The responses to the entailapps Twitter pitch remind me of a rule I've learned from watching focus groups: When users complain about a problem, they're often wrong about how to fix it. They're often even wrong about how to describe it. But they're always right that it exists.

I'm very aware that this rule applies to me as well. But I'm going to try to describe what's wrong and how to fix it anyway.

People are complaining that the pitch 'seems corporate.' What does that mean? Why is that a problem?

Most cons are corporate. Many sites are corporate. Even some artists self-incorporate. Lots of wonderful, appreciated furry things are corporate. Being corporate almost certainly isn't the problem.

So what do people mean by _seeming_ corporate? What about the wording of the pitch is setting people off?

People are looking for alternatives to existing sites like FA. But I don't think that most of the concerns are philosophical. They're often very pragmatic and specific. UX issues. ToS issues. Sharing and commenting issues. Poor support of certain kinds of art.

Retail's current pitch and website is all about 'Here's a bunch of positive buzzwords describing what we're doing' and a dash of 'Here's why we're great, happy people.' It's the sort of thing that a corporation _that's already well known and understood_ would do. 'You already know us. You already know what we offer. You've probably already more or less decided whether you like us or not. We just want you to think about us again.'

If you're new and nobody knows you, all of that sounds shallow and inauthentic.

Retail needs to give us a very specific taste of 'Here's why you, the consumer, should _care_ about what we're doing and how good we are. Here's what we'll specifically do for you.'