Brent told me at one point that it was called MarsEdit, because “Mars is cool, and Mars is far away.” It turns out that was the abbreviated version of the story. I was treated to a longer version in Brent’s talk at Çingleton a few weeks ago, and now he’s shared it with the world via his blog. The name was inspired by a Seattle cafe called “Free Mars”:

I was thinking about names I thought were awesome, and remembered one of my favorite place names: the Free Mars café in Belltown. It occurred to me that “Mars” was perfect, because Mars is cool, it fits with NetNewsWire’s space theme, and Mars is at a distance.

I probably never would have named the app MarsEdit. Who knows what it would have been, had it grown up from birth under my care. But by the time I took over the app, I was such a MarsEdit fan, as a long-time customer myself, that the name just rolled off of my tongue. Of course I would keep it.

I was just reading the eulogy from Steve Jobs’s sister, Mona Simpson, printed in The New York Times. She recalls Steve’s general obsession with “love.” I think many of us who care deeply for Apple and its products are touched by the emotional angle the company applies to its designs. It has been an honor to inherit MarsEdit because it’s also a very emotional product, to its passionate users and for its developers, past and present. Brent’s story helps to underscore that legacy.

I just don’t feel comfortable paying for an iPad or web publication, no matter how good it is, and then having ads shoved down my throat. It makes me feel ripped off: what did I pay for?

His article touched a nerve with some of my friends and colleagues who are tied into the publishing industry, and who are aware of how important ads are to the revenue models of many magazines.

I think that I get, and agree with, the gist of Marco’s complaint. For better or worse, paying $4.99 for a digital copy of a magazine feels like a premium price. When you pay a premium price for content, it just feels wrong to many of us to have ads heaped on top.

Jason Snell, the Editorial Directory of Macworld, reacted to Marco’s post by suggesting that a magazine’s delivery medium shouldn’t affect whether or not ads are justified:

@marcoarment Wait, so an iPad version of a magazine shouldn’t have ads, but it’s okay in a printed magazine?

Jason goes on to suggest that publications have many costs, and typically the purchase price only pays for a fraction of those. Jason also links to a blog post from Craig Grannell, who also hammers the idea that publications need ads to cover costs, and closes with a quippish reply to Marco’s “what did I pay for?” question:

How about the content, and the wages of the people who write the content, and who design the app?

This epitomizes what I think is an overreaction by many folks to Marco’s post. People are zeroing in on the objection to ads, and inferring that Marco doesn’t believe magazines should be reasonably compensated for the content they provide. Marco never suggests this. In fact, he’s the one who ponied up $5 for a copy of content that he values. The exact price, and whether it supports the specific business model of the company he is patronizing, is almost beside the point. To him, it just feels wrong.

In response to the criticism, Marco seems willing to acknowledge that his feelings about the ads are trumped by the realities of the industry:

Tons of feedback from magazine/news people telling me that my feelings are wrong and that I simply need to accept that ads are necessary.

Peter Cohen, a journalist with years of experience writing for publications such as The Loop and Macworld, minces no words in his response:

@marcoarment It’s not your feelings, Marco. It’s your understanding of the economics of content production.

This is all well and good, informing Marco how wrong he is for feeling that $4.99/issue is a price that should justify an ad-free reading experience, but nobody seems to be willing to go deeper than vaguely condescending dismissal. All the accusations of contempt and ignorance are a little unsatisfying without specific analysis of Marco’s allegedly mistaken assumptions.

Obviously a magazine costs more than $0/issue to put out, and obviously it costs less than, say, $500/issue to put. Marco’s expectation to read a digital copy of a magazine without ads seems well-warranted if the cost of the purchase compensates the magazine with enough money to pay all of their staff, all their service providers, and some money left over for, if they’re lucky, pure profit.

If Marco had paid $500 for that issue of the New Yorker, I think few would challenge his expectation that such a price warrants an ad-free experience. But he paid $4.99, which happens to be the same price as a newsstand copy of the magazine. When you compare $4.99 to the $1.49/issue that The New Yorker charges its loyal subscribers for paper copies, printed on glossy paper and mailed to their homes, it already feels like a huge premium. Presumably the publishers are not losing money at $1.49/issue (with ads), or they’d cease selling subscriptions. [Update: it's been pointed out that they may well lose money on subscriptions if they know they can capitalize on secondary sales of books, etc., to their customer base]

We don’t know how much The New Yorker pays for bandwidth, or what percentage of their overall expenses the cover price accounts for. We don’t know if there are partnership fees for the digital version, or whether it needs to pay back a major infrastructure investment. We don’t know the specifics. We just know that Marco paid $3.50 more than a subscriber pays for the same issue, that it didn’t have to be printed, that it didn’t have to be mailed, and that it’s offered for sale in a venue where practically no other editorial content is sold at a premium price.

Is there something wrong with paying $5 for a digital copy of a magazine only to be subjected to ads? I don’t know. It may be necessary. It may be fair. But it felt wrong to Marco, and it feels wrong to me. That’s the publishing industry’s problem to figure out, and ours to complain about until convinced, by reasoning and without blanket condescension, to think otherwise.

This heartfelt apology and explanation from @Netflix sounded good until “Qwikster.” Serious branding failure. blog.netflix.com/2011/09/explan…

Netflix to customers: “We apologize for being so dense about how our decisions come off in public. BTW: WELCOME TO QWIKSTER!!!!!”

Usually a blog post that opens with an apology proceeds to explain how things are going to be better. I’d hate to read Netflix’s “bad news.”

I realized this morning that I was missing the point. Sure, Netflix’s actions appear stupid and short-sighted. Maybe. But if they are, it’s not very interesting, it’s just a drag. It would be more interesting to examine their “stupidity” for signs of intelligence.

My friend Jon Wight made a good, obvious in retrospect, point on Twitter:

Maybe Netflix dumped the DVD division to make them more attractive to a company that traditionally hates spinning media. #conspiracytheory

Of course! Dump the stagnant DVD-by-mail business, in anticipation of one of those perennial acquisition rumors coming true. Netflix’s brilliant streaming system would live on in the realm of some new corporate ownership, boosting the web streaming wing of Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, or whoever. Spinning off the beloved DVD-by-mail program beforehand not only makes the streaming company more attractive to potential buyers, but ensures that the DVD business lives on, rather than becoming an unwanted side-asset for the new owners. In that light, Qwikster might be something of a genius move.

The main problem with this reasoning is it would most likely eliminate the Netflix brand.  Most potential buyers of the streaming business would be likely want to brand it with their own name. As would any potential buyer of the DVD-by-mail wing. That’s fine, we can live without the Netflix brand. But if either wing of Netflix will live on independently, the brand would be one of its most valuable assets. Here’s  another tweet I posted last night:

I just visited Blockbuster.com for the first time ever, so I guess Netflix’s announcement is not a total loss for the industry.

If Netflix wants to sell just the DVD half of the business, then there’s no strong impetus to come up with a perfect, lovable name. It just needs a name. Sure, it could be “Netflix by Mail” or something else strongly tied to the brand, but I suspect Netflix wants to start disassociating their brand from DVDs as qwiksly as possible. Renaming the DVD business to something stupid immediately starts to isolate it from the Netflix brand, so that when some company like Blockbuster comes along to buy it, it will feel less like they are “actually buying Netflix.” It’s nothing of core importance to Netflix. “Blockbuster didn’t win. That’s just some silly DVD business we happen to own.”

Qwikster is a burner name.

(Incidentally, do you think we’ll be able to rent Qix from Qwikster?)

Consider the work that went into the first word processors and web browsers, whose work can now be mimicked by a Mac developer who knows how to embed NSTextView or or WebView. Imagine the time that early game developers invested in rudimentary sprite drawing, animation, and collision, which is now achieved easily in iOS games with open source packages such as cocos2d.

Still, building truly great software continues to elude most developers. It’s easy to assume that a large amount of time invested in a project, combined with an impressive outcome, is the key to a successful product. But it’s not so simple.

The ninety-ninety rule is often cited when describing the challenge of finessing a product after most of the hard work has seemingly been done:

“The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time.” — Tom Cargill

I agree with this perspective, and I cite it often when discussing software with others. The rule as stated is in terms of “code” but is also applicable to all the visual design, user experience, marketing, and positioning of a product. I think the rule is also recursive: whatever is missing can always be split up such that an “easy” 90% of the job can be done, leaving an elusive 10% of finesse work.

Many developers mistakenly assume that after they’ve put a ton of work into a project, and it achieves some impressive feat, that their work is done. When you focus on the enormity of work completed thus far, it’s tempting to pat yourself on the back and call it a day.

But customers don’t care about the hard work that went into the 90%. They only notice the flaws or omissions in the 10%. Imagine if Michelangelo’s statue of David was perfect in every detail, except that where David’s face should be, a clump of ragged, unfinished marble lay crudely in its place. Instead of marveling at the exquisite details of David’s feet, torso, and arms, viewers would reject it as unfinished and clumsy.

An important takeaway for software developers is that the missing 10%, or the missing one-tenth of 10%, may be something that will take a great deal of work to get right, but it may be something you simply overlooked the importance of.

You might build an impressive skyscraper projecting 40 stories into the sky. The architecture, interior design, plumbing, and electrical work may all be superior to that of your peers. But if some blindness in your product vision prevents you from adding windows, the product will never sell. It doesn’t matter how much time or effort went into this masterpiece: nobody will live in a windowless skyscraper.

I learned about the news via Lessien on Twitter, a woman about whom I know little, except that she offers reliably intelligent opinion about the tech world, and the mobile industry in particular. She shared the news with some curiosity about Facebook’s role in the deal:

Wow, although I’m a bit surprised by the buyer. Congrats to the @pushpoppress team.

It does seem a little unusual for Facebook to acquire a publishing company. But Facebook has made at least one similar acquisition recently: Sofa, the Dutch Mac developer and design firm. What interest did Facebook have in a company that sells Mac-only point of sale and developer software tools? They didn’t.

Facebook bought Sofa for their world-class design team. I expect the situation is similar when it comes to Push Pop Press. I can imagine Facebook putting Push Pop’s publishing software to some good use, but that’s just the icing on the Mike Matas cake.

Who will Facebook acquire next? Don’t let product scope cloud your crystal ball. Look for the most consistently polished user experiences in the software you use in any industry, on any platform. If it’s on Facebook’s radar, don’t be surprised to see them acquired next.

This speaks well to Facebook’s product priorities, especially as they are increasingly framed as a competitor to Google, whose design is famously underwhelming. For Facebook, setting themselves apart as purveyors of finely crafted interfaces will become a huge competitive advantage.

I like Manton Reece’s take on recent speculation that it won’t be an iPad 3 so much as an iPad Pro:

This isn’t a replacement for the current iPad; it’s another layer to the product lineup. And like the awkwardly-named iPod Photo from 2004, I bet the iPad Pro is meant to be temporary.

But I disagree about the temporary nature of such a high-end counterpart to the iPad. Apple likes to segment the market and then keep it that way. There are four completely different classes of iPod for sale in the Apple Store, and iPhones that range in price from $49 (with a contract) to $649.00 (unlocked).  Mac Minis currently start at $699 while the beefiest Mac Pro starts at $4,999.

Apple’s segmentation seems to achieve the classic goal of taking a little or a lot of the customer’s money, depending on how much they have to spend. But many folks are inspired to buy in at several price-points for a single product line. I own a Mac Mini and a MacBook Pro. An iPod Nano and an iPod touch. An iPhone 4, and, well, my wife takes good care of my iPhone 3G. I also own an iPad. Will I buy an iPad Pro if it comes out this fall? If it puts my iPad 1 to shame (which the iPad 2, frankly, did not), then yes, I’ll probably buy one of those too.

I’ll be surprised if Apple doesn’t take the same approach with iPad that they usually do: the low-end unit is always surprising powerful for the price, but outdone by some whiz-bang innovations at the high end. No, they don’t apply this strategy to all of their products, but this isn’t some hobby for them. As Jony Ive says in a recent commercial, the iPad “defines an entire category.” Let’s see how Apple intends to fill that category out.

My primary product, MarsEdit, is a desktop blogging client that interfaces with Tumblr, among dozens of other types of blogs. The reduced reliability of Tumblr, and in particular of its API, has meant a deeply compromised experience for our customers in common. This means that I also suffer some pain in the midst of Tumblr’s flakiness, because I have to support an unreliable service and explain to customers that MarsEdit is affected by Tumblr downtimes as well.

Some of Tumblr’s greatest assets are the deeply respected bloggers who trust Tumblr to host their writing. They serve as implicit spokespeople for the service each time they publish an entry, and more explicitly so when participating in Tumblr’s own social network, raving about the site on Twitter, at conferences, etc.

As flakiness continues, the tone of endorsements is turning negative. I regularly see sarcastic snipes against the service in my Twitter feed, and even on blogs that are hosted by Tumblr itself. Garrett Murray’s frustration peaked yesterday when he posted a sarcastic revision to Tumblr’s increasingly famous “downtime” graphic. Steven Frank of Panic fame chimed in today on Twitter:

It occurs to me that Tumblr is also growing exponentially with no apparent income source. I should look for a new home, pre-dickbar.

Tumblr has a problem. Since late 2010 and for all of 2011 they have been suffering enough downtime and flakiness that a growing chorus of users is lambasting the service. Without judging whether that’s fair or justified, let’s accept that what used to be a widely lauded service is becoming a widely criticized one.

But how big of a problem is it if, as Steven Frank suggested in his tweet, the service continues to grow its membership by leaps and bounds? My theory is Tumblr’s continued success in signing up new customers is both thanks to and at the expense of their influential early adopters. Folks who helped to build Tumblr’s reputation over the past several years are now suffering, presumably because of Tumblr’s ravenous ingestion of new users. If this keeps up, the influential “power-bloggers” will quit Tumblr and move on to more reliable services. Tumblr will be left with millions of users, who I’m sure are perfectly nice people, but who don’t exert as great an influence in the web world.

What should Tumblr do? If the failure to rein in performance and uptime issues is connected to success in signing up new customers, then they should stop signing up new customers. Sound foolish? In Tumblr’s position I would do whatever it takes to bring back the level of service that users enjoyed before the “great downtime of 2010.” Happy, influential customers paved the way for Tumblr’s success, and bringing back that enthusiasm is the best way to perpetuate success far into the future.

If Tumblr turned off new user registrations today and added a “notify me when more new users are being accepted” sign-up form, it would provide breathing room to focus on fixing the experience for current customers. Framed correctly, it would also make those customers feel cared for and important, something they probably aren’t feeling so much at the moment. Yes, for prospective customers it would be a slap in the face. Nobody wants to feel shut out. But if given a choice, protect your existing, not future customers. Web services build buzz all the time with limited, invitation-only beta testing intros. It would be a step backwards for Tumblr, but it would also re-establish a sense of exclusivity that would pay dividends after issues are resolved and open enrollment returns.

It’s easy to armchair-quarterback another business when you don’t know any of the details. I’m sure the challenges at Tumblr are diverse and hard to pin down to my convenient diagnosis of “too many users.” But if you’re bailing out a sinking boat, the first thing to do is stop admitting new passengers.

I hope Tumblr figures out a way to solve this for the long run. My customers depend on it. Their customers depend on it. And the longevity of the company itself depends on it.

We should endeavor to improve the lives of as many people as possible in a lasting and significant way, making the most of our own skills in the process.

Should we aim to affect as many people as possible? My heroes have tended to please themselves first, and to please everybody else by accident. When Steve Wozniak set out to invent the Apple personal computer, he did it for himself, and perhaps to show off for a few nerdy friends at the computer club. Noam Chomsky wrote generally about languages and grammars, and was allegedly annoyed when his research happened to lay the groundwork for major fields of computer science. I doubt many of history’s great advancements happened according to the plan of the geniuses who were responsible for them.

As a self-employed business owner, I want to improve the lives of my customers. And, yes, I would like to have a lot of customers. But Payne’s measure of success is too lofty. Rather than aim incompetently and uncertainly for a massive impact, I focus on a small area that I understand and that I care deeply about. I please a small subset of all people, but I please them greatly. Focusing on what I know and appreciate is the balance that keeps me self-funded, intellectually stimulated, and productive. Who knows, maybe I’ll turn out to be an accidental genius, as well.

Ambition to influence or change the world is, on its own, relatively useless. Pursuit of truth and understanding, on one’s own terms, is the noblest of endeavors. If you’ve found something you can work on all day for weeks, months, or years, don’t let anybody tell you it’s not worth doing.

One of the most important questions any business deals with is how it will be funded. If you’re thinking of starting a business, you should probably decide how you want to be funded early on, so you can orient your business towards being successful in the context of that funding.

Broadly speaking, a business will either be “bootstrapped” or funded by outside investors.

The goal for a bootstrapped business is to come up with your initial funding, be it in the form of cash, free time, raw materials, or some combination, and parlay these resources into a service or product that generates revenue from customers. Once the revenue from customers pays for the founders’ initial investments and sustains the recurring expenses of the business, theoretically including your salary as a founder, the company is profitable and poised to grow. The huge benefit to bootstrapping your own business is that, once the company is profitable, you retain 100% control of the business’s strategy and resources.

Another method of starting a business is to seek outside investment in the form of angel funding or venture capital. You give up some clearly specified percentage of the company’s ownership in return for cash, guidance, and social connections. From here, the goals are basically the same: to become profitable, but at the end of the day you end up with a smaller stake in your own company than you would have if you bootstrapped it yourself.

I think there are good arguments for both approaches, but I am strongly disinclined to seek venture funding for my business. When friends ask for my opinion, I almost always strongly discourage them from seeking it as well. Why? Because venture capital doesn’t speak to our priorities, and is unlikely to build the kinds of companies we want to run.

I was listening to the always-inspiring This Week in Startups podcast when an interview with Tony Conrad led to a perfect synopsis of why venture capital is not right for me. Jason Calacanis and Tony Conrad were discussing the state of venture capital in the technology world, and observed that consumers are spending a ton of money online, but there is a “risk” that the money is being distributed among too many companies. In a nutshell, they said, the online business world was becoming more like “Main Street,” with too many small businesses, and not enough “Walmarts” to pay back the massive returns.

This, Tony Conrad said bluntly, was his “biggest fear.”

Venture capitalists would rather fund a single billion-dollar company than a thousand mom-and-pop million-dollar shops. I can’t say that I fault them for this, but it cuts to the core of where their priorities lie: they gamble on high stakes, massive returns, while shunning the concerns of any business that wants to maintain a mom-and-pop Main Street business ideology. Personally, I prefer the Main Street shopping aesthetic to Walmart, and I know which part of town I want my business in.

If you want to be Walmart, by all means seek venture funding: you’ll need lots of it to stand a chance at succeeding. If, on the other hand, you want to build a company guaranteed to preserve your values, fund it yourself and maintain control. You’ll own something to be truly proud of while helping to scare the crap out of venture capitalists.

Update: I originally cited the content of a customer’s email in this post, and although I didn’t reveal her identity, I don’t think this was appropriate or particularly constructive.

Mea culpa.

In the future I will never cite the contents of a customer’s private email, no matter how anonymously, unless they have expressly permitted me to do so.

I have edited the post to remove the contents of our correspondence with each other. I am leaving the post because I still think it expresses some interesting ideas.

Continuing the recent trend of posts about, essentially, “just doing it,” the purpose of this post is to underscore the wisdom of staying in touch with customers, while acknowledging that doing so brings its own challenges.

Since I established my own web store a few years ago, I have collected the emails of customers who buy my software and, for those who leave the pre-checked option selected, subscribe them to a company newsletter for infrequent announcements:

Infrequently is the operative word here. In more than three years I’ve neglected to send even one email to these folks. This is a problem, because permitting me to contact them set up the expectation that I would. When major releases such as MarsEdit 3 have come out, some people don’t find out until months later, and tend to be annoyed that they haven’t heard about it directly from me.

Yesterday, I finally got around to setting up a mailing list with Campaign Monitor, drafting a simple plain-text letter, and pressing the send button. I finally broke the ice.

For those of you who are not on the mailing list, here’s what I said:

News From Red Sweater Software

Hello from Red Sweater! This is Daniel Jalkut, its founder and, for now, its only employee.

When you purchased one of my products, you agreed to receive infrequent email updates that keep you up to do date with my latest products. Since that time you have received approximately zero emails! I sort of dropped the ball on direct communication, but I’m working to rectify that now.

Messages will still be infrequent and hopefully pertinent, but if you are no longer interested in receiving updates about Red Sweater, just visit this link to unsubscribe:

(unsubscribe link)

On to the news: what’s happening at Red Sweater?

1. MarsEdit 3 Released

Earlier this year I released a major update to MarsEdit, our desktop blog editing application. MarsEdit now sports a rich text “WYSIWYG” editor, support for WordPress pages, and a media browser that integrates with iPhoto, Aperture, and Lightroom. Read more about MarsEdit 3 on the web:

http://www.red-sweater.com/marsedit/new3.html

If you don’t already own MarsEdit 3 you can purchase it for $39.95, or update from a previous version for $14.95:

https://www.red-sweater.com/store/

2. iPhone and iPad Releases?

People often ask about my plans to release applications for the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch. It’s easy enough to convey my intentions, but a bit harder to make specific promises. I am very excited about building iPhone and iPad versions of my apps, especially MarsEdit and Black Ink. I have made significant progress on these apps but there is still fine-tuning that needs to be done before I’ll be prepared to release them publicly.

3. The Mac App Store

You may have heard the news that Apple is planning to launch a Mac version of the App Store, which will give Mac users the ability to easily browse, purchase, and install applications in a similar manner to the way it works for iPhones and iPads. I’m hoping to get most or all of my apps into the catalog so I can reach an even wider audience of users. The good news for you, my existing customers? More customers will hopefully lead to more revenue, which means more resources and impetus to continue adding great features to the applications you already love.

4. Keeping In Touch

As I said earlier, I am resolving to do a better job keeping in touch. Next time a major update like MarsEdit 3 is released, you’ll hear about it before 6 months have passed! But if you want to proactively stay tuned in on an even finer level, there are some resources available to help you monitor our progress:

Email support. You can contact Red Sweater with whatever’s on your mind, be it a bug report, feature request, or just to say hi.
Address: support@red-sweater.com

Red Sweater Blog. The official company blog is my platform for providing a combination of company news and business-related thoughts and analysis.
Link: http://www.red-sweater.com/blog

Twitter accounts. For short, conversational style updates I maintain a personal account, a company account, and a special account just for MarsEdit:
Link: http://twitter.com/danielpunkass
Link: http://twitter.com/redsweater
Link: http://twitter.com/marsedit

5. Thank You

I want to close by thanking you for your business. I have been working on Red Sweater for over 10 years now, and in the past few years it has reached a level of success that supports myself, my wife, and my son. This is so unfathomable to me that I can only assume the sky is the limit! Let’s keep working together: your feedback and support combined with my desire to build great products should lead to many more years of successful results.

Daniel Jalkut
Founder, Red Sweater Software

To unsubscribe from this email list, just visit this link:

(unsubscribe link)

Delivery Confirmation

Campaign Monitor made the mass delivery painless for me. Thanks to their sophisticated tools, I know a day later that the vast majority of recipients received the letter, and only a small percentage have unsubscribed. Out of the thousands (wow!) of messages that were sent:

97.1% appear to be delivered
2.9% bounced
1.48% unsubscribed after receiving
1 reported it as spam (1 person, not percent – can’t win them all!)

This kind of feedback is great, but nothing compared to the direct responses I got from customers. The semi-personal tone of my letter inspired customers to respond in kind with heartfelt support and encouragement.

I received dozens of responses, ranging from the brief, enthusiastic “Word!” to longer, philosophical letters about small business, following one’s dreams, and the meaning of work in life.

Then, early this morning, I received this:

[EDITED: In retrospect, I do not believe it was appropriate for me to share the content of a customer's email here, even if information about her identity was removed.]

An upset or merely irritated customer always calls for a cautious response. The last thing I want is to escalate the situation. But this response is particular challenging, due to the number of provocative facets:

1. The customer is not pleased by the email I sent.
2. The customer is using a sarcastic, admonishing tone.
3. The customer projects a lack of respect by omitting proper punctuation and sentence structure.
4. The customer’s core criticisms are vague and subjective, making it hard for me to evaluate whether an apology or correction is called for.

These facets sort of multiply with each other and make it difficult not to respond defensively. My first reaction is to shout something into my email client like “What the hell?! Most people like a little humanity in a company, and furthermore, I did enumerate benefits where appropriate, and the content of this letter addresses the most common questions I have received over the past few months. And … and … who pissed in your Wheaties, anyway?”

Instead I take a deep breath, vent a little to my friends on IRC, and respond:

[EDITED: As with the content of the email from the customer, I don't believe it is appropriate for me to include the content of my response.]

I then proceeded to vent on Twitter about the response. I wasn’t particularly looking for comfort, but was glad to receive supportive responses from people who agreed there was cause to feel irritated by the customer’s tone. A sample of the dozens of reactions:

“That’s the kind of thing, when said in person, earns someone a kick in the teeth.” — @dssstrkl

“That guy is a jerk. Keep your personality in your work. if he doesn’t like it, let him use products from huge faceless corps” — @scottaw

“Personally, I couldn’t live with myself without adding a note about their tone. Why encourage an asshole.” — @mrgan

“Screw that guy. He’s just jealous that your Indie endeavors are successful enough to support you and your family. Good on ya!” — @fonix

“He presumes to speak for all your customers, co-opting “us.” He does not. Bravo on your measured and thoughtful response.” — @artgillespie

“That guy replied as if you were trying to sell him something. Your letter was more like a ‘state of the union’ communication.” — @morrick

Many of the responses refer to the customer as “him,” while none of them refer to “her.” In fact, this customer is either a woman, or a man with a very feminine name. Apropos of not much, but it’s interesting that we tend to assume somebody who is “being a jerk” is a man. I would have made the same assumption.

Do I feel a little disingenuous about responding to the customer politely and without indication of my annoyance, while essentially glorifying her message behind her back on Twitter and now here? Yes. This is not really my style, and I don’t think it’s very classy of me to share the private message of a customer, even if I am preserving her anonymity.

But, I think this experience is instructive both to customers and other small-business owners. And since I already vented on Twitter and essentially let the cat out of the bag, I thought I might as well go all the way.

Staying In Touch

What does it mean to stay in touch? It means building and preserving a relationship with customers. The stronger the relationship, the greater the empathy for the other’s circumstance. But as with other relationships, the increase in communication and contact leads to an increased risk of misunderstanding and offense.

My letter served a valuable purpose. It let my customers know that I’m thinking about them, that the checkbox they vaguely remember leaving selected wasn’t pointless. That I do have plans for the company and for the products they purchased, and that I am interested in turning a new leaf with regard to communicating directly with them.

The challenging customer and my reaction to her has also been helpful. It reminds me of the related importance of “staying in touch” with my own values and priorities. Over the course of Red Sweater’s growth, I have used a very rules-based approach to how I handle just about everything. Running my own business means biting my tongue and doing “the right thing” even when the instinct in my animal brain wants to do the opposite. This is true for coding habits, fiscal responsibility, and yes, customer support habits. A variety of informal rules help to keep me in line.

As I have gained confidence in my own decisions, I find myself more prepared to break these rules. I suppose that pragmatism slowly takes over. When I first started out, I informed my decisions by asking “what would a good business do?” Then I learned to admire other Mac software companies such as Bare Bones, Rogue Amoeba, Panic, and Omni, and asked myself “what would they do?” I still defer often to the wisdom of others, but sometimes I have the distinct pleasure of asking myself “What would I do?” and acting on it. Staying in touch with myself is as important as staying in touch with my customers.