Dear Yahoo, hire me as your next CEO(stu.mp)
stu.mp
Dear Yahoo, hire me as your next CEO
http://stu.mp/2011/06/dear-yahoo-hire-me-as-your-next-ceo.html
32 comments
If I learned anything from reading Hacker News, it would be to never underestimate the fanaticism people here have with Gruber, Erlang, Haskell, Node.js, etc..
Gruber is really smart because he always proves that Apple is the best.
Hmm... I understand the post's point, but it starts off so flawed that it's difficult to take any of it seriously. Yahoo does not have a super-duper market cap; Alibaba does and Yahoo owns 40% of Alibaba [1]; Yahoo certainly isn't a small company, but it's more like a unhealthy, unhappy, declining $6B company.
Big companies have big company issues because managing huge groups of people is a complex process. I like startups and bloggers as much as the next g(uy|al), but startups are not wonderful tonics that larger companies can buy to cure their ailments. One of the exact reasons lots of folks like startups is that we can avoid those issues. The post suggests that you can take a bunch of people who probably don't want to work in a big company, pull them in to a big company and have everything go well...
[1] http://www.quora.com/If-Yahoo-owns-40-of-Alibaba-and-thats-w...
Big companies have big company issues because managing huge groups of people is a complex process. I like startups and bloggers as much as the next g(uy|al), but startups are not wonderful tonics that larger companies can buy to cure their ailments. One of the exact reasons lots of folks like startups is that we can avoid those issues. The post suggests that you can take a bunch of people who probably don't want to work in a big company, pull them in to a big company and have everything go well...
[1] http://www.quora.com/If-Yahoo-owns-40-of-Alibaba-and-thats-w...
To diverge a bit, I'd love to see what jack ma from alibaba could do with yahoo. Yahoo still has impressively valuable assets, even if their tech isnt cutting edge on many products, they have users and traffic up the wazoo.
I like that he wants to be a CEO and thinks that "market cap" = "money in the bank".
pssshhh.. that's not what they are looking for. Hire me. I have the talent to acquire successful startups and either destroy it out right or stagnate it for 4 yrs while competitors get miles ahead. Thanks.
I don't think Jack Dorsey is going to be on board.
Let instagram - 4 people - run Flickr?
Nobody would be a better CEO than "Shpigler the shark": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=650U4-9CPew
Unfortunately, this isn't how finance works, so I can't hire you as CEO.
Yahoo has $1.5Bn in cash. Companies usually get bought for cash and stock that the company owns, or they can issue more stock if it's a merger that gets broad approval. YHOO doesn't have $20Bn to buy companies with, and if they did, they still couldn't make the investments you're talking about. Twitter alone is worth $8.5Bn on the secondary market... It would sell for more than $10Bn. And buying the New York Times for $1.5Bn would incur another bil in debt.
Yahoo has $1.5Bn in cash. Companies usually get bought for cash and stock that the company owns, or they can issue more stock if it's a merger that gets broad approval. YHOO doesn't have $20Bn to buy companies with, and if they did, they still couldn't make the investments you're talking about. Twitter alone is worth $8.5Bn on the secondary market... It would sell for more than $10Bn. And buying the New York Times for $1.5Bn would incur another bil in debt.
I think the author is trying to make a point about acquisitions and the value of talent being left alone, not seriously pitch himself as a potential Yahoo CEO hire.
Yahoo's stock is worth 20 billion. You can acquire companies for stock and cash. When a company is public, you can acquire more easily in exchange for stock.
Mark Cuban became a billionaire from his Yahoo stock he got from the acquisition of broadcast.com.
Mark Cuban became a billionaire from his Yahoo stock he got from the acquisition of broadcast.com.
[deleted]
Yahoo's stock is worth 20 billion... and is mostly owned by shareholders. Yahoo can't give it to someone else, because people like me own it.
Edit: Suking is right, they could issue new shares... IF people actually wanted Yahoo shares and a target company would actually accept them. (would not happen)
Edit: Suking is right, they could issue new shares... IF people actually wanted Yahoo shares and a target company would actually accept them. (would not happen)
Not mention even if they had the $20B to buy all those companies. You now have a portfolio of companies that really don't make much/any money. Those smart people aren't going to work for free!
They would create new shares. If they buy someone for $4bn, they create $4bn in new shares and if the public market values the acquisition at $4bn, the price will remain the same. Usually, companies that acquire pay a premium and will take a dip though.
I was waiting for him to suggest he would also buy Google & Facebook.
Nailed it. Surprised he didn't add, "I'd go back in time 10 years and buy google for $1mm". Might as well have added that in to his pitch.
I think the real differentiator in your policy is not the acquiring of talent, but the giving of autonomy to employees (which is something that can be done without spending money).
If only Yahoo would give autonomy to their own (I bet also pretty talented engineers); it would go a long way to a better Yahoo.
If only Yahoo would give autonomy to their own (I bet also pretty talented engineers); it would go a long way to a better Yahoo.
Yahoo's past notable problems which are usually mentioend are that they had competiting divisions of the same company.
They had Geocities and Yahoo webhosting.
They had Flickr and Yahoo Photos.
---
Their current problem is poor execution.
They've wanted to go into social media for a long time, and failed in many efforts.
Years ago Yahoo Profiles existed with explicit tie in with Yahoo Messenger.
Then Facebook came onto the scene and social became the new 'in thing'.
Yahoo Profiles was redesigned.
Then Yahoo Buzz was launched and poorly integrated with the above.
At the same time they had a stealth platform with its own social networking features.
They shut down the above stealth platform and redesigned Yahoo Profiles as Yahoo Pulse.
Now they're shutting down many of the features of Yahoo pulse--guest books, photos, blogging. Yahoo Buzz is gone as well.
-----
I question:
1. Why didn't Yahoo Profiles integrate with Flickr?
2. Why didn't they integrate with delicious? At one time Yahoo Profiles allowed you to add links to other pages, but these bookmarks were never replicated to delicious.
3. Why is Yahoo Profiles poorly integrated with Yahoo Groups? Will Yahoo groups get the axe next?
In the end, Yahoo's problem is though they have all the pieces of the puzzle , they have no clue how to put it together. Their divisions compete rather than provide synergy for one another.
They're not a vertically or even horizontally integrated product. Rather they are more like an amorphous conglomorate that sadly locks down its own internal products so that they aren't allowed to integrate even where it would be useful.
They had Geocities and Yahoo webhosting.
They had Flickr and Yahoo Photos.
---
Their current problem is poor execution.
They've wanted to go into social media for a long time, and failed in many efforts.
Years ago Yahoo Profiles existed with explicit tie in with Yahoo Messenger.
Then Facebook came onto the scene and social became the new 'in thing'.
Yahoo Profiles was redesigned.
Then Yahoo Buzz was launched and poorly integrated with the above.
At the same time they had a stealth platform with its own social networking features.
They shut down the above stealth platform and redesigned Yahoo Profiles as Yahoo Pulse.
Now they're shutting down many of the features of Yahoo pulse--guest books, photos, blogging. Yahoo Buzz is gone as well.
-----
I question:
1. Why didn't Yahoo Profiles integrate with Flickr?
2. Why didn't they integrate with delicious? At one time Yahoo Profiles allowed you to add links to other pages, but these bookmarks were never replicated to delicious.
3. Why is Yahoo Profiles poorly integrated with Yahoo Groups? Will Yahoo groups get the axe next?
In the end, Yahoo's problem is though they have all the pieces of the puzzle , they have no clue how to put it together. Their divisions compete rather than provide synergy for one another.
They're not a vertically or even horizontally integrated product. Rather they are more like an amorphous conglomorate that sadly locks down its own internal products so that they aren't allowed to integrate even where it would be useful.
I worked on Profiles and Pulse so here are some answers.
1. Roadmaps. It wasn't high on Flickr's roadmap. Profiles integration provided little to no value to them. Plus the way Yahoo! works it would have taken months just to figure out what an "integration" meant. It was talked about (several times).
2. Probably similar reasons as above. This wasn't really talked about. Delicious was kind of a red headed step child internally. Not sure many execs realized it's value - hence the dwindling of the team and eventual selloff.
3. Roadmaps. Yahoo Groups! is huge and understaffed. Even if both sides wanted to do an integration it would take months to decide what that would look like. Given the rate of attrition the people involved might not even be around long enough to see it through.
Interesting blog post but Yahoo!s problems run real deep. You almost have to gut the company to salvage it. Makes me sad :(.
1. Roadmaps. It wasn't high on Flickr's roadmap. Profiles integration provided little to no value to them. Plus the way Yahoo! works it would have taken months just to figure out what an "integration" meant. It was talked about (several times).
2. Probably similar reasons as above. This wasn't really talked about. Delicious was kind of a red headed step child internally. Not sure many execs realized it's value - hence the dwindling of the team and eventual selloff.
3. Roadmaps. Yahoo Groups! is huge and understaffed. Even if both sides wanted to do an integration it would take months to decide what that would look like. Given the rate of attrition the people involved might not even be around long enough to see it through.
Interesting blog post but Yahoo!s problems run real deep. You almost have to gut the company to salvage it. Makes me sad :(.
YQL goes a little way in this direction, but I think all yahoo products should have a public API.
Then we can have mashups created by the public, and then Yahoo can pick and choose.
Then we can have mashups created by the public, and then Yahoo can pick and choose.
I always said that YQL is the most underutilized technology at Yahoo! (internally and externally). It has/had the potential to do what it claimed, select * from internet;.
It's great, but I don't want to build anything that relies on it in case they suddenly pull a Y! BOSS on it, or just shut it off completely. It is good for prototyping, though.
(There's always a risk when integrating with third-party services, but Yahoo! seems is a bit too shaky and capricious for my liking.)
(There's always a risk when integrating with third-party services, but Yahoo! seems is a bit too shaky and capricious for my liking.)
Agreed. My statements assumed a Yahoo! which wasn't optimizing itself to shut down services.
Idd, sad, it looks like Yahoo is working like a bureaucratic internet company from xx years ago. They could do so much amazing things.
Awesome services that anyone would want to acquire. Who's paying for them, again? Yahoo's cash balance doesn't even scratch the surface of the cash required for this list...and something's telling me that they won't want Yahoo stock in exchange for their blossoming and valuable companies.
The hard part: making people (like Jack Dorsey and the rest) believe they should do their best work for your company.
This is a very parishiltonesque approach to management. Also, why would the acquisitions listed work out for Yahoo!, while Broadcast.com, Geocities, Kimo, HotJobs, Flickr (Ludicorp), Delicious, Dialpad, Konfabulator, Upcoming and Zimbra did not?
Flickr is one of the few places where Yahoo gave them autonomy, and its paid off in their retaining profitability.
Yahoo unfortunately doesn't let Flickr innovate so they've fallen behind now adays.
Yahoo unfortunately doesn't let Flickr innovate so they've fallen behind now adays.
I've always been struck by the juxtaposition of Yahoo's commercial efforts and their developer-friendly efforts. YUI was kickass (until jQuery came along). YSlow is the benchmark for measuring site performance, smushit etc. etc. their developers have contributed so much. Just doesn't seem to be parlayed into greater commercial success.
[deleted]
I just graduated from college and even I can see how short sighted and naive this statement is.
Does he really think you can just waltz around and "buy" companies? Remember...Morin and Dorsey are already rich. Why would they sell to you?
CEOs also do way more than just buy things. This post just shows how naive and sheltered the poster really is.
Does he really think you can just waltz around and "buy" companies? Remember...Morin and Dorsey are already rich. Why would they sell to you?
CEOs also do way more than just buy things. This post just shows how naive and sheltered the poster really is.
So the plan is to basically throw a bunch of money at the biggest egos on the planet, then give each of them 100% autonomy over divisions like "Photos", "PR & Marketing", "Social", and "Mobile." I'm not sure Joe understands the phrase "100% autonomy." No overlap between those areas at all.
Oh, this web webdeveloer can be the CEO? And his plan is to buy a bunch of companies that make pretty things and give their founders free reign over their entire section of Yahoo! so that Yahoo! would just become a huge collection of brightly colored products with no real strategy? Well, I'm sold.
>Oh, this web webdeveloer can be the CEO?
Read the bottom of the page.
Read the bottom of the page.
I don't care much for the financial aspect of this, but if it's the thought that counts, I think it's great.
If you can, take in some of the great talent (not just individuals) and rebuild! And the idea that
"They would have 100% autonomy over the entire “Yahoo! [Photo, Mobile, Social, News]” division."
seems great! Especially from the AOL/TechCrunch content posted here about who has the upper hand.
If you can, take in some of the great talent (not just individuals) and rebuild! And the idea that
"They would have 100% autonomy over the entire “Yahoo! [Photo, Mobile, Social, News]” division."
seems great! Especially from the AOL/TechCrunch content posted here about who has the upper hand.
haha brilliant, what Yahoo needs is to buy more services that aren't even approaching break even. As brilliant as these companies might be at product as a public company Yahoo needs to make profit not promises ;-)
I'd like to see some mad genius infographics of the new kind of job application "i want to be your ceo". That could be fun.
downside of bringing all that people from the outside would be to loose the current talent thats on board, imagine the people that have stayed with yahoo through the worst being limited in creativity not having much freedom hoping for a chance to lead being shut down again by putting someone else from outside in charge, i know i would quit.
on the other hand i do agree that they could have done better if they'd remained an operations level leads type of company, kinda like all the cool cats are doing right now.
on the other hand i do agree that they could have done better if they'd remained an operations level leads type of company, kinda like all the cool cats are doing right now.
[deleted]
Is him serious? He doesn't have experience running Big Companies, and his plan is just buying other start-ups and integrating them in Yahoo.
It's like he wants to solve problems by throwing money at them. If this works, then the previous CEO would have probably done the same and the start-ups he mentioned would have already been acquired by some Big Names.
It's like he wants to solve problems by throwing money at them. If this works, then the previous CEO would have probably done the same and the start-ups he mentioned would have already been acquired by some Big Names.
Looks like this guy is looking for a job at Yahoo and decided to augment his resume with this in hopes of impressing someone over there.
Doesn't look like he's even remotely qualified to be CEO of a startup, let alone a $20B publicly traded corporation. Never mind the 'strategy' he outlines, which sounds like something out of a Starbucks brainstorming session.
Doesn't look like he's even remotely qualified to be CEO of a startup, let alone a $20B publicly traded corporation. Never mind the 'strategy' he outlines, which sounds like something out of a Starbucks brainstorming session.
I know Joe (well, knew, we haven't talked in a few years), but he's a great hustler (in the best sense of the word). Frankly, Yahoo needs someone who doesn't have experience running a $20B company. All the CEOs since Yang have run the company in to the ground.
Key among Yahoo's bad decisions: let's abandon search and become a 'media' company (based on 30 year old concepts of 'media' from a 'media' insider, all of which were rapidly becoming obsolete even 10 years ago).
Failing to get the internal groups to cooperate. Yes, it's hard. So what? That's what a CEO's job should be - do the hard stuff. The example about "well, integration wasn't on Flickr's roadmap'. Probably 110% true, but so what? Yahoo bought Flickr. Flickr's roadmap should have been Yahoo's roadmap, and Yahoo needed a coherent roadmap.
It's been so disheartening to see Yahoo move from an innovative company to "the place companies get acquired then die at".
Yahoo needs someone like Joe far more than it needs another Silicon Valley "insider board member" type. Yahoo's had a decade plus of "business types" who were going to "turn things around" and all that typical business BS. It's time for a real change. Not saying Joe specifically, but they need an outsider. I fear the shareholders are just too timid to demand real change.
The only place I'd disagree with Joe on in his list is the '100% autonomy' bits. It's the "100% autonomy" which got Yahoo in to problems, with no department being forced to integrate with another. I suspect with the right people in place, "100% autonomous decisions" may still mesh nicely with a focus on across the board integrated experiences, but I'd still want that to be a priority.
Key among Yahoo's bad decisions: let's abandon search and become a 'media' company (based on 30 year old concepts of 'media' from a 'media' insider, all of which were rapidly becoming obsolete even 10 years ago).
Failing to get the internal groups to cooperate. Yes, it's hard. So what? That's what a CEO's job should be - do the hard stuff. The example about "well, integration wasn't on Flickr's roadmap'. Probably 110% true, but so what? Yahoo bought Flickr. Flickr's roadmap should have been Yahoo's roadmap, and Yahoo needed a coherent roadmap.
It's been so disheartening to see Yahoo move from an innovative company to "the place companies get acquired then die at".
Yahoo needs someone like Joe far more than it needs another Silicon Valley "insider board member" type. Yahoo's had a decade plus of "business types" who were going to "turn things around" and all that typical business BS. It's time for a real change. Not saying Joe specifically, but they need an outsider. I fear the shareholders are just too timid to demand real change.
The only place I'd disagree with Joe on in his list is the '100% autonomy' bits. It's the "100% autonomy" which got Yahoo in to problems, with no department being forced to integrate with another. I suspect with the right people in place, "100% autonomous decisions" may still mesh nicely with a focus on across the board integrated experiences, but I'd still want that to be a priority.
I know. Microsoft and the DOJ certainly didn't help. Neither did Carl Icann.
FYI, from the bottom of the page; "I'm CTO and co-founder of SimpleGeo. Before that I was Lead Architect for Digg."
Let's hire the smartest people we can find to improve our crappy products and bring them to market- rarely works for startups and certainly won't work for a corporation.
Are you kidding? I get Gruber is a popular blogger in some circles, but in what way does he have the kind of insight, ability, or experience needed to run the new york times and yahoo news?