What is it about AOL that makes its employees Kool-Aid consumers? I’m starting to wonder because either their employees are all brainwashed or really well-trained not to say anything to upset the corporate suits. Check out this question and answer from Download Squad and the CEO of recently-acquired AOL Property, Userplane.
DLS: Given recent headlines about AOL–the Vincent Ferrari call and the search data release–did you have concerns about AOL’s public image or practices going into the acquisition?
Jones: AOL has a long history as pioneers behind the consumer internet. Their recent headlines are unfortunate but not long lasting. After spending time within their organization and seeing where they are headed I could not be more excited about their direction and have no doubts on their handing of sensitive data. Userplane is extremely concerned about confidentiality within our network – if anything – I believe AOL will further enhance the security and privacy we already have in place.
Damn. This guy’s been a member of the AOL team less than a week and he’s already tip toeing on that line.
Their recent headlines are not some abomination, but an exhibition of what they’ve been better at keeping from view over past years than recently.
I’m not trying to bash AOL. They’re a company that has its good points and bad points, but let’s understand what they’re about. AOL has major issues up and down its heirarchy. My call, the woman whose dead dad was still getting billed, and the recent leak of thousands of search results are not some flash in the pan as Jones suggests. They’re emblematic of a corporate culture that sees its users as property with which they can do as they please.
I’m sorry but that’s not the way to operate.
And if you don’t believe me, here’s a point that proves it.
When the recording of John and I hit the media, John was fired instantly. The issue was “resolved” as far as AOL was concerned because they fired the offending employee and everything was all well and good. They got to the bottom of the issue, acted quickly, and something got done.
Point? It made AOL look bad, hurt AOL, and AOL acted quickly and authoritatively.
Now contrast that with the reaction to the data leak.
Surely you’ve seen it. Oh wait, you couldn’t have.
There hasn’t been one.
In fact, I e-mailed Nicholas Graham from AOL the following question:
Hey Nicholas,
Hope all is well.
Lots of my readers have been writing me to ask me what I thought about the recent data leak from the research department, and I’ve read lots of comments from various people inside the company, but none of them answered one question. What happens to the guys who let this out there? They apparently didn’t check with anyone before doing so (at least if you hear the comments being bandied about by various AOL Execs) and they clearly violated the privacy promise AOL makes its customers.
What’s AOL’s next step? Are there some terminations about to happen? Is someone going to be held accountable for doing this, apparently without the blessing of the folks higher up the ladder than them? The impression is that nothing is going to be done, and all the distancing is being done after the fact because of the bad publicity.
Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks,
Vincent Ferrari
To which I received the following reply:
Vincent. I got your email, and I hear ya. These are fair questions and we’re getting to the bottom of it through a thorough investigation of the facts. These questions fall under the internal review we’re conducting. Stay tuned, Nicholas
Now, I understand that Nicholas Graham is not in a position to fire / hire anyone. I also understand that he’s not the kind of guy who can pull strings and make people disappear. He’s just a spokesperson, and I’m fine with that. I wasn’t e-mailing him to ask him to do something, I e-mailed him to ask him what was being done.
The answer basically amounted to “We’re looking into it.”
What exactly is there to look into? They know who did it and who was responsible. Is a head going to roll or not?
Point? It hasn’t made AOL look as bad to the average consumer and it would appear that they’re going to just ride this one out and hope people forget about it (although, only time will truly tell).
Both stories go a long way toward showing off the attitude of AOL, but they also demonstrate the kind of company it really is. It also shoots down Jones’ argument that these headlines are short-lived. It isn’t about the headline, Michael, it’s about the underlying story. The sooner you learn that, the sooner things are going to be better for you there.
There are good people at AOL. Lots of ‘em. But you’ll never convince me that the atmosphere at that company is anything but toxic and even the best are going to succumb to it sooner or later.
[tags]aol, userplane[/tags]