The CEO of Intuit (who make financial software) did an interview, and it seems a pretty normal interview. But some senior guy at the company asked for part of the interview to be deleted, after it took place.
By putting in that unusual request (rather angrily), more attention is being drawn to the interview.
Thoughts?
Most of that interview is deadly dull and there’s no way I would have read to the end.
Very nice of Intuit to highlight the juicy parts.
As another comment said, I also dropped everything and read the article. So yeah I guess that’d mean Streisand effect is coming into play.
Regarding the topic at hand: I don’t care what these companies say at this point. The fact is that in the past, I have used their services, clicked the “free” button, did some things, and then ended up having to pay them money.
Until the day comes that I get a letter in the mail from the government saying, “Here’s how much you paid in taxes, if you’re cool with that then please disregard”, I will not be satisfied.
Until the day comes that I get a letter in the mail from the government saying, “Here’s how much you paid in taxes, if you’re cool with that then please disregard”, I will not be satisfied.
NZ does that. More accurately, they email you to tell you that there’s a letter available online - I don’t think they send physical mail by default.
Then they pay any refund straight into your nominated bank account.
I have more important things to do than to lobby the government to send a tax bill.
Why would the CEO be dumb enough to say this in an interview? If your business model is fucking people, your CEO has to have a cool head when asked if he’s fucking people!
[Drops everything to read the article. ]
same
No one from Intuit has any business asking an interviewer to, essentially, falsify data that can easily influence share price. If Goodarzi can’t take the heat in an important interview, then her minions failed to prep her adequately. That’s a “you” problem, Miss “I am Intuit”, not the reporter’s problem.
Sasan Goodarzi is a man, btw.
For now
The hell does that mean? They are a shithead CEO, doesn’t need to be more than that.
Absolutely, these corporate types are so clueless when it comes to public messaging.
They realized that it’s obvious that they’re the bad guys, and the interview response wasn’t convincing. But then to try to bully the interviewer into deleting it? That just seems stupid.
There’s a reason they do it. For every time we hear about it, there are 100 stories that got buried using the same strategy
hahahahahahaha they don’t like it one bit when their dirt is put on display for all to see
Objection!
On what grounds?
It’s devastating to my case!
Overruled!
Good call!
