Comments Related To: Bullpucky: FG SQUARED Uses Social Media to Shake Down the City of Austin

Wow... congratulations on your thorough beating of a strawman! Unfortunately, you've wasted a lot of energy chasing a poor assumption. My name is Sam Eder, the creator of the"Keep Austin Interactive" twitition and, as you will undoubtably find with your Googling skills, not employed- now or in the past- by FG Squared. I created the twitition before I even heard of the Facebook group, having seen the article in the Austin Business Journal online.

Why would hundreds of of people in the interactive community be up in arms over the decision to outsource the CoA website? Why would we be upset that, just a week after individuals and companies from all over the world came to Austin to celebrate our community's continued leadership in the interactive industry during SXSW Interactive, we learn that our city officials would chose a non-Austin company to create the web property that will represent us?

Here's a hint- it has nothing to do with the firm that lost the bid. In fact, the vast majority of us are upset that in a city with a global reputation for tech leadership, our government officials are so disconnected with our industry that they would go forward with this ill advised RFP. Surely, when only 3 of over 200 companies invited to participate respond to an RFP there has to be seeds of doubt as to viability of the project in the first place.

Yes, it is regretable that the gang at FG Squared took such a early and vocal role but only because they allowed people like you to distract readers from the real issue at hand, to point out- shock of all shockers- that FG Square has a skin in this game. Now that we've established that fact, lets get back to the big problem here: CoA's total disconnect with the modern tech community. The lack of engagement with the thought leaders who live and work in Austin is going to result in wasted money and a sullied reputation for all parties involved.

Speaking of strawmen... you're attacking the RFP process and not the fact that the prices that were quoted were twice the amount of the winning bid.

There IS a disconnect, but it's with the tech community and how the City of Austin's RFP and bid process works. AND why it is that way--which is to make sure that the City gets the most competitive bid. The other bids Were Not Competitive. And the RFP was by no means rushed through.

Further, didn't mention the twittion as it didn't appear to be part of the shakedown. As a taxpayer, I'm quite frankly insulted and sickened by the presumption of the tech community that their Austin Services are So Important that we should raise taxes or cut spending on other projects to pay for their expertise when they obviously can't be bothered to check for RFPs or take the time to figure out how the process works.

Where were all you people when the City of Austin was doing their AustinGo town hall meetings? Where was the expertise? The help? The weighing in? The City of Austin was ASKING. And please, save the reply that "well they didn't sit in our laps and feed it to us" because obviously, if they had that capability THEY WOULDN'T NEED YOU.

I'm not the biggest CoA fan, but these hysterics from the tech community make me sad.

If you and your friends are THAT concerned about a site that really represents Austin the city, why don't you make one? You know, for free. As a hub. Show off your skills. Everyone CLAIMS they can do it, but it's one thing to set up a 140-character limit petition to attract people prone to wanting to whine about something and quite another to pony up with the actual talent and tenacity to do it.

I double dare you.

And let me set my record straight on this: I have bid on and won contracts with CoA and the State of Texas. The RFP process? Not fun. I get that, totally. My first bid was a disaster. Why? Because I didn't understand the process.

I think the tech community is used to being able to negotiate things and it doesn't surprise me that FG Squared wanted to give a presentation on what they wanted to do. For what they're charging, they need a dog a pony. The problem is, that's NOT how the process works. The City of Austin can't simply say, "Oh yeah, I like this better. It's twice the price, but hey, I think it's worth it!" Dell can do that. AMD can do that. The City of Austin can't.

Why? Well, the City of Austin doesn't have its own money. It has money from the taxpayers. There is a reason why municipal sites tend to not be the supercool ones that win awards. It's the same reason most City employees aren't driving around in Lexuses. City workers have to shop at Walmart. Maybe they'd rather go to Nordstrom's, but they can't afford it. It's not in their budget.

My educated guess is, if they did restrict it to just the 2 Austin bids, the proposals would still be kicked back for being too expensive. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I think previous bids for previous RFPs came in around that and CTM decided to try and do it in house.

And no, I didn't bid on this. It's too big. But had I the means and the Plone ability, I might've considered bidding on it and then, perhaps, building it as a flexible system that could be reskinned and see about selling it to other cities who need that sort of system (not going to run out of cities any time soon!) to make up the difference in profits.

But that's just what me and my man of straw have to say on the matter.

Charlet, I don't know you but it is obvious you are a savvy player in this space. That said, you know better than most that the REAL power in the government business game is in crafting the RFP. You know that price is the public facing issue but the battle is won or lost in the project requirements. So lets drop the pretense that this is about price- you know better and so do I.

It is known to only a few people (but I suspect that will change) is that the champion of the core requirements, one Mr. Pistol Pete, is no longer with the CoA. With the core project team gone, no one is around that truly understands why some of those requirements were made. It seems to me that this would be an immediate reason to halt the process and reconsider.

You argued that the interactive community were absent from the process. I say that we were absent by design. Where was the interactive community? We never heard about the AustinGo meetings! How was it advertised... in print? Seriously? Here's a crazy idea, how reaching out to the community through modern channels? Additionally, did the City reach out to the Austin Interactive Marketing Association or Austin chapter of the AMA? How about putting together a sitting "blue ribbon" panel of tech leaders that can help advise on these issues? The answer to all these questions is "no". So saying that we had our fair chance to participate is more than a bit disingenuous. The CoA has developed tunnel vision and, in its rigidity, has excluded us from the process.

Finally I'd like to revisit the issue of price, since you rightly pointed it out that CoA is spending our tax payer dollars. I put this to you: How much of my money has been wasted by the City because of the attitude you exhibited by blaming us for not participating? If I hold a customer event and only 3 people show up, my boss would demand that I change how I market those events. If I did it again with the same result, I would be fired because to run efficiently and make good decisions we can't be satisfied with saying "eh, those that didn't show up probably didn't have anything good to add". I have no idea why it is OK for the CoA to do the same- at tax payer expense.