A company she'd had a bad experience with in the past tried to, in a tacky manner, engage her again by dismissing their competitor. She clearly cites why she does't use them anymore (because the company publicly tweeted she was using them, which anyone would be bent over), and the kid had the gall to say that she lacked class for not thanking him for a free trial. A. Free. Trial. And his biggest issue is that she never gave him free publicity for a service that she was trialing. Not "We're sorry about the previous confusion, we'd love to have you back," not "This was a misstep for us, how can we do better?" not "We took your feedback to heart and no longer announce this publicly."
We're talking about a personal Twitter account vs. a business one. Unless you're dealing with an absolute troll, you don't engage potential customers like this - especially when they have a completely valid point. Companies tweeting on your behalf or trying to use your likeness for publicity purposes is an issue that has come up multiple times here with much dismay. Why is it any different here?
This attitude is why I don't blog; I have a lot ideas for posts but a lot of them are how X can improve Y, and I tend to write with a "charged/enthusiastic" tone because, surprise, I'm passionate about this stuff.
I agree with Jeremy Bee on that comment page, her so-called attitude (which I'm failing to see at all here) in these tweets would be a non-issue if Danielle were male. Back-and-forths like this happen every day on Twitter; this is what the platform is best at. I'm honestly astounded that people are trying to shift any of the blame here on her for calling the guy out. She couldn't have been more indifferent about stating the truth of the matter, but apparently that makes her a drama bomb, "not a queen herself" and other ridiculously gender-charged labels.
A company she'd had a bad experience with in the past tried to, in a tacky manner, engage her again by dismissing their competitor. She clearly cites why she does't use them anymore (because the company publicly tweeted she was using them, which anyone would be bent over), and the kid had the gall to say that she lacked class for not thanking him for a free trial. A. Free. Trial. And his biggest issue is that she never gave him free publicity for a service that she was trialing. Not "We're sorry about the previous confusion, we'd love to have you back," not "This was a misstep for us, how can we do better?" not "We took your feedback to heart and no longer announce this publicly."
We're talking about a personal Twitter account vs. a business one. Unless you're dealing with an absolute troll, you don't engage potential customers like this - especially when they have a completely valid point. Companies tweeting on your behalf or trying to use your likeness for publicity purposes is an issue that has come up multiple times here with much dismay. Why is it any different here?
This attitude is why I don't blog; I have a lot ideas for posts but a lot of them are how X can improve Y, and I tend to write with a "charged/enthusiastic" tone because, surprise, I'm passionate about this stuff.
I agree with Jeremy Bee on that comment page, her so-called attitude (which I'm failing to see at all here) in these tweets would be a non-issue if Danielle were male. Back-and-forths like this happen every day on Twitter; this is what the platform is best at. I'm honestly astounded that people are trying to shift any of the blame here on her for calling the guy out. She couldn't have been more indifferent about stating the truth of the matter, but apparently that makes her a drama bomb, "not a queen herself" and other ridiculously gender-charged labels.