Zynga creative chief quits(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
Zynga creative chief quits
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444506004577618133483225566.html?mod=WSJ_hpsMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
46 comments
"Zynga creative chief" sounds like an oxymoron.
I don't like Zynga, but...
Why all this bashing? Not creative? Back in 2009, Zynga was THE role model for basically all viral methods on Facebook platform. You didn't have to do any R&D, just check out what they were doing.
That's creative allright in my book.
Why all this bashing? Not creative? Back in 2009, Zynga was THE role model for basically all viral methods on Facebook platform. You didn't have to do any R&D, just check out what they were doing.
That's creative allright in my book.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-the-social-gaming...
"A typical scam: users are offered in game currency in exchange for filling out an IQ survey. Four simple questions are asked. The answers are irrelevant. When the user gets to the last question they are told their results will be text messaged to them. They are asked to enter in their mobile phone number, and are texted a pin code to enter on the quiz. Once they’ve done that, they’ve just subscribed to a $9.99/month subscription."
"A typical scam: users are offered in game currency in exchange for filling out an IQ survey. Four simple questions are asked. The answers are irrelevant. When the user gets to the last question they are told their results will be text messaged to them. They are asked to enter in their mobile phone number, and are texted a pin code to enter on the quiz. Once they’ve done that, they’ve just subscribed to a $9.99/month subscription."
I'm quite aware of the "scams" they were pulling back then. Those "scams" were the ones that were indirectly getting most of the FBs profit.
But I'd kindly direct you to The Worst Argument [1], if the implied shadiness of becoming of Zynga is the argument you're trying to do.
But, along those lines - 'creative accounting' is an example of shady practices which are very creative indeed.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4441734
But I'd kindly direct you to The Worst Argument [1], if the implied shadiness of becoming of Zynga is the argument you're trying to do.
But, along those lines - 'creative accounting' is an example of shady practices which are very creative indeed.
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4441734
Perhaps you should redirect that reference to your not relevant link to the author of the article that is cited and quoted. You asked why Zynga was getting beaten up so much, you got an answer to your question.
Because they just copy existing games and then add their "micro transactions" and A/B testing on top? From FarmVille to Mafia Wars. They strive to create virtual operant conditioning chambers.
Feel an overwhelming need to link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odBDAcOEKuI
"THE role model for basically all viral methods on Facebook platform"
Creative ways to be greedy, and creativity, are worlds apart... they might even be in different universes.
Creative ways to be greedy, and creativity, are worlds apart... they might even be in different universes.
I guess they didn't need a "creative chief" after all.
"Mr. Verdu, whose last day was Tuesday, will be starting a new venture funded by Zynga, the company said."
My two favourite games on my iPhone were Draw Something and Words with Friends.. until they were bought by Zynga.
The apps have become so 'social' and zyngafied to the point of almost being unplayable. (Constant spam for other apps, 'fake' notifications for Zynga app updates, HUGE decrease in performance, and so on)
The apps have become so 'social' and zyngafied to the point of almost being unplayable. (Constant spam for other apps, 'fake' notifications for Zynga app updates, HUGE decrease in performance, and so on)
The day OMGPOP was bought by zynga - I deleted the game. Never went back. Never will play a zynga game.
The day quora fucked with user settings, I deleted my quora account.
I put my mouth where my money is. I am not content to be fucked with.
I have never had a facebook account for the same reasons.
I am sensing there is a market here.... (I'm lying... there has always ben a market here - just nobody with balls to tackle it - plus given the NSAs BS.. I am guessing there is one HNer that has not only the balls, but the technical chops to handle a great service... RDL)
The day quora fucked with user settings, I deleted my quora account.
I put my mouth where my money is. I am not content to be fucked with.
I have never had a facebook account for the same reasons.
I am sensing there is a market here.... (I'm lying... there has always ben a market here - just nobody with balls to tackle it - plus given the NSAs BS.. I am guessing there is one HNer that has not only the balls, but the technical chops to handle a great service... RDL)
So if you think that everyone to date is wrong and that there really is money in it--why aren't you doing it yourself? If you think it's a lack of "balls" keeping others from catering to your niche, do it yourself. But rather, I think that you're not giving people enough credit. Why would they cater to you when they can cater to people with lesser expectations and freer, larger-in-aggregate wallets?
It's not that there isn't a market. It's that that market is very high-maintenance and, if you look at other similar products, probably extremely difficult to effectively monetize. Targeting users who come with the twin attributes of being touchy and quick to leave and are probably unresponsive to advertising and other straightforward "you don't pay" models does not strike me as a brilliant decision. The success stories in the described niche--Tarsnap comes to mind--seem mostly to be very small businesses or strange attempts at capturing the zeitgeist a la App.net. (Tarsnap being a small business isn't an inherent negative; I personally have little use for the "startup startup startup, business plans optional" silliness that seems to be infecting the tech sector and cperciva has built a great product. But you're not complaining about Dropbox, you're complaining about Quora and Facebook, which have very different business needs.)
.
Or, put another, admittedly more cynical way: I don't know many people who want to cater to a market segment that will hate them as soon as they start needing to find ways to make payroll. Some people price themselves into or out of a market segment. You behave yourself out of what have heretofore been economically viable ones. Which is totally fine if that's your bag, but following that up with complaints that people who want to make money aren't interested in catering you is...curious.
There are generally easier ways to make money than to build low-barrier-to-departure services for demanding, temperamental people. So it goes.
It's not that there isn't a market. It's that that market is very high-maintenance and, if you look at other similar products, probably extremely difficult to effectively monetize. Targeting users who come with the twin attributes of being touchy and quick to leave and are probably unresponsive to advertising and other straightforward "you don't pay" models does not strike me as a brilliant decision. The success stories in the described niche--Tarsnap comes to mind--seem mostly to be very small businesses or strange attempts at capturing the zeitgeist a la App.net. (Tarsnap being a small business isn't an inherent negative; I personally have little use for the "startup startup startup, business plans optional" silliness that seems to be infecting the tech sector and cperciva has built a great product. But you're not complaining about Dropbox, you're complaining about Quora and Facebook, which have very different business needs.)
.
Or, put another, admittedly more cynical way: I don't know many people who want to cater to a market segment that will hate them as soon as they start needing to find ways to make payroll. Some people price themselves into or out of a market segment. You behave yourself out of what have heretofore been economically viable ones. Which is totally fine if that's your bag, but following that up with complaints that people who want to make money aren't interested in catering you is...curious.
There are generally easier ways to make money than to build low-barrier-to-departure services for demanding, temperamental people. So it goes.
Why would they cater to you when they can cater to people with lesser expectations and freer, larger-in-aggregate wallets?
Is that a serious question? If so: because at some point a larger, but highly competitive market promises much less profit than a smaller one that is completely untapped.
Is that a serious question? If so: because at some point a larger, but highly competitive market promises much less profit than a smaller one that is completely untapped.
Sure, but not thinking we're at that point isn't a failure of "balls", it's an economic calculation. The person I replied to wasn't thinking in terms of economics, he was thinking in terms of WANT WANT WANT.
I don't know many people who want to cater to a market segment that will hate them as soon as they start needing to find ways to make payroll.
So therefore the multi-billion dollar question is, what is it about the ways that companies are making payroll from these services that annoys people and are there any other ways of making these kinds of services pay for themselves that are less intrusive and annoying. Is an extremely difficult problem, admittedly, and just solving it isn't enough, it would also have to be implemented very well.
So therefore the multi-billion dollar question is, what is it about the ways that companies are making payroll from these services that annoys people and are there any other ways of making these kinds of services pay for themselves that are less intrusive and annoying. Is an extremely difficult problem, admittedly, and just solving it isn't enough, it would also have to be implemented very well.
Not only would it have to be implemented very well, but you have to get the normal people to use it too or else it's worthless.
Wanting to use on your own terms services that depend on network effects generally means either not using the services or shouting into an empty well.
Wanting to use on your own terms services that depend on network effects generally means either not using the services or shouting into an empty well.
I'm a bit confused by you invoking the word money. What money is Quora missing out on by you deleting your account?
It's an English idiom.
Doesn't necessarily mean cashmoney.
Doesn't necessarily mean cashmoney.
>> I put my mouth where my money is
It's normally "I put my money where my mouth is". As in, you're not just talk.
It's normally "I put my money where my mouth is". As in, you're not just talk.
The title is a bit misleading. He is starting to work at a venture funded by Zynga, so it is more like switching jobs than really quitting.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Zynga are noticing the issues they're having and trying to create a few more lifeboats.
Zynga are noticing the issues they're having and trying to create a few more lifeboats.
The moment Zynga decided they were going to make their money as a me-too game studio, they sealed their fate. You can get people in the Skinner Box for awhile, and get them to peck you millions upon millions of dollars, but eventually your brand is tarnished to the point where not even your most active users will vouch for you. And now they're going through the process of retiring executives and the standard hallmarks of a company desperately trying to make something broken work.
Wasn't this pretty much when they were created? If anything Zynga was considered to have even lower ethics earlier on, when they presented people with super low quality offers like SMS signups for people to earn things ingame.
They had a creative chief?
That must have been a really hard job, trying to pick which game to clone next...
That's a bit unfair to him. If you read the article his job was to represent creatives at the senior management level. That doesn't mean he was the creative dictator and at a company so focused on data-driven development, he probably didn't have much power at all. Which means he probably hated and/or disagreed with many decisions that were made and argued against them. Would explain him now leaving the company...
Or more cynically he supported the Zynga way and is only jumping ship now because the company is sinking.
I have a terrible feeling that WSJ is using hackernews here. This post is pretty meaningless, and the title does not agree with the few sentences of an "article."
"Quiting" has a much different connotation than being funded by your employer.
"Quiting" has a much different connotation than being funded by your employer.
It's my fault, not that of the WSJ. I could have picked a better word to describe it.
Guess people aren't laughing at Shay Pierce any more, huh?
Does that imply they have a whole creative team ?
Who did you think came up with all the graphics for their 'games'?
Kids drawn in from the circus by Mark Pincus in the clown suit.
Here is the same story not behind a paywall:
http://allthingsd.com/20120828/exclusive-zyngas-chief-creati...
http://allthingsd.com/20120828/exclusive-zyngas-chief-creati...
Thanks for that! I was somewhat interested, but not enough to subscribe to WSJ.
whenever you hit a wsj article that is firewalled, select the first line of text, search for it, and go back to wsj from google. you'll see the whole article.