Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths(businessweek.com)
businessweek.com
Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-02/tinders-forgotten-woman-whitney-wolfe-sexism-and-startup-creation-myths
101 comments
>says a lot about how Rad and Mateen view the women who use their app //
Isn't the point of the app to enable promiscuity. "Slut" is a word for a promiscuous woman, sometimes used for a prostitute, sometimes used of men (in UK at least). Surely they viewed the women who use the app as wanting to have free and easy sexual encounters, ie behave like sluts?
When the slang that associated their app with the actions of those using it, viz "tinderslut", was popularised were they not justified to consider that an achievement - the app was clearly notorious for enabling promiscuous behaviour, exactly the behaviour it was designed for.
There seems little controversial in them calling active users of their app sluts (men or women).
For me there is much to hate about the app morally but it seems rather silly to get upset that the designers of the app that people use to seek out promiscuous sex consider their users to be in to promiscuous sex?!
Isn't the point of the app to enable promiscuity. "Slut" is a word for a promiscuous woman, sometimes used for a prostitute, sometimes used of men (in UK at least). Surely they viewed the women who use the app as wanting to have free and easy sexual encounters, ie behave like sluts?
When the slang that associated their app with the actions of those using it, viz "tinderslut", was popularised were they not justified to consider that an achievement - the app was clearly notorious for enabling promiscuous behaviour, exactly the behaviour it was designed for.
There seems little controversial in them calling active users of their app sluts (men or women).
For me there is much to hate about the app morally but it seems rather silly to get upset that the designers of the app that people use to seek out promiscuous sex consider their users to be in to promiscuous sex?!
"Slut" is a derogatory term, it has connotations and meanings well beyond the most literal definition of "promiscuous person".
Calling Tinder user "sluts" is no more appropriate than calling my Chinese users "chinks", or my gay users "faggots".
It seems intentionally obtuse to pretend that the term doesn't have a gigantic truckload of derogatory connotations behind it.
Calling Tinder user "sluts" is no more appropriate than calling my Chinese users "chinks", or my gay users "faggots".
It seems intentionally obtuse to pretend that the term doesn't have a gigantic truckload of derogatory connotations behind it.
What are the negative connotations? I thought the only reason it was considered a bad term was purely because it was considered bad 60 years ago for a woman to be promiscuous. I.e. The insult was calling them promiscuous.
The same negative connotation of "faggot" and "chink" - i.e., that being promiscuous/Chinese/gay/etc is intrinsically bad.
I can't speak for the whole world, but in North America at least I've never seen the word "slut" used in everyday speech that wasn't intended to be derogatory.
Side note: "purely because it was considered bad 60 years ago for a woman to be promiscuous"
I don't think that's 60 years ago, I'm pretty sure that's still today. Maybe not as bad, but the general perception of promiscuous women is still deeply negative.
I can't speak for the whole world, but in North America at least I've never seen the word "slut" used in everyday speech that wasn't intended to be derogatory.
Side note: "purely because it was considered bad 60 years ago for a woman to be promiscuous"
I don't think that's 60 years ago, I'm pretty sure that's still today. Maybe not as bad, but the general perception of promiscuous women is still deeply negative.
While I'm pretty sure it was used derogatorily in this case, I've certainly seen it used in a non-derogatory manner. Usually to indicate a sort of unapologetic lover of whatever field.
See- http://www.bookslut.com/
See- http://www.bookslut.com/
However, her mother won't read the blog because of the "slut" part. So I would say that this is derogatory even here.
that being promiscuous is intrinsically bad.
And why do you think that is? Maybe because it is intrinsically a bad thing to do. For civilization as we know it at least.
Better outcomes for children from 2 parent households have been established through scientific investigation.[1]
Why do you think a virgin bride is such a prized thing throughout cultures and ages?
Greater numbers of premarital sexual partners are associated with higher rates of divorce.[2]
It is kind of crazy how in a certain segment of the population's rush to rectify past wrongs they overlook the fact that maybe some things were as they were for sound reasons. You can even surmise that if there is any genetic component to the typical monogamous relationships of human societies then men have a genetically encoded aversion to sluts when seeking a mother for their children.
The normalization of sluttiness is always going to be a losing battle if our civilization is to survive and thrive.
What exactly is the improvement feminists think they are after by trying to normalize sluttiness?
So we've seen, on average two parent households produce "better" children, better children produce better societies, and a higher sexual partner count for a woman prior to marriage produces a higher incidence of divorce.
Anyone care to articulate any reasons why promoting sluttiness is beneficial for the future of humanity?
[1] "Children from two-parent families are better off emotionally, socially and economically"
http://archive.azcentral.com/families/articles/0913marriageh...
"divorce tends to double a child’s risk of a serious negative outcome."
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/singl...
[2] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAO...
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-d...
And two articles from a site with 'hooking up' in the url.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/01/22/hookinguprealities/...
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/01/29/hookinguprealities/...
And why do you think that is? Maybe because it is intrinsically a bad thing to do. For civilization as we know it at least.
Better outcomes for children from 2 parent households have been established through scientific investigation.[1]
Why do you think a virgin bride is such a prized thing throughout cultures and ages?
Greater numbers of premarital sexual partners are associated with higher rates of divorce.[2]
It is kind of crazy how in a certain segment of the population's rush to rectify past wrongs they overlook the fact that maybe some things were as they were for sound reasons. You can even surmise that if there is any genetic component to the typical monogamous relationships of human societies then men have a genetically encoded aversion to sluts when seeking a mother for their children.
The normalization of sluttiness is always going to be a losing battle if our civilization is to survive and thrive.
What exactly is the improvement feminists think they are after by trying to normalize sluttiness?
So we've seen, on average two parent households produce "better" children, better children produce better societies, and a higher sexual partner count for a woman prior to marriage produces a higher incidence of divorce.
Anyone care to articulate any reasons why promoting sluttiness is beneficial for the future of humanity?
[1] "Children from two-parent families are better off emotionally, socially and economically"
http://archive.azcentral.com/families/articles/0913marriageh...
"divorce tends to double a child’s risk of a serious negative outcome."
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/singl...
[2] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAO...
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-d...
And two articles from a site with 'hooking up' in the url.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/01/22/hookinguprealities/...
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/01/29/hookinguprealities/...
You are confused. What is considered beneficial to society is individual freedom, not fascism.
If we remove children -- use contraceptives -- and marriage / divorce -- just fuck around -- from the equation, it's no longer promiscuity -- slutty?
To those of you downvoting the above post, thank you. I'm always happy to have my perceptions improved, and I take the downvotes to indicate that you have forthcoming a carefully citationed rebuttal, countering and demonstrating the falseness of the above post and therefore of it being worthy of downvoting.
I await the opportunity to learn something new.
I await the opportunity to learn something new.
Hey I responded, but all I see is this whiney post trying to vindicate yourself.
While it's possible that you got downvoted for having a point of view that others disagree with, I like to think that you're downvoted mainly for bringing this up at exactly the wrong time.
Imagine you wanted to discuss, as objectively as possible, the role of clothing in relation to sexuality, and the different perspectives people have on that. It's quite possible that people would not downvote you for expressing that you think that, generally speaking, there's something to be said for modesty in clothing (unless of course it'd be just about women dressing down). Even if they disagreed.
But imagine posting that opinion in the context of a post on rape and sexual abuse. It would immediately be linked to the surprisingly and unfortunately wide-spread view that 'those women were asking for it by dressing like a slut'. Regardless of whether your points have merit or should be accepted, the context makes it unacceptable and, quite frankly, a bit suspect.
Imagine you wanted to discuss, as objectively as possible, the role of clothing in relation to sexuality, and the different perspectives people have on that. It's quite possible that people would not downvote you for expressing that you think that, generally speaking, there's something to be said for modesty in clothing (unless of course it'd be just about women dressing down). Even if they disagreed.
But imagine posting that opinion in the context of a post on rape and sexual abuse. It would immediately be linked to the surprisingly and unfortunately wide-spread view that 'those women were asking for it by dressing like a slut'. Regardless of whether your points have merit or should be accepted, the context makes it unacceptable and, quite frankly, a bit suspect.
Somebody think of the children!
How is being promiscuous bad? You've just talked about how it's bad for children to go through a divorce. Or are we talking about slutty children? What about male sluts? In fact who is talking about marriage at all?
Sounds like you have a preconceived notion and then try and justify it.
How is being promiscuous bad? You've just talked about how it's bad for children to go through a divorce. Or are we talking about slutty children? What about male sluts? In fact who is talking about marriage at all?
Sounds like you have a preconceived notion and then try and justify it.
"... What are the negative connotations? ..."
Shame ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/search/query?keys=shame&x=0&y...
Shame ~ http://www.psychologytoday.com/search/query?keys=shame&x=0&y...
"Slut" is generally considered a derogatory term.
I think it is sometimes, maybe, possible to use this kind of term in a way that communicates a positive "no apologies" attitude. However, I think a speaker has to go to some lengths if this use is going to be convincing. Especially, it's a lot easier for people denigrated by a term to convincingly use it in a way that show non-derogatory attitude - contrast a ghetto black person using the N word versus a middle class Southern white person using the same word.
And there is a double standard in the US, where only a promiscuous woman gets called a slut. Someone might turn that around but that person would to do a lot of work to show they were sincere.
I think it is sometimes, maybe, possible to use this kind of term in a way that communicates a positive "no apologies" attitude. However, I think a speaker has to go to some lengths if this use is going to be convincing. Especially, it's a lot easier for people denigrated by a term to convincingly use it in a way that show non-derogatory attitude - contrast a ghetto black person using the N word versus a middle class Southern white person using the same word.
And there is a double standard in the US, where only a promiscuous woman gets called a slut. Someone might turn that around but that person would to do a lot of work to show they were sincere.
Why is this much to hate about this app morally?
So, what would you say is the word for a man who uses Tinder often, a word that would make sense to the greatest proportion of people, i.e. not "slut," which you acknowledge is relatively rarely used to refer to men?
>what would you say is the word for a man who uses Tinder often //
I don't see what that has to do with anything, but _I_ would call a promiscuous person "promiscuous". AFAIK not all users of Tinder are using it to be promiscuous.
In slang terms I'd imagine "tinderslut" being applied to men and women. Certainly as many women (more?) use it as a hashtag on twitter, https://twitter.com/hashtag/tinderslut, but I think they're using it for women - didn't analyse the results beyond noting as many women appeared to be using it in the results returned to me. The usage seems to be more liberal than referring to promiscuity, rather there's a general sense of unacceptable flirting being indicated in the term, I'd say. Others will have far more knowledge of it I'm sure.
The blogspot user who titles herself "tinderwhore" refers to male users as "tinderbros".
I don't see what that has to do with anything, but _I_ would call a promiscuous person "promiscuous". AFAIK not all users of Tinder are using it to be promiscuous.
In slang terms I'd imagine "tinderslut" being applied to men and women. Certainly as many women (more?) use it as a hashtag on twitter, https://twitter.com/hashtag/tinderslut, but I think they're using it for women - didn't analyse the results beyond noting as many women appeared to be using it in the results returned to me. The usage seems to be more liberal than referring to promiscuity, rather there's a general sense of unacceptable flirting being indicated in the term, I'd say. Others will have far more knowledge of it I'm sure.
The blogspot user who titles herself "tinderwhore" refers to male users as "tinderbros".
It's ironic that Mr. Rad went to such great lengths to keep his friend Mr. Mateen from facing the consequences of his behavior for so long. Because by putting his friend above his company, he ended up hurting both even more.
If Rad had just forced his friend Mateen to resign earlier on for "creative differences" before his behavior got out of hand, everyone -- including Mateen! -- would have been strictly better off.
And this definitely isn't the first time that this has happened (Rap Genius, and I'm sure there are others too...)
TL;DR: Do your sexist, racist friends a favor by getting them out of your workplace.
(By the way, to be clear, I don't feel bad for any of these guys. They deserved what happened. But this sort of thing really shouldn't be happening again, and again, and again...)
If Rad had just forced his friend Mateen to resign earlier on for "creative differences" before his behavior got out of hand, everyone -- including Mateen! -- would have been strictly better off.
And this definitely isn't the first time that this has happened (Rap Genius, and I'm sure there are others too...)
TL;DR: Do your sexist, racist friends a favor by getting them out of your workplace.
(By the way, to be clear, I don't feel bad for any of these guys. They deserved what happened. But this sort of thing really shouldn't be happening again, and again, and again...)
While the allegations are shocking, it was irresponsible for the journalist to add the little bit in the very last paragraph on the third page about one of the founder's former startups having an FBI investigation as a kind of final pot-shot. How was that relevant to the thrust of the rest of the article? What did it add? Was it fair to include it without elaborating?
Worse still is the implication that he was complicit in the uploading or transmission of illegal images. Any messaging or image based app is going to have to deal with that - young apps are especially vulnerable to abuse because it's expected that they not have robust security or a large enough staff to close the floodgates.
While the dude's clearly a jerk, his first startup sounds like it died a death that was out of his hands, not a result of his being a predator.
While the dude's clearly a jerk, his first startup sounds like it died a death that was out of his hands, not a result of his being a predator.
It seemed like he learned a number of odd things about the founders during his research and now that they were in a lawsuit and were confirmed as being giant dicks he felt justified in throwing a few rocks. The "take note lawyers" bit and the bunch of juvenile social media pictures were the same way, not needed except to fill in the picture he was painting.
[deleted]
It was absolutely relevant. The entire article was about the character of the founders. If you had a business that had to be shut down by the FBI because of the extent of child pornography it reflects on your character.
The analogy comparing the creation of Tinder to the Winklevosses and Facebook was also inaccurate/poor as well.
"Here is the truth as I see it, having spoken to nearly everyone who was involved in the project: What made Tinder Tinder was the work of a team:"
You could replace "Tinder" with any company and find that the above statement holds true. Twitter isn't Jack or Ev or Biz, it's the combination of the three. Facebook was mostly Zuck, but not all. Apple was indeed [very] heavily influenced by Steve Jobs, but Apple wasn't Steve Jobs.
I've found the idea of a single genius founder being behind anything is largely a myth; they're just the public face of a company that is doing great things in the background.
You could replace "Tinder" with any company and find that the above statement holds true. Twitter isn't Jack or Ev or Biz, it's the combination of the three. Facebook was mostly Zuck, but not all. Apple was indeed [very] heavily influenced by Steve Jobs, but Apple wasn't Steve Jobs.
I've found the idea of a single genius founder being behind anything is largely a myth; they're just the public face of a company that is doing great things in the background.
Despite the linkbaity headline, this article actually adds new information and context to the controversy.
Also, NSFW Instagram images.
Also, NSFW Instagram images.
We tried to edit the title to make it less linkbaity, but only partly. If anyone can suggest a better one (i.e. accurate and neutral), we can change it again.
It looks like the URL of the article has an alternative (older?) headline in it:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-02/tinders-forg...
"Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths"
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-02/tinders-forg...
"Tinder's Forgotten Woman: Whitney Wolfe, Sexism, and Startup Creation Myths"
Ah yes, the "extract alternative title from URL" trick.
My title fu is failing me, though. Is this one really better?
My title fu is failing me, though. Is this one really better?
I think so, it's certainly more descriptive of what's contained therein.
EDIT: The generic "women" in the current title is certainly more misleading and may be contributing to the penalty being assessed by those who haven't read the piece. The article only discusses one woman.
EDIT: The generic "women" in the current title is certainly more misleading and may be contributing to the penalty being assessed by those who haven't read the piece. The article only discusses one woman.
Ok, we changed it (from "The Truth About Tinder and Women").
Yes people. Please flag [EDIT, as in write "NSFW" when applicable. Thanks shawnz]. The article feels that is going to be serious, which it kind of is, but then the pics. What was the point of that? The writer could not have simply mentioned the pics?
I think the expression, "a picture is worth a thousand words" applies. Sometimes points merit reinforcing. I'm guessing the author thought that adding the pictures added impact. I'd say it did. Too easy to gloss over phrases like "twitter account littered with misogynist/immature/whatever pictures".
Also, great article, I thought.
Also, great article, I thought.
This is one of the very few contexts where those types of images are completely relevant, but I'm surprised there wasn't a warning in the article.
The pictures, from the Instagram account of the men accused of misogyny, are directly pertinent to the purported misogyny of the people in question. Why shouldn't they be included?
Agreed - this article has imagery that's inappropriate to display in many locations, and should be indicated as such in the title.
I don't disagree with optimus. It's just about lacking the flag.
I think people thought you meant "flag" as in reporting the article, not "flag" as in writing NSFW in the title.
My bad.
So they were dating? IAC is screwed. Dating an direct report is essentially sexual harassment in the eyes of the court.
I am adding "anti-fraternization" policy to my employee handbook today.
Seriously, does anybody know how to handle the hr on discovering a supervisor / direct report are dating?
I've been told that best practices is to immediately suggest one or the other resign, and if they don't, fire both for violating policy.
How does one handle this situation?
I am adding "anti-fraternization" policy to my employee handbook today.
Seriously, does anybody know how to handle the hr on discovering a supervisor / direct report are dating?
I've been told that best practices is to immediately suggest one or the other resign, and if they don't, fire both for violating policy.
How does one handle this situation?
Someone should tell Bill & Melinda Gates.
You can make all the policies you want but human nature does not care much for policies.
The best cure is an immediate transfer to another department of either of the two. That way you avoid all the claims of favoritism and possible fall-out in case the relationship goes sour. Also make sure that managers know that such relationships should immediately be reported to upper management. (Hard if the 'upper management' is in fact one of the parties). Any evidence of pressure from the higher-up should result in immediate termination. Again, that's pretty tough but it is much better than the possible alternatives.
You can make all the policies you want but human nature does not care much for policies.
The best cure is an immediate transfer to another department of either of the two. That way you avoid all the claims of favoritism and possible fall-out in case the relationship goes sour. Also make sure that managers know that such relationships should immediately be reported to upper management. (Hard if the 'upper management' is in fact one of the parties). Any evidence of pressure from the higher-up should result in immediate termination. Again, that's pretty tough but it is much better than the possible alternatives.
Or Sergey Brin & Amanda Rosenberg, or Larry Page and Marissa Mayer.
That said, in all three of those cases they were dating an indirect report. That's still a bit of a no-no, but nowhere near as problematic as dating a direct report. Your manager has a huge influence on your career; the company CEO dating someone who works for the company is a little dodgy and will cause morale problems elsewhere, but it's much harder to argue direct influence when they don't directly interact in the course of the workday.
That said, in all three of those cases they were dating an indirect report. That's still a bit of a no-no, but nowhere near as problematic as dating a direct report. Your manager has a huge influence on your career; the company CEO dating someone who works for the company is a little dodgy and will cause morale problems elsewhere, but it's much harder to argue direct influence when they don't directly interact in the course of the workday.
[deleted]
We're talking about co-founders here. There is no HR director to bring down the policy hammer.
In this situation the real problem is a you have sexist fuckwad of a partner who is basically a loose cannon and going to get you in trouble eventually. If you really want to build a company with someone like that you need to start telling them to tone it down early and often, but of course that's easier said than done.
In this situation the real problem is a you have sexist fuckwad of a partner who is basically a loose cannon and going to get you in trouble eventually. If you really want to build a company with someone like that you need to start telling them to tone it down early and often, but of course that's easier said than done.
> Dating an direct report is essentially sexual harassment in the eyes of the court.
That's not even remotely true. No court has ever held that merely dating a subordinate is ipso facto sexual harassment. Accordingly, many companies do not have an official policy against it.
That's not even remotely true. No court has ever held that merely dating a subordinate is ipso facto sexual harassment. Accordingly, many companies do not have an official policy against it.
You're right, but this area is so incredibly gray it might as well be one in the same. Sexual harassment laws were not created with relationships in mind, but co-workers.
I have the opposite opinion in that I think that sexual harassment cases involving exes in the work place should almost always be thrown out, but alas...
It's nearly impossibly to date someone and not sexually harass them in some way. It's doubly hard to break up with someone and not sexually harass them in some way.
Considering most of her allegations are words/phrases that he called her, and considering many people call significant others very bad things when they are breaking up, it's almost impossible to draw the line between sexual harassment and break-up banter.
I have the opposite opinion in that I think that sexual harassment cases involving exes in the work place should almost always be thrown out, but alas...
It's nearly impossibly to date someone and not sexually harass them in some way. It's doubly hard to break up with someone and not sexually harass them in some way.
Considering most of her allegations are words/phrases that he called her, and considering many people call significant others very bad things when they are breaking up, it's almost impossible to draw the line between sexual harassment and break-up banter.
>It's nearly impossibly to date someone and not sexually harass them in some way
You have horrible relationships if you think this is even remotely true.
> It's doubly hard to break up with someone and not sexually harass them in some way.
And even worse break ups.
That or you don't know what sexual harassment is which I'm thinking is far more likely.
>it's almost impossible to draw the line between sexual harassment and break-up banter.
No its not.
You have horrible relationships if you think this is even remotely true.
> It's doubly hard to break up with someone and not sexually harass them in some way.
And even worse break ups.
That or you don't know what sexual harassment is which I'm thinking is far more likely.
>it's almost impossible to draw the line between sexual harassment and break-up banter.
No its not.
> considering many people call significant others very bad things when they are breaking up,
I've been around the block a few times and had a few past relationships go sour; but I've never felt the need to call an ex-lover a slut or suggest that she was a whore for sleeping with someone other than me. If someone does that, I'm going to judge them; and not in a good light.
I've been around the block a few times and had a few past relationships go sour; but I've never felt the need to call an ex-lover a slut or suggest that she was a whore for sleeping with someone other than me. If someone does that, I'm going to judge them; and not in a good light.
This is usually handled in large companies by moving the lower-ranking employee out of the management chain of the higher-ranking one. At smaller organizations, someone is asked to leave.
I seriously doubt having an "anti-fraternization" policy in your handbook will do anything prevent sexist harassment.
It's better than nothing. It's better than literally nothing.
Is it? Legality aside, if you define the limits of unacceptable behaviour then you're also saying that anything outside that is acceptable. If you hire decent human beings, hopefully your team can use their judgement and empathy to tell whether something's OK or not, rather than "S/he shouldn't have been offended, I wasn't breaching the rules laid down in the HR handbook! Grow a pair!"
(On the flipside, if you hire decent human beings then nobody's going to be looking in the HR handbook to determine how far they can push harassment without being fired anyway.)
(On the flipside, if you hire decent human beings then nobody's going to be looking in the HR handbook to determine how far they can push harassment without being fired anyway.)
I'm sure that there are decent human beings that fall into these kinds of relationships. But when you want to avoid situations like this Tinder situation, and you actually want to do something about it in advance, rules are things you can point to in order to change a situation. You're waiting for shit to hit the fan when you assume the best of everyone.
Writing rules to dictate the personal relationships of your employees is most certainly worse than not. It's draconian and insulting.
If it is possible, move one person to another role in the company so that one isn't reviewing the work of the other.
Interesting that Tinder is owned by the company behind Match.com.
Not just owned, but incubated by their employees. That completely blows me away that IAC is so, so good at rebranding for different audiences.
Yeah, the most interesting part of this article is that, if true, it seems like Tinder was kind of a pseudo-startup, a subsidiary of an established corporation given a more media-friendly backstory by positioning it as a startup. In retrospect I'm surprised that kind of thing isn't more common. (Or maybe it is?)
This sort of thing is, in my experience, quite common, but rarely successful. Large companies are aware of the innovator's dilemma and try to form skunkworks teams to find the Next Big Thing.
But the problem is that most seem unable to assemble the right people, and give them the right autonomy, to really enable them to behave in a startup-like manner. Instead it just becomes recruitment joke where recruiters say "it's like a startup in a big company!" while the candidate rolls their eyes.
But the problem is that most seem unable to assemble the right people, and give them the right autonomy, to really enable them to behave in a startup-like manner. Instead it just becomes recruitment joke where recruiters say "it's like a startup in a big company!" while the candidate rolls their eyes.
AutoTrader.com is a good example of a successful startup within a large company.
[deleted]
Right, though that's a different case I think. You're talking about trying to replicate some kind of innovative startup environment within a big company. My read here is a bit different, that IAC had an idea for how to enter this space, knew what they wanted to build there and even assigned employees to start building it, but needed a better media story than "Match.com launches hookup app". So instead they cooked up a hot startup led by young cofounders launching a new "dating" app— but where the startup happens to be an IAC subsidiary and implementing the IAC market strategy, which is omitted from the branding.
In a way I think it's the opposite story of skunkworks. Those try to replicate a startup-like independence while also emphasizing the parent brand's ultimate credit for any output (e.g. ZFS was developed by a Sun skunkworks and proudly claimed by Sun). Here it looks like IAC wanted exactly the opposite: a fake startup that didn't really have independence and instead just implemented IAC's strategy for this vertical, but which emphasized its own brand and kept quiet about the parent brand.
One other area I can think of where that's fairly common recently is in fake microbrews launched by the big brewing companies. The recipes and market positioning are entirely dictated by the parent company, but there's a kind of microbrewing identity that is presented to the public.
In a way I think it's the opposite story of skunkworks. Those try to replicate a startup-like independence while also emphasizing the parent brand's ultimate credit for any output (e.g. ZFS was developed by a Sun skunkworks and proudly claimed by Sun). Here it looks like IAC wanted exactly the opposite: a fake startup that didn't really have independence and instead just implemented IAC's strategy for this vertical, but which emphasized its own brand and kept quiet about the parent brand.
One other area I can think of where that's fairly common recently is in fake microbrews launched by the big brewing companies. The recipes and market positioning are entirely dictated by the parent company, but there's a kind of microbrewing identity that is presented to the public.
It's really common for retailers and marketers to segment the population by demographic or price. Look at Gap, which also owns the Old Navy, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Athleta, and Piperlime brands. They're selling the same basic thing--clothing--but targeting different segments in ways that let them maximize profit by pushing the right buttons.
So why wouldn't that approach work for something like online dating?
So why wouldn't that approach work for something like online dating?
I was in one that worked. But it worked because the main company was dying and the startup was the escape pod, with the CEO on board and driving it.
One of the best examples of a 'skunkworks' project I can think of is the original Xbox and Xbox Live team (http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/11/11/4849940/xbox-live...).
The article describes quite well how successful this approach can be if you do it right. A company like Microsoft has such a massive amount of talent and resources, that even allowing a sliver of that to work on a project in isolation and freedom can lead to huge success.
I've personally experienced a 'startup in a big company' situation, and that also seemed to work quite well at first. Sadly, the whole thing fell apart once the big company started trying to take control back. In fact, I think the resulting situation was worse than if the 'startup' had never had a taste of independence.
The article describes quite well how successful this approach can be if you do it right. A company like Microsoft has such a massive amount of talent and resources, that even allowing a sliver of that to work on a project in isolation and freedom can lead to huge success.
I've personally experienced a 'startup in a big company' situation, and that also seemed to work quite well at first. Sadly, the whole thing fell apart once the big company started trying to take control back. In fact, I think the resulting situation was worse than if the 'startup' had never had a taste of independence.
I remember somebody telling me this (that they weren't a "real" startup, and owned by the company behind Match), and then they came to my school to talk about their company - and spun it so seriously that I assumed the guy telling me was wrong.
Not cool for companies to lie about their history, even if a lot of them do it.
Not cool for companies to lie about their history, even if a lot of them do it.
And Tinder has done this from the word go. I remember talking to Rad and a few others when they were ramping up and the first thing I said was, "oh, OK, so you're part of IAC" and they got all defensive and tried to pretend like the fact that their offices, all their capital, all their equipment and their paychecks were from IAC was irrelevant and that they were still totally indie.
From talking to IAC people, they don't care what the founder say -- to a point -- as long as people are using the app. As this article made clear however, if you get too far off the messaging and start to oversell the "independent" angle, you will be smacked back into reality.
And then thing is, it isn't cool for a lot of companies to lie about their history -- but if you don't create this false narrative (and let's be clear, 90% of the startup narratives you hear are altered to make the story more attractive. The same is true for any other aspect of business (see also: Hollywood)), people won't pay attention. To a certain extent, as a society, we wall want to have that great Cindarella story.
We want to believe Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team (even though that's not really what happened [1]) and then went on to be one of the greatest players of all time, because it helps create hope within ourselves that we too can overcome the odds and be that successful.
A successful startup born out of an incubator that is funded by a multi-billion dollar company with direct reports to the incumbent in an industry it is trying to "disrupt" is far less compelling for everyone than "we had this idea for this app and it spread like wildfire and now the VCs are coming knocking at our door."
That said, as icky and gross as I find every single person in this entire Tinder saga (to be clear, I think Wolfe was absolutely a victim but that doesn't mean I'd want to hang out with her), the truly notable aspect of the company (to me at least), which was its astonishing growth, was legit. That didn't happen because of IAC or Match (at least, not directly, meaning b/c of those employees or that branding). And that's still laudable. The service might be run by total jerks, but it's growth rate is still laudable and is still an interesting narrative into itself, even if we accept that the whole rags to riches, came out of nowhere aspect, is bullshit (which it is).
[1]: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/2012/01/16/106149626/...
From talking to IAC people, they don't care what the founder say -- to a point -- as long as people are using the app. As this article made clear however, if you get too far off the messaging and start to oversell the "independent" angle, you will be smacked back into reality.
And then thing is, it isn't cool for a lot of companies to lie about their history -- but if you don't create this false narrative (and let's be clear, 90% of the startup narratives you hear are altered to make the story more attractive. The same is true for any other aspect of business (see also: Hollywood)), people won't pay attention. To a certain extent, as a society, we wall want to have that great Cindarella story.
We want to believe Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team (even though that's not really what happened [1]) and then went on to be one of the greatest players of all time, because it helps create hope within ourselves that we too can overcome the odds and be that successful.
A successful startup born out of an incubator that is funded by a multi-billion dollar company with direct reports to the incumbent in an industry it is trying to "disrupt" is far less compelling for everyone than "we had this idea for this app and it spread like wildfire and now the VCs are coming knocking at our door."
That said, as icky and gross as I find every single person in this entire Tinder saga (to be clear, I think Wolfe was absolutely a victim but that doesn't mean I'd want to hang out with her), the truly notable aspect of the company (to me at least), which was its astonishing growth, was legit. That didn't happen because of IAC or Match (at least, not directly, meaning b/c of those employees or that branding). And that's still laudable. The service might be run by total jerks, but it's growth rate is still laudable and is still an interesting narrative into itself, even if we accept that the whole rags to riches, came out of nowhere aspect, is bullshit (which it is).
[1]: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/2012/01/16/106149626/...
There is something interesting about the fact that conversation is, again, revolving around the men in this scenario instead of the woman. Just an observation.
EDIT: Referencing top comments.
EDIT: Referencing top comments.
The article does as well. In this case, I suppose the heart of the story is about how douchebaggy the guys are -- there seems to be no question that Wolfe deserves credit for what she's done, but since she declined to comment, we only have the actions of the men involved to work from.
Pretty shocking revelations. Was this ever revealed before? Only because of Wolfe's firing?
The author had done an article on Tinder last year: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-05/dating-app-t...
It's likely that current events help explain some oddities in Tinder's past.
It's likely that current events help explain some oddities in Tinder's past.
Interesting differences in reporting between the two articles. 1) Rad is given more credit in the first with development of Tinder than in the second article where Munoz is now mentioned. 2) Wolfe isn't mentioned at all in the first: Mateen is credited with the idea of seeding the app at sororities and fraternities.
> That bothered me, but I didn’t have the space to tell the whole story in the magazine.
It seems like the reporter was aware that something was off, but only discovered the new details through Munoz (who might not be entirely objective as a source either?).
I can't tell whether it was shoddy journalism or just something that, at the point of the first article, wasn't too relevant.
Either way it reminds me once again of how factually incorrect many articles I read might actually be.
It seems like the reporter was aware that something was off, but only discovered the new details through Munoz (who might not be entirely objective as a source either?).
I can't tell whether it was shoddy journalism or just something that, at the point of the first article, wasn't too relevant.
Either way it reminds me once again of how factually incorrect many articles I read might actually be.
s/firing/lawsuit
"a mere early employee"
Founder or nothing these days, eh?
Founder or nothing these days, eh?
...depicting IAC Chairman Barry Diller "as a penis."
I wish I could believe this isn't the actual reason that Mateen is gone.
I wish I could believe this isn't the actual reason that Mateen is gone.
Here's a copy of the complaint: http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex...
What seems like a side story is actually, I think, quite indicative.
Tinder isn't a real startup, but a manufactured success for a couple of well-connected douchebags (who behave as if they're above the law). It's the Disneypreneur phenomenon (http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/silicon-valle...). If you look into it, both of these guys are invaders from the MBA culture.
These phony startups, that are actually pre-arranged by powerful players in the mainstream corporate/McKinsey world, are becoming a lot more common and they're often difficult for genuine, old-style startups to compete with. (They blow up big, suck up a lot of talent and attention, then fail and lose credibility, so their inferior capability still leads to a both-lose outcome.)
This is going to blow up big in a couple of years: this massive proliferation of propped-up junk businesses and pseudo-startups run by incompetents. We're already seeing the embarrassing-but-not-yet-devastating fuckups. We haven't seen an Enron yet. But that's going to come, and it's going to have massive effects (and probably negative ones, on good and bad players) on the startup scene.
Tinder isn't a real startup, but a manufactured success for a couple of well-connected douchebags (who behave as if they're above the law). It's the Disneypreneur phenomenon (http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/silicon-valle...). If you look into it, both of these guys are invaders from the MBA culture.
These phony startups, that are actually pre-arranged by powerful players in the mainstream corporate/McKinsey world, are becoming a lot more common and they're often difficult for genuine, old-style startups to compete with. (They blow up big, suck up a lot of talent and attention, then fail and lose credibility, so their inferior capability still leads to a both-lose outcome.)
This is going to blow up big in a couple of years: this massive proliferation of propped-up junk businesses and pseudo-startups run by incompetents. We're already seeing the embarrassing-but-not-yet-devastating fuckups. We haven't seen an Enron yet. But that's going to come, and it's going to have massive effects (and probably negative ones, on good and bad players) on the startup scene.
Can you provide other examples of this phenomenon?
Snapchat and Clinkle.
Evan Spiegel should have been fired after the frat emails surfaced. As for Clinkle, that's been around for years and hasn't produced jack shit because it's not even a real company-- just a scam.
Evan Spiegel should have been fired after the frat emails surfaced. As for Clinkle, that's been around for years and hasn't produced jack shit because it's not even a real company-- just a scam.
Also Xobni, Webvan, Color, Cuil, Digg.
However, I'd say that all these examples basically disprove your theory about them making it harder for "real" startups to compete. Webvan flamed out miserably, but that didn't stop Peapod (and now Instacart, Google Shopping Express, and Amazon Prime) from taking off. SnapChat didn't exactly hurt WhatsApp's chances. Cuil has had a negligible impact on DuckDuckGo - it just flamed out, pivoted beyond recognition, died, and the founder went back to her job at Google. Digg's death throes proved a huge boon for Reddit, and their audience started increasing massively.
As a startup founder, you are best off just ignoring the well-funded competitor who's doing everything wrong. Let them pave the path, legitimize the marketplace, pump millions of dollars in ad spending into the noosphere - and then quietly save your cash, talk to real customers, build the product that people actually want, and provide a breath of fresh air for the people that were burned by your celebrity dunce competitor.
However, I'd say that all these examples basically disprove your theory about them making it harder for "real" startups to compete. Webvan flamed out miserably, but that didn't stop Peapod (and now Instacart, Google Shopping Express, and Amazon Prime) from taking off. SnapChat didn't exactly hurt WhatsApp's chances. Cuil has had a negligible impact on DuckDuckGo - it just flamed out, pivoted beyond recognition, died, and the founder went back to her job at Google. Digg's death throes proved a huge boon for Reddit, and their audience started increasing massively.
As a startup founder, you are best off just ignoring the well-funded competitor who's doing everything wrong. Let them pave the path, legitimize the marketplace, pump millions of dollars in ad spending into the noosphere - and then quietly save your cash, talk to real customers, build the product that people actually want, and provide a breath of fresh air for the people that were burned by your celebrity dunce competitor.
Who is Snapchat owned by?
Does one really lose the freedom to express themselves once they are VC backed founders? Tinder is a hook up app, and yes, perhaps Tinderslut is too revealing and direct about what any female or male users do with it, but, if he were to use promiscuous tinderian and have a gender neutral tone: would there be that much controversy? If I love naked women and art do I have to throw naked men and art in the mix to not be called a misogynist? The author exaggerated his article with those pictures. Tinder, being male dominated, will naturally have a slight chauvinistic culture. She wasn't pushed aside for being a female, the author hasn't provided evidence to support such a claim. As one of my favorite YouTuber said in his video [1], "if a women has a skill and passion for something she is already pursuing it." Thus, to not be brushed aside she had to battle for relevancy like anyone else does with skillful work instead of lightly accepting her irrelevancy and looking for the media to gain an undisclosed agreement.
Edit: As usual, anything not supporting the usual response gains downvotes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_dRt00ufp4
Edit: As usual, anything not supporting the usual response gains downvotes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_dRt00ufp4
Not to pile on, since you've already been downvoted, but have you actually read the abusive texts that started this whole shitstorm? Nothing in this article speaks well to Justin's character, but I don't think any of it would be getting attention if it weren't for the can of batshit misogynist crazy he opened up on a female co-worker. I think the social media behavior documented here is pertinent context for those allegations.
Just researched for a bit and saw them. The author shouldn't have focused on her departure for simply being female and should have mentioned the texts. I conclude that he's an extremely sexist asshole, but not misogynistic. An overall hate would be mean not to be able to appreciate the art he's into. Nevertheless, due to the texts and the CEO ignoring the behavior, her outcry to the media was justified and needed. Hopefully she gets a hefty sum for her troubles.
The article doesn't really highlight the full extent of his messages and behavior though!
While it's likely that Mateen's conduct was influenced for the worse by their relationship and break-up(s), it went pretty far into 'misogyny' terrority, and can't really be justified.
I mean, I've said some nasty things in the heat of the moment through and after a break-up, but nothing like that.
That said, I agree the author could've done better. I was very confused by the introduction of 'Munoz' without describing who he was, for example. I get the impression the article was written in haste for maximum 'relevancy'.
While it's likely that Mateen's conduct was influenced for the worse by their relationship and break-up(s), it went pretty far into 'misogyny' terrority, and can't really be justified.
I mean, I've said some nasty things in the heat of the moment through and after a break-up, but nothing like that.
That said, I agree the author could've done better. I was very confused by the introduction of 'Munoz' without describing who he was, for example. I get the impression the article was written in haste for maximum 'relevancy'.
He said a lot more than that, from the article.
You are still free to say whatever you want, and people are free to call you an asshole and distance themselves from you.
You are still free to say whatever you want, and people are free to call you an asshole and distance themselves from you.
Hmmm so i wondered if this reporter went through many other successful start-up guys in their early to mid 20s (even late 20s) instragram and twitter feeds would he find similar stuff?
Their actions aren't right, but they are not surprising based on age and level of success.
Their actions aren't right, but they are not surprising based on age and level of success.
Misogyny is pretty ubiquitous in the current state of the world. Most people get away with it under the "that's just the way boys are" blanket of protection you just mentioned.
It's unfortunate that it takes a case like this for people to question if slutshaming is accetable behavior.
It's very brave of her to file the lawsuit. Whatever shitparade the other founders and dealing with, I'm sure hers is ten times worse.
It's unfortunate that it takes a case like this for people to question if slutshaming is accetable behavior.
It's very brave of her to file the lawsuit. Whatever shitparade the other founders and dealing with, I'm sure hers is ten times worse.
> She says that Mateen, whom she dated
...and now I have no reason to believe either her allegations or his defenses. People are simply unreliable witnesses in matters concerning former romantic partners that they are not on good terms with.
...and now I have no reason to believe either her allegations or his defenses. People are simply unreliable witnesses in matters concerning former romantic partners that they are not on good terms with.
Except that there are explicitly documented text messages of him doing exactly what she described http://www.businessinsider.com/tinder-lawsuit-and-sexual-har...
OT, but how come some of the screenshots show an airplane icon AND wifi signal strength? I thought the point of airplane mode was to disable ALL radios on the phone (cellular, wifi, and bluetooth).
... Using wifi in airplane mode is a great way to save battery life or prevent calls while using wi-fi. I do this all the time.
You can try it yourself (just turn on airplane mode, then turn on wifi) or read more from Apple: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1355
It seems in worrying about wifi, you missed the point of the exhibits submitted, though. You can read the rest of those here: http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex...
It seems in worrying about wifi, you missed the point of the exhibits submitted, though. You can read the rest of those here: http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex...
On at least some Android phones, it's possible to turn wifi on normally after turning on airplane mode. I'm not sure, but I think that turning on airplane mode just sets all the radios to be off, it doesn't force them to stay off.
Off-topic: That photo of her looks like she was hit in the face on the left hand side. One eye much wider than the other, big swelling.
As an aside, Mateen exhibits the textbook Madonna-whore dichotomy. To him, women are either someone he can see being a wife (Wolfe pre-breakup), or a whore/bimbo/slut (the women on his Instagram feed). When she rejected him, in classic fashion she went from the former bucket to the latter. This is a case study for a gender-studies paper.
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tinderslut