Most active commenters
  • p_l(4)
  • lelanthran(3)

←back to thread

Slack has raised our charges by $195k per year

(skyfall.dev)
2071 points JustSkyfall | 19 comments | 18 Sep 25 01:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.018s | source | bottom
Show context
casq ◴[18 Sep 25 04:09 UTC] No.45285280[source]▶
Hi, I’m Christina, cofounder of Hack Club. We just announced this news to our community, and this post is from one of the teenagers in Hack Club. It’s an accurate description of what’s happened, and we’re grateful to them for posting. Slack changed the terms of a special deal we were given last year to charge us for staff and volunteers (not for every teenager coding), and we built programs around that special rate. Then this spring they changed the terms to every single user without telling us or sending a new contract, and then ignored our outreach and delayed us and told us to ignore the bill and not to pay as late as Aug 29

Then, suddenly, they called us 2 days ago and said they are going to de-activate the Hack Club Slack, including all message history from 11 years, unless we pay them $50,000 USD this week and $200,000 USD/year moving forward (plus additional annual fees for new accounts, including inactive ones)

For anyone reading this, we would really appreciate any way to contact people at Salesforce to discuss time to migrate because deactivating us in 5 days destroys all the work of thousands of teen coders at Hack Club and alum unnecessarily. We are not asking for anything for free. This was an underhanded process by the sales team to raise our rate exorbitantly from a qualified educational 501(c)(3) charity serving young developers or destroy all their projects, DMs and work forever. If Salesforce’s goals have changed- ok. Give us a reasonable amount of time to migrate- and don’t club us over the head like this. We have had an 11 year great relationship with Slack- and have introduced the company to many many future engineers and founders. My email if you can help us: christina@hackclub.com

replies(19): >>45287173 #>>45287278 #>>45287335 #>>45287354 #>>45287381 #>>45287482 #>>45287510 #>>45287733 #>>45288679 #>>45288933 #>>45288958 #>>45289047 #>>45289244 #>>45289590 #>>45289994 #>>45290160 #>>45290193 #>>45290303 #>>45290405 #
1. p_l ◴[18 Sep 25 08:57 UTC] No.45287278[source]▶
Isn't changing the terms of a deal without even sending you a new contract pretty much illegal anywhere sane? Even between business entities?
replies(4): >>45287518 #>>45287616 #>>45288178 #>>45289422 #
2. lelanthran ◴[18 Sep 25 09:29 UTC] No.45287518[source]▶
We don't know (but the norm is) if the original contract had a sunset clause.

Almost every special rate I have ever negotiated had specific clauses about when the rate will end, even if there was no specific date there's always something about "rate is reviewed annually" or similar.

I am constantly surprised by the number of people with "manager " in their title who don't know how to read a legal document.

The other thing is you cannot build anything sustainable by depending on the charity of a single company.

replies(2): >>45287682 #>>45288090 #
3. zeroq ◴[18 Sep 25 09:43 UTC] No.45287616[source]▶
In EU a vendor can amend a contract but it gives the client the opportunity to breach that contract without consequences.

On a smaller scale it happens on a monthly basis with telecomms - almost never with rates, but they amend privacy policy and stuff - as a customer a change in the contract gives you an opportunity to say you're not accepting new contract, within certain timeframe, and walk away.

I guess this is simmilar - they told them they are changing the contract, and under new circumstances they will have to pay this and that, but they are free to walk away and pay nothing.

Still a dick move.

replies(2): >>45287945 #>>45288256 #
4. Dylan16807 ◴[18 Sep 25 09:54 UTC] No.45287682[source]▶
> The other thing is you cannot build anything sustainable by depending on the charity of a single company.

This wasn't charity from Slack. They paid for the service, and they can migrate if it's truly necessary.

replies(1): >>45288086 #
5. p_l ◴[18 Sep 25 10:32 UTC] No.45287945[source]▶
Well, you can amend a contract, but you need to send the new conditions, and it gives the other party option of not accepting the new contract, which means either amending party needs to accept continuation under old contract, or dissolution of the contractual relationship with no fees/damages/etc for the party that didn't accept new contract.

The part that I find egregious is that apparently Slack didn't even send a new contract.

6. eru ◴[18 Sep 25 10:54 UTC] No.45288086{3}[source]▶
The special rate was charity.
replies(1): >>45288449 #
7. eru ◴[18 Sep 25 10:54 UTC] No.45288090[source]▶
> I am constantly surprised by the number of people with "manager " in their title who don't know how to read a legal document.

Well, that's what you have lawyers for.

Otherwise, agreed with your comment.

replies(1): >>45289686 #
8. Aeolun ◴[18 Sep 25 11:08 UTC] No.45288178[source]▶
You need to be able and willing to fight the other party in court. I doubt anyone there is enthusiastic about that.
replies(1): >>45288835 #
9. chii ◴[18 Sep 25 11:22 UTC] No.45288256[source]▶
> but they are free to walk away and pay nothing.

not so for a service which holds your data hostage (unless 'walking away' means you're also able to walk away with your data).

replies(1): >>45288723 #
10. raphman ◴[18 Sep 25 11:44 UTC] No.45288449{4}[source]▶
If a special rate that better fits an organization's usage patterns is "charity", then any rate that is not extracting the maximum amount of money from the customer is also "charity", no?

To some degree, reduced rates for non-profit organization and schools are not offered because large companies want to be nice, but because they want to catch future customers.

replies(2): >>45288689 #>>45289260 #
11. lelanthran ◴[18 Sep 25 12:17 UTC] No.45288689{5}[source]▶
> If a special rate that better fits an organization's usage patterns is "charity", then any rate that is not extracting the maximum amount of money from the customer is also "charity", no?

Maybe, but that's not what happened here. It wasn't "a rate better suited to an organisation's usage patterns", it was, more precisely "A heavily/1% reduced rate."

No reasonable person can have the expectation that a discount of $195k on a $200k bill is going to continue forever!

At this discount, it really is charity.

replies(2): >>45289503 #>>45290078 #
12. p_l ◴[18 Sep 25 12:21 UTC] No.45288723{3}[source]▶
That's an interesting topic that someone should sic some lawyers on, tbqh.
13. p_l ◴[18 Sep 25 12:33 UTC] No.45288835[source]▶
Depends on what you want to fight about.

If your rates were raised and you have not received new contract, if you can drop the service at that point, they can't collect including any cancellation fees.

If you want to continue using the service, that's a bit trickier.

14. paulcole ◴[18 Sep 25 13:13 UTC] No.45289260{5}[source]▶
Yes, that is correct.
15. conductr ◴[18 Sep 25 13:26 UTC] No.45289422[source]▶
The terms of the deal almost certainly specified they are allowed to change terms at their discretion in the future
16. swiftcoder ◴[18 Sep 25 13:33 UTC] No.45289503{6}[source]▶
> it was, more precisely "A heavily/1% reduced rate."

It's more a tacit admission by Slack that their pricing model can't possible work for orgs that don't match a strict employer-employee model.

Nobody would agree to pay per-seat for every customer who uses a support tool, for example (which is much closer to the model this nonprofit is operating)

17. behringer ◴[18 Sep 25 13:50 UTC] No.45289686{3}[source]▶
You have a lawyer to warn you about things you might not notice in your contract. But to not know your general payment terms comes off as pretty lazy.
replies(1): >>45290083 #
18. mlyle ◴[18 Sep 25 14:22 UTC] No.45290078{6}[source]▶
No one is ever going to pay per-seat for tens of thousands of teenage volunteers. If you're an unusual customer (nonprofit, with lots of volunteers and program people in the slack) you might end up with a long term special deal recognizing those circumstances (charging you for employees but not others).

The biggest issue is the abrupt change in policy. Slack had wanted Hack Club's patronage and had supported it. (Shoot, getting Slack visible to tens of thousands of future decision makers instead of Discord where these users all naturally congregate was a major win!)

To abruptly demand a massive immediate payment after a month's worth of mixed signals, from a small nonprofit, is messed up.

19. lelanthran ◴[18 Sep 25 14:23 UTC] No.45290083{4}[source]▶
> But to not know your general payment terms comes off as pretty lazy.

TBH, in this specific case you don't even need to read the fine print to know that getting a $195k discount on a $200k bill is only a temporary thing!