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?
[Drops everything to read the article. ]
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.
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.
Shirley you’ve heard of absurdist humor?
I have and don’t call me Shirley.
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!
Eh. Honestly, the line of “questions” was rather stupid.
“Why aren’t you lobbying to make your business irrelevant” is essentially what the interviewer pushed aggressively.
Sure, I get calling out a CEO for deflecting tough questions with corporate BS. But it was a pretty dumb line of questioning in the first place.
Why isn’t Google lobbying for privacy protections?
Why isn’t Comcast lobbying for net neutrality?
Just make your statement and ask for comment. “Our listeners consider Intuits lobbying against tax reform that would benefit tax payers to be adversarial to their customers. What would you say to them?”
I don’t know, I see Nilay’s question as “why aren’t you doing what’s ethical?” and I always welcome that line of questioning.
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.
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.
The US government has a lot of work to do before they can be trusted to do that. They’re allowing a serial rapist, liar and grifter to run for a second term as president, their collective decision making is questionable at best.
You are mixing up unrelated things. Politics is a circus but that doesn’t mean the Government can’t do certain things well.
