The Lawrence Salberg vs. Pay Per Post Controversy

Or How All Four Parties Involved Screwed Up and Created a Five-Sided Coin

Backgrounder

Some of you who read this blog may not be familiar with the situation between a software engineer named Lawrence Salberg and a web-based company known as PayPerPost.

PayPerPost is a company that acts as an intermediary between bloggers and advertisers, giving bloggers the opportunity to post reviews of advertisers and their associated products and services on their blogs in exchange for some form of a revenue share (I believe it’s a 65/35 share, in favor of the blogger, but don’t hold me to that). According to a story posted on geek-cult-popular blog TechCrunch, Salberg decided to make use of the services of a headhunting firm known as Stratus Technologies. Salberg learned of a job opening at PayPerPost via a woman named “Lori Friend-Smiles” at Stratus Technologies, and after an “underwhelming interview” (presumably given by Lori, although it was never specified), decided to view the videos posted on PayPerPost’s video dump site.

At this point, Lawrence Salberg found himself thoroughly disgusted with PayPerPost (as many of us have). An email exchange ensued between Lori, Lawrence, and Peter Wright of PayPerPost, the contents of which I have taken from the TechCrunch site and reposted here, in order to save TC some bandwidth.

Read the email exchange.

So who is wrong in this situation? Everyone is. And here’s why:

Why Lawrence Salberg is Wrong

Before I get into why Lawrence Salberg is wrong in this instance, it’s only fair that I point out where he was correct:

• He was 100% right with his comments pertaining to the “spiked Kool-Aid” nature of some companies. The majority of companies, particularly those that either are large corporations or try to follow corporate “leaders”, end up creating work environments that require their employees to adopt borderline cultish tendencies in order to, at the very least, avoid becoming pariahs within their own workplaces. Buzzwords and slogans are drilled into the employees’ minds to the point where some degree of corporate brainwashing occurs, and the majority of people employed in these companies morph into automatons spouting gibberish such as “our infrastructure will make us a leader in the global marketplace.” It’s one of the major reasons why I choose to work with companies as a contractor rather than for companies as an employee; I can avoid most of the frustration I feel in dealing with people who are meaningless cogs in corporate machines and too brainwashed to realize it.
• Salberg is also right in that the Rockstartup.com videos do nothing to convince anyone in their right mind that PayPerPost is a long-term career option. This video shows three employees hard at work…no wait, they’re not working. They’re too excited to work! They’re going to DragonCon! (DragonCon?!?!?!?!? Talk about spreading a geek stereotype.)

Now that I’ve covered why he was right, let’s look at why Lawrence Salberg was wrong:

• From Lawrence’s email:
  

  I happen to like 6-12 month projects that Get Done, before the blood starts to flow and scope creep takes over.

  If he’s looking for project work, then why did he use Stratus Technologies as a headhunting firm? It is painfully obvious from looking at the Stratus Technologies career page that they’re promoting long-term careers for their prospective candidates (even if they are a headhunter and probably have other motives). If a headhunter totes careers on their website, the headhunter is going to tote careers for job opportunities.

• Trashing the PayPerPost company and showing an incredible degree of arrogance and lack of professionalism in the process, after they indirectly offered him a job opportunity. I’ve been in the position of someone who has had to hire people in the past, and one of the things that has always boggled my mind is the large number of people who insisted on trashing me or the companies I was working with despite being unemployed and looking for work in the same job sector I was looking for employees from! If you’re not interested in the job, then say “I don’t feel this line of work suits me” and leave it at that…even if the company does suck (and no, I’m not defending PayPerPost here, since they’re more than qualified in the department of corporate suckage).

  I don’t care who is doing the hiring (if/when I ever need to be hired again); you don’t get into an exchange with the person who offered me a potential job and predict that their company would be dead in two years. That’s biting the hand that could be feeding you.

• Sending the email to TechCrunch. TechCrunch is read by a number of tech-savvy people, including those who are in positions of hiring in companies with which Lawrence could seek contract employment…and if they read this, they’ll have to think long and hard before giving Salberg work, even with the glowing TechCrunch recommendation.

Why Lori Friend-Smiles Was Wrong

Lori only made one mistake in this equation, but it was a whopper; she forwarded the email, without permission, to PayPerPost. In doing so, she shared an email address without permission, and she also added to what was clearly a hostile situation already by bringing a third party into it. The best thing she could have done would be to either not respond to the email or do what Lawrence asked, apologize, and be done with it.

Why PayPerPost/Peter Wright Was Wrong

An argument can be made that Peter Wright was actually the most reasonable of the four parties, because he made at least some attempt to put a positive spin on the situation. However, he never should have responded to what was clearly a lost cause and a situation he wasn’t going to make any better. What was Peter Wright hoping to accomplish by defending himself from a personal attack that was never made in the first place?

Why TechCrunch Was Wrong

It is obvious that there is some very bad blood between TechCrunch and PayPerPost, and that’s their business. TechCrunch’s stance against PayPerPost is not entirely unjustified, either, if one removes the personal bad blood between PayPerPost CEO Ted Murphy and TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington. However, this is clearly a case where PayPerPost is, at the very worst, 1/3 to blame between the other three parties, and TechCrunch taking Salberg’s side as opposed to simply presenting Lawrence Salberg’s account of the facts in this story (and keep in mind that we haven’t heard from either PayPerPost or Lori Friend-Smiles) and leaving it at that. Arrington’s personal bias is evident here.

I don’t know any of the parties in question, but as an outside observer with part of the story, it appears that this is a case where everyone is wrong.

Permalink

Bookmark This Post