Whenever dealing with a contentious issue, it’s always wise to ensure you have a verbatim recording of what was said. That’s true whether in practice or as in my case, writing a blog that doesn’t fight shy on tough issues.
When I spoke with Michael Rose at Crunch, I recorded the short conversation knowing that if anyone chose to challenge assertions then I might need to show what was actually said. There is a link to that recording at the end of this post. (2 mins 34 secs) I leave it to others to decide what they make of the conversation but these are my thoughts:
In comments to Ben Kepes piece, Darren Fell, one of Crunch’s co-founders used most of the comment space to talk about how great the company is. To the points, he says:
The comments referenced in your article made by Michael Rose, who is a contractor to Crunch and who works in our marketing department, were made by him as a Crunch user – not as an accountant advising a customer. His words were intended as a helpful response to an unrelated accountant who had commented on an article about Crunch on the IT Counts web site – Michael has been a contractor for less than a year and has not yet gone through the process of year end accounts, so this would explain the gap in his knowledge. He’d like to thank the accountant for correcting what he said.
The blogger who then wrote a story claiming Crunch was giving the wrong advice, has twisted what actually happened; also calling Crunch and asking Michael, who deals with marketing, about the ins and outs of taxation.
[My emphasis added]
I have already drawn comparison with the quoted material that Mr Rose posted both here and at ICAEW site. Regardless of what Mr Fell thinks, there can be no denying what was written in both cases. Similarly, there is nothing in the recording that differs materially from what I also said:
I asked his status – he is both a contractor and someone who freelances for Crunch. I then asked why he was giving misleading information about the tax status of directors. He said he wasn’t really doing so but answering Emily’s question. I then read out to him what he said, asking why he is giving advice when he clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Remember that Mr Rose is someone who can be contacted by clients through Crunch’s listed phone number.
In fact, during the recording, Mr. Rose said: “I see what you mean.”
This is not a classic: ‘He said, she said’ situation. Mr Fell has chosen to market his way out of trouble on a different site. Instead of recognizing that there is a governance issue inside his business, he attempts to divert attention to issues that have nothing to do with the substance of the story. He says:
A point worth reminding people reading this blogger’s words – and he did indeed disclose this fact in an article in February 2009 – is that he has vested interests with a direct competitor accountancy software company and is a share holder. And we are actively winning customers from this company.
I don’t need to dignify this except to say that I instructed the company I wanted to divest as per my post 12th March. It is up to the company to ensure that all transactions related to any shareholdings are recorded appropriately. I assume that to be the case but if not then it is up to the company to resolve, not for me (or anyone else) to comment upon. Back to the plot.
If a person representing a company makes a public error then doesn’t it behoove the company to set the matter straight? Mr Fell has already admitted that Mr Rose “has not yet gone through the process of year end accounts” effectively confirming what I already knew: he was making public statements on issues about which he has no knowledge and rendering the view that he speaks on behalf of the company. In fact I’d be very surprised if a marketer had the first idea about tax matters so using year end as an explanation in his knowledge ‘gap’ is even the more surprising.
The crucial word is ‘we’ in the context of what was said. Since these comments relate to the financial affairs of individuals there is an onus on getting this right, otherwise you are at risk of creating false promises. Time and again I hear from professionals picking up the work of others only to discover that incorrect advice or misinterpretations of the tax code have required the untangling or re-statement of tax matters.
If a company fails to settle the matter sensibly then all the marketing in the world isn’t going to help because once the shadow of mistrust is in place, it’s a darned hard thing to rectify. In this case, Mr Fell is demonstrating that in his view, a healthy dollop of self congratulation combined with a bit of attempted character assassination on another site will suffice. It’s a crude attempt but one that won’t work. If anything, it encourages others to dig further to assess what else might be going on.
Finally, as I said in my original post about Crunch, I like the disruptive nature of a service that combines the benefits of saas accounting with a service that takes the client through to assurance and compliance. It’s the Apple model which has proven successful to the tune of that company having $25 billion in the bank. It’s one I have seen operating elsewhere to good effect. However, it opens up governance issues that require a higher standard than might be the case for saas providers which work with professionals. Given the facts as I’ve outlined, it will be interesting to see if the company alters it position. It has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
