12 ms·

The media is 100% to blame here... I think in large part because of how they treat female entrepreneurs, with well-meaning, but harmful attitudes. IMO we live

The media is 100% to blame here... I think in large part because of how they treat female entrepreneurs, with well-meaning, but harmful attitudes. IMO we live in a world where there are too few successful female entrepreneurs and at the same time people are very eager to see that world change. So as a result, if there is any inkling of a successful female entrepreneur, that story gets gobbled up by the press ad nauseam. A couple of problems created by this that stick out in my mind are: there's a lot unfair pressure for said female entrepreneur to succeed. And a lot of female entrepreneurs who would otherwise be ignored, suddenly find themselves as celebrity icons despite having any real success deserving of such praise, which creates a disastrous over confidence and the "personality" being placed before the business. Elizabeth Holes isn't the only one. Marissa Mayer was hailed a hero before crashing and burning. Less know is Sophia Amoruso, who despite only have a moderately popular online clothing shop (Nasty Gal), has written two books about her success and has an upcoming Netflix series about how "awesome" she is. And the press complete ignores the fact that Amoruso's company has gone through multiple lay-off rounds, has atrocious Glassdoor reviews, a declining relevancy, is being sued for firing pregnant women, and by all accounts is struggling to stay in business. All of this is true about Amoruso, but she still gets a Netflix series about how "wildly successful" she is...

dosgonlogs 10y ago
100%? So Elizabeth Holmes is blameless now? These CEO's and the press engage in what they believe to be a mutually beneficial endeavor. I think we can split the blame.
- Archio 10y ago
  I'm not the parent commenter. However, I think he/she might mean that the media is 100% culpable, not necessarily that the media is to blame for 100% of the problem.
  - dosgonlogs 10y ago
    Good chance you are right about that.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jamesash 10y ago
Surprised by the downvotes. Promoting Holmes as the next Jobs gave the tech press a chance to show how it was trumpeting diversity and gender balance in its coverage of founders. To those that downvoted - would you completely disagree that this played a role here?
- MBCook 10y ago
  > The media is 100% to blame implies that nothing happened here but the media overhyped someone. While clearly true, and I have no doubt having a young female entrepreneur was a good angle, that's not the story. If anyone promised what Theranos promised it would be a big story. Could have been a 73 year old Doctor. No big needle draws? Tons of tests right at the doctors office? No more slow giant labs? A big breakthrough like that is NEWS. Having a female founder was just one more bullet on the 'cool story' checklist. The hype would have been there without the female founder angle the OP focused on. Saying the media is 100% to blame also absolves Theranos, its board, and its founder. Even when being overhyped they shouldn't have lied. They shouldn't have hidden things. They could have acted MUCH better. They could have not sold their services while knowing they didn't work. Absolute best case: they were wrong about how good their machines. But due to hype they kept trying and thought 'we can fix this before were caught'. And it just snowballed and snowballed. I'll also point out the end of the comment tends to imply that women run companies into the ground or aren't qualified to succeed since all anecdotes are of failures. For my anecdote: I've heard companies tend to elect women to be CEOs when there is basically nothing left to lose and saving the company is nearly impossible. Because by that point they figure it doesn't matter they don't have the 'best', some other proven CEO that happens to usually be a guy.
  - jamesash 10y ago
    Thank you for explaining your point of view. Helpful.
redsummer 10y ago
The culture is 'to blame' if anything. The butt-kicking female entrepreneur / superhero is a standard trope now in Hollywood and TV. Being a young women, especially a blonde one, is catnip in "celebrity business". It's 'empowering'. It sells papers. It's also bullshit, but to think such a thing is a thought crime. The funniest thing is all these 90 year old crinkly men being conned into investing. What could they possibly know about hi tech products ... they barely remember how to go to the toilet, or if they are even alive. It reminds me of old Cold War diplomats rapidly losing their mental faculties after a couple of smiles from an Eastern Bloc Anastasia. A pretty woman in a room of powerful men can rapidly turn them into fools.
- aussieindian 10y ago
  Another instructive story comes from down under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson She was paraded as a brave and celebrated App developer who overcame serious health issues by the Australian press. and then it came crashing down.
MBCook 10y ago
> Marissa Mayer was hailed a hero before crashing and burning Did she? Or was she handed the reins to the Titanic and then vilified when it still sank? Could anyone have saved Yahoo? Would they have taken that job?
- spaceflunky 10y ago
  Marissa Mayer the executive definitely crashed a burned. She created no value for Yahoo. There isn't even one Yahoo success during her entire tenure that she is responsible. Marissa Mayer spent $2.3billion dollar on completely worthless startups. Marissa Mayer got lucky at Google and will never get lucky again. She will never do anything important in tech again. Could anyone save Yahoo? I don't know, but there are certainly people that could have done a better job than Marissa Mayer.

dosgonlogs 10y ago

100%? So Elizabeth Holmes is blameless now? These CEO's and the press engage in what they believe to be a mutually beneficial endeavor. I think we can split the blame.

Archio 10y ago
I'm not the parent commenter. However, I think he/she might mean that the media is 100% culpable, not necessarily that the media is to blame for 100% of the problem.
- dosgonlogs 10y ago
  Good chance you are right about that.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jamesash 10y ago

Surprised by the downvotes. Promoting Holmes as the next Jobs gave the tech press a chance to show how it was trumpeting diversity and gender balance in its coverage of founders. To those that downvoted - would you completely disagree that this played a role here?

MBCook 10y ago
> The media is 100% to blame implies that nothing happened here but the media overhyped someone. While clearly true, and I have no doubt having a young female entrepreneur was a good angle, that's not the story. If anyone promised what Theranos promised it would be a big story. Could have been a 73 year old Doctor. No big needle draws? Tons of tests right at the doctors office? No more slow giant labs? A big breakthrough like that is NEWS. Having a female founder was just one more bullet on the 'cool story' checklist. The hype would have been there without the female founder angle the OP focused on. Saying the media is 100% to blame also absolves Theranos, its board, and its founder. Even when being overhyped they shouldn't have lied. They shouldn't have hidden things. They could have acted MUCH better. They could have not sold their services while knowing they didn't work. Absolute best case: they were wrong about how good their machines. But due to hype they kept trying and thought 'we can fix this before were caught'. And it just snowballed and snowballed. I'll also point out the end of the comment tends to imply that women run companies into the ground or aren't qualified to succeed since all anecdotes are of failures. For my anecdote: I've heard companies tend to elect women to be CEOs when there is basically nothing left to lose and saving the company is nearly impossible. Because by that point they figure it doesn't matter they don't have the 'best', some other proven CEO that happens to usually be a guy.
- jamesash 10y ago
  Thank you for explaining your point of view. Helpful.

redsummer 10y ago

The culture is 'to blame' if anything. The butt-kicking female entrepreneur / superhero is a standard trope now in Hollywood and TV. Being a young women, especially a blonde one, is catnip in "celebrity business". It's 'empowering'. It sells papers. It's also bullshit, but to think such a thing is a thought crime. The funniest thing is all these 90 year old crinkly men being conned into investing. What could they possibly know about hi tech products ... they barely remember how to go to the toilet, or if they are even alive. It reminds me of old Cold War diplomats rapidly losing their mental faculties after a couple of smiles from an Eastern Bloc Anastasia. A pretty woman in a room of powerful men can rapidly turn them into fools.

aussieindian 10y ago
Another instructive story comes from down under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson She was paraded as a brave and celebrated App developer who overcame serious health issues by the Australian press. and then it came crashing down.

MBCook 10y ago

> Marissa Mayer was hailed a hero before crashing and burning Did she? Or was she handed the reins to the Titanic and then vilified when it still sank? Could anyone have saved Yahoo? Would they have taken that job?

spaceflunky 10y ago
Marissa Mayer the executive definitely crashed a burned. She created no value for Yahoo. There isn't even one Yahoo success during her entire tenure that she is responsible. Marissa Mayer spent $2.3billion dollar on completely worthless startups. Marissa Mayer got lucky at Google and will never get lucky again. She will never do anything important in tech again. Could anyone save Yahoo? I don't know, but there are certainly people that could have done a better job than Marissa Mayer.