellis
· 1 year ago
You really think that $50 is generous Bob? I don't think that Charter's "free" e-mail service is really comparable in this regard to Hotmail/Gmail/etc, because you actually pay for an account with Charter. It is included with your account, but is not free. I don't think people can get e-mail accounts from Charter without paying for services from them. So I think they are more liable than you could expect from a legitimately free e-mail service like Hotmail or Gmail.
Anyway, $50 would not satisfy me. I guess the value of different people's e-mail is different, but I'd like to think mine is worth more than $50. That is why I pay for my own domain and hosting solution that has regular backups. I also download it to a local e-mail client in addition.
Bob Caswell
· 1 year ago
No, I don't think $50 is generous (in general). Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but one of the major points of the article is that $50 is well below what would satisfy me.
But I still think $50 is generous within the context of the nothing I'd generally expect in such cases (it has little to do with customer value and everything to do with the company's arbitrary decision).
And I don't see this as much different than Hotmail/Gmail in that customers would be charged (and are charged) exactly the same for the Internet service regardless of their usage of this "free" (by my standards) email.
It's also no different in terms of how and why each type of company would respond (Google/Microsoft or Charter). The reasoning for wanting to remedy the situation in any way is not really to compensate the consumer "fairly." Rather, the purpose is (or would be for Google/Microsoft) to minimize the PR damage while also minimizing the out-of-pocket expense.
Paul Ellis
· 1 year ago
I guess to me it is more of a complementary e-mail service than a free one. You do have to pay for something every month to have it. That is clearly different than Hotmail/Gmail.
You are right though, it isn't (directly) about compensating the customer really. It is about maximizing their return on the dollar for minimizing the bad PR. In that regard it is working. Notice this story is all about the $50, and not really that much about the fact that they deleted people's e-mail. That is what all of the headlines have been: $50. Genius.
Bob Caswell
· 1 year ago
Geez, now you make me want to change the headline. I don't want this whole fiasco to be confused for good news!
Paul Ellis
· 1 year ago
Face it Bob, you have fallen prey to their cunning PR strategy. Check and mate.
Bob Caswell
· 1 year ago
I don't know, Paul, now that I reread the headline I used... It's not really screaming, "Wow, you get $50 only for having all your email deleted! What a deal!"
Cunning PR can only go so far in handling a situation, of course, it's often better than nothing.
Tyler
· 1 year ago
Without even looking at the dollar amount being given to each user here....I just can't believe that an internet company as large as that wouldn't have some sort of backup for their email system. That just seems absurd to me, though maybe i'm just not familiar with the way ISP's handle things.
With that said, if thier contract truly does include a clause about the guarantee and liability of email falling on the end user, than I would say that really any compensation users receive is better than nothing. Sure it sucks that it's only $50, but as you guys are saying, most free email sites wouldn't even afford you that. These are the chances you take when signing up for something free. Still though, they should have a backup system...and maybe after this they'll implement one.
Paul Ellis
· 1 year ago
That is the truly stunning part of this. How is it possible that they don't have a single backup of the e-mails? I could understand if they lost the last week, or even month of e-mails, but do they never ever backup their e-mail servers? You can pretty much guarantee that some people lost their jobs over this. Not because the e-mails were lost, but because they couldn't be restored. This was entirely preventable.
On a funny note, I don't know if anyone has noticed the latest batch of ads for this post that Google is targeting. They are for "The Charter Bundle" and an independent "Business Class. Professional. Reliable. Secure." e-mail company. Google's making sure they cover all their bases.
All Comments
Anyway, $50 would not satisfy me. I guess the value of different people's e-mail is different, but I'd like to think mine is worth more than $50. That is why I pay for my own domain and hosting solution that has regular backups. I also download it to a local e-mail client in addition.
But I still think $50 is generous within the context of the nothing I'd generally expect in such cases (it has little to do with customer value and everything to do with the company's arbitrary decision).
And I don't see this as much different than Hotmail/Gmail in that customers would be charged (and are charged) exactly the same for the Internet service regardless of their usage of this "free" (by my standards) email.
It's also no different in terms of how and why each type of company would respond (Google/Microsoft or Charter). The reasoning for wanting to remedy the situation in any way is not really to compensate the consumer "fairly." Rather, the purpose is (or would be for Google/Microsoft) to minimize the PR damage while also minimizing the out-of-pocket expense.
You are right though, it isn't (directly) about compensating the customer really. It is about maximizing their return on the dollar for minimizing the bad PR. In that regard it is working. Notice this story is all about the $50, and not really that much about the fact that they deleted people's e-mail. That is what all of the headlines have been: $50. Genius.
Cunning PR can only go so far in handling a situation, of course, it's often better than nothing.
With that said, if thier contract truly does include a clause about the guarantee and liability of email falling on the end user, than I would say that really any compensation users receive is better than nothing. Sure it sucks that it's only $50, but as you guys are saying, most free email sites wouldn't even afford you that. These are the chances you take when signing up for something free. Still though, they should have a backup system...and maybe after this they'll implement one.
On a funny note, I don't know if anyone has noticed the latest batch of ads for this post that Google is targeting. They are for "The Charter Bundle" and an independent "Business Class. Professional. Reliable. Secure." e-mail company. Google's making sure they cover all their bases.