16 ms·

I don't think the failure is on Mayer; Yahoo was a walking zombie before she arrived. They were the last remnant of the dot-com boom -- a media company without

by exelius 10y ago

I don't think the failure is on Mayer; Yahoo was a walking zombie before she arrived. They were the last remnant of the dot-com boom -- a media company without a significant role in content, advertising, shopping or computing. They had no technological advantage, or really any foundation for a competitive advantage to set them apart from the rest of the market. Quite simply, Yahoo was culturally never a technology company. They defined themselves as a "media" company in the mid 90s to avoid drawing Microsoft's ire, but they said it for so long they believed it. They underinvested in technology throughout the late 90s and early 2000s, and by that time Google was the behemoth that Yahoo should have been. Yahoo is only around today because they recognized the emergence of China and made a lucky investment in Alibaba. Without that investment, Yahoo would have gone bust years ago.

amykhar 10y ago
I was amazed that she took the job at all. Yahoo is dead, and has been for a very long time.
- Ressuder 10y ago
  I'm amazed that you were amazed. Seems like the perfect job to me. Not only because economically it's obviously fantastic, but also because she came to a company with significant resources and were basically given the freedom to do whatever the hell she wanted with it, without having to think much about an existing identify and business.
  - Phlarp 10y ago
    We can navel gaze at Yahoo as a company all we want, but I think Marissa's accomplishments as an individual should not be overlooked. She largely got to write her own ticket at Yahoo and had two healthy children while moving from a mid-upper management role at google into a real CEO position. Most women that have two children back to back like that in the professional world end up in a "mommy track" career path.
    - ng12 10y ago
      For Marissa and her family I'm sure the journey was more important than the destination. However I doubt the shareholders feel the same way.
      - Phlarp 10y ago
        From a shareholder perspective I think she did a marvelous job: The task at hand was never to turn around Yahoo! into a Google-esque profitable tech power house, the task was to protect the shiny glass box in the lobby full of BABA.
mc32 10y ago
I agree Y! was in decline many years before Mayer was brought in. They went through a few CEOs with the mandate to turn things around and failed even worse. But to blame that on classification I think is misleading. Can we call Google a technology company (or Ad company)? Was Netscape not a technology company? Was inktomy not a technology company? It does not matter, what mattered is that they didn't confront change and adapt. In some cases your niche is too unique to be able to adapt and you'd essentially have to pivot (but that's hard for big cos --though there are good examples IBM and office equipment or any number of companies which went from manufacturing to basically sales orgs selling things produced elsewhere.
- exelius 10y ago
  It's less about how the world saw Yahoo than how Yahoo saw itself. They felt that Microsoft's position in technology / the browser was too dominant, so they pivoted towards the "discovery" experience. Problem was, Google provided a better experience by approaching discovery as a technology company and was able to build a sustainable market advantage as a result. Yahoo also never really sold anything. They were a publisher before there was a good marketplace for online ads. IBM was able to pivot because they had an established sales channel they could mine for dollars; but Yahoo's sales channels never got built out to the same extent before Google came in with a new model and obliterated them.
  - mc32 10y ago
    I think their mistake was thinking "media" would be the cash cow. Everyone was in love with the idea of "portals" Netscape, Excite, AOL, Microsoft (MSN), etc. That somehow they could "capture" the audience and keep them in their portals.
ProAm 10y ago
> I don't think the failure is on Mayer; Yahoo was a walking zombie before she arrived. But they brought her on and paid her amply to specifically fix this problem. As a result she shares part of the blame for Yahoo's failure to right the ship.
- deanCommie 10y ago
  They had to try and they had to pay somebody. It's entirely possible she was the best person for the job. It's just as entirely possible that the task was impossible, and both her and the board knew it, but had to try their best.
  - zepto 10y ago
    If she knew it was impossible, why did she take the job?
    - lintiness 10y ago
      because she got paid so much money she'd be an idiot not to ... ?
      - zepto 10y ago
        Seems unlikely given how rich she already was.
        lintiness 10y ago
        your argument is essentially that she'd have taken a pay cut or worked for free. money matters, and most rich people don't get that way not caring about it.
        zepto 10y ago
        My argument is nothing of the sort. I am arguing that she was rich enough that money way not a compelling reason for her to choose the job if she didn't think she was likely to be successful.
simonsarris 10y ago
I think there's plenty to make a case that Mayer specifically was a large negative vs Yahoo on twin-earth where someone else was CEO. Many(?) aquisitions were her plan. From the article: > goodwill impairment charges of $1.2 billion This means since 2012 Mayer has overseen the aquisition of companies for at least $1.2b more than their book-value worth, and now that value is gone. Paid a premium for brands and then lost the value of those brands. ~~~ > “She believes she can figure it out on her own,” says a former top Yahoo exec. “Her attitude is, ‘I watch TV shows, so I know TV shows.’” Mayer hired Katie Couric — in a deal reportedly worth up to $10 million per year, mostly in stock — because she personally likes the former TV news personality, without a sense of where and how Couric’s brand would appeal to Yahoo’s user base ~~~ > Mayer was gung-ho on expanding Yahoo’s media business, particularly in video entertainment, approving a Netflix-like slate of scripted original series with a seven-year business plan to recoup the investment > Yahoo formally exited TV-style entertainment in the third quarter of 2015, taking a $42 million write-down on [original series, deals, then axed Yahoo Screen division] Her plan. ~~~ > Yahoo in February folded seven digital magazines, including titles covering food and travel, which had been a Mayer pet project. She wanted to launch dozens of vertically oriented magazines, dictating that they use Tumblr-based designs, hoping to better monetize Yahoo’s monthly audience. Her plan. > Mayer has positioned those closures as a refocusing on Yahoo’s four strongest content segments — news, sports, finance, and lifestyle — as the company aims to cut 15% of its workforce over the course of 2016. But those were the areas on which Yahoo should have stayed laser-focused all along, according to S&P’s Kessler. ~~~ She had ideas that were either unworkable, poorly implemented, or she was unknowledgeable and hired the wrong people. > I don't think the failure is on Mayer That's how this works. She had a job and failed. It's okay to say that. They aren't paying her to not take responsibility. They will be paying her more than you and I and many readers of this comment combined may ever make, just to leave.
- LogicFailsMe 10y ago
  Or in other words, she tried to run Yahoo like it was Google. My experience at Google led me to see it as a bunch of poorly executed clones of trendy startups that never ship. However, their insane ad revenue keeps the boat afloat, and allows them to fund moonshots and failures. Yahoo doesn't have that insane revenue stream so that strategy didn't work out so well there. Am I missing something?
Fricken 10y ago
I think it's conventional to give Mayer the benefit of the doubt, I certainly did for a long time, but if there's one responsibility that lies squarely in the hands of the CEO it's to define a clear, unifying vision for the company that catalyzes employees, users and investors. Mayer failed to do this, I'm not sure she even tried. This whole time she's been fixated on minutia while remaining casually oblivious to the big picture. Let's compare mission statements. Google's mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". Absolutely. Makes sense. Tesla's mission is to "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable transport". Yes, I can get behind that. Every move Tesla makes reflects their mission. But what's Yahoo's Mission? (and now that I Google it, it has changed again, for the 25th time) "Yahoo is a guide focused on informing, connecting, and entertaining our users". I'm Really not sure how to connect that with the sick parade of misfit properties circling the drain we call 'Yahoo'. Though we can all make our best guess, I'm not sure anyone clearly understands what Yahoo is, or what it's trying to be. Not even Marissa Mayer. That's job #1 for a CEO.
- boxy310 10y ago
  > informing, connecting, and entertaining our users I'm struggling to find a way to distinguish this definition from the Internet writ large. Yes, everyone agrees that Yahoo is on the internet, but nobody can really say why.
- saiprashanth93 10y ago
  Sick parade of misfit properties should become a part of the tech folklore to describe situations like this more clearly.
hashberry 10y ago
"I don't think the failure is on Mayer; Yahoo was a walking zombie before she arrived." So you're saying that no one can save Yahoo, not in the past three years, not now, and not in the future? The company is simply doomed? Sorry, I don't buy it... Mayer had a leadership position and she failed.
- cpeterso 10y ago
  I wonder how other superstar CEOs would have managed Yahoo! differently. What would Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, or even Larry Page each have done differently?

by exelius 10y ago

amykhar 10y ago

I was amazed that she took the job at all. Yahoo is dead, and has been for a very long time.

Ressuder 10y ago
I'm amazed that you were amazed. Seems like the perfect job to me. Not only because economically it's obviously fantastic, but also because she came to a company with significant resources and were basically given the freedom to do whatever the hell she wanted with it, without having to think much about an existing identify and business.
- Phlarp 10y ago
  We can navel gaze at Yahoo as a company all we want, but I think Marissa's accomplishments as an individual should not be overlooked. She largely got to write her own ticket at Yahoo and had two healthy children while moving from a mid-upper management role at google into a real CEO position. Most women that have two children back to back like that in the professional world end up in a "mommy track" career path.
  - ng12 10y ago
    For Marissa and her family I'm sure the journey was more important than the destination. However I doubt the shareholders feel the same way.
    - Phlarp 10y ago
      From a shareholder perspective I think she did a marvelous job: The task at hand was never to turn around Yahoo! into a Google-esque profitable tech power house, the task was to protect the shiny glass box in the lobby full of BABA.

mc32 10y ago

I agree Y! was in decline many years before Mayer was brought in. They went through a few CEOs with the mandate to turn things around and failed even worse. But to blame that on classification I think is misleading. Can we call Google a technology company (or Ad company)? Was Netscape not a technology company? Was inktomy not a technology company? It does not matter, what mattered is that they didn't confront change and adapt. In some cases your niche is too unique to be able to adapt and you'd essentially have to pivot (but that's hard for big cos --though there are good examples IBM and office equipment or any number of companies which went from manufacturing to basically sales orgs selling things produced elsewhere.

exelius 10y ago
It's less about how the world saw Yahoo than how Yahoo saw itself. They felt that Microsoft's position in technology / the browser was too dominant, so they pivoted towards the "discovery" experience. Problem was, Google provided a better experience by approaching discovery as a technology company and was able to build a sustainable market advantage as a result. Yahoo also never really sold anything. They were a publisher before there was a good marketplace for online ads. IBM was able to pivot because they had an established sales channel they could mine for dollars; but Yahoo's sales channels never got built out to the same extent before Google came in with a new model and obliterated them.
- mc32 10y ago
  I think their mistake was thinking "media" would be the cash cow. Everyone was in love with the idea of "portals" Netscape, Excite, AOL, Microsoft (MSN), etc. That somehow they could "capture" the audience and keep them in their portals.

ProAm 10y ago

> I don't think the failure is on Mayer; Yahoo was a walking zombie before she arrived. But they brought her on and paid her amply to specifically fix this problem. As a result she shares part of the blame for Yahoo's failure to right the ship.

deanCommie 10y ago
They had to try and they had to pay somebody. It's entirely possible she was the best person for the job. It's just as entirely possible that the task was impossible, and both her and the board knew it, but had to try their best.
- zepto 10y ago
  If she knew it was impossible, why did she take the job?
  - lintiness 10y ago
    because she got paid so much money she'd be an idiot not to ... ?
    - zepto 10y ago
      Seems unlikely given how rich she already was.
      - lintiness 10y ago
        your argument is essentially that she'd have taken a pay cut or worked for free. money matters, and most rich people don't get that way not caring about it.
        zepto 10y ago
        My argument is nothing of the sort. I am arguing that she was rich enough that money way not a compelling reason for her to choose the job if she didn't think she was likely to be successful.

simonsarris 10y ago

I think there's plenty to make a case that Mayer specifically was a large negative vs Yahoo on twin-earth where someone else was CEO. Many(?) aquisitions were her plan. From the article: > goodwill impairment charges of $1.2 billion This means since 2012 Mayer has overseen the aquisition of companies for at least $1.2b more than their book-value worth, and now that value is gone. Paid a premium for brands and then lost the value of those brands. ~~~ > “She believes she can figure it out on her own,” says a former top Yahoo exec. “Her attitude is, ‘I watch TV shows, so I know TV shows.’” Mayer hired Katie Couric — in a deal reportedly worth up to $10 million per year, mostly in stock — because she personally likes the former TV news personality, without a sense of where and how Couric’s brand would appeal to Yahoo’s user base ~~~ > Mayer was gung-ho on expanding Yahoo’s media business, particularly in video entertainment, approving a Netflix-like slate of scripted original series with a seven-year business plan to recoup the investment > Yahoo formally exited TV-style entertainment in the third quarter of 2015, taking a $42 million write-down on [original series, deals, then axed Yahoo Screen division] Her plan. ~~~ > Yahoo in February folded seven digital magazines, including titles covering food and travel, which had been a Mayer pet project. She wanted to launch dozens of vertically oriented magazines, dictating that they use Tumblr-based designs, hoping to better monetize Yahoo’s monthly audience. Her plan. > Mayer has positioned those closures as a refocusing on Yahoo’s four strongest content segments — news, sports, finance, and lifestyle — as the company aims to cut 15% of its workforce over the course of 2016. But those were the areas on which Yahoo should have stayed laser-focused all along, according to S&P’s Kessler. ~~~ She had ideas that were either unworkable, poorly implemented, or she was unknowledgeable and hired the wrong people. > I don't think the failure is on Mayer That's how this works. She had a job and failed. It's okay to say that. They aren't paying her to not take responsibility. They will be paying her more than you and I and many readers of this comment combined may ever make, just to leave.

LogicFailsMe 10y ago
Or in other words, she tried to run Yahoo like it was Google. My experience at Google led me to see it as a bunch of poorly executed clones of trendy startups that never ship. However, their insane ad revenue keeps the boat afloat, and allows them to fund moonshots and failures. Yahoo doesn't have that insane revenue stream so that strategy didn't work out so well there. Am I missing something?

Fricken 10y ago

I think it's conventional to give Mayer the benefit of the doubt, I certainly did for a long time, but if there's one responsibility that lies squarely in the hands of the CEO it's to define a clear, unifying vision for the company that catalyzes employees, users and investors. Mayer failed to do this, I'm not sure she even tried. This whole time she's been fixated on minutia while remaining casually oblivious to the big picture. Let's compare mission statements. Google's mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". Absolutely. Makes sense. Tesla's mission is to "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable transport". Yes, I can get behind that. Every move Tesla makes reflects their mission. But what's Yahoo's Mission? (and now that I Google it, it has changed again, for the 25th time) "Yahoo is a guide focused on informing, connecting, and entertaining our users". I'm Really not sure how to connect that with the sick parade of misfit properties circling the drain we call 'Yahoo'. Though we can all make our best guess, I'm not sure anyone clearly understands what Yahoo is, or what it's trying to be. Not even Marissa Mayer. That's job #1 for a CEO.

boxy310 10y ago
> informing, connecting, and entertaining our users I'm struggling to find a way to distinguish this definition from the Internet writ large. Yes, everyone agrees that Yahoo is on the internet, but nobody can really say why.
saiprashanth93 10y ago
Sick parade of misfit properties should become a part of the tech folklore to describe situations like this more clearly.

hashberry 10y ago

"I don't think the failure is on Mayer; Yahoo was a walking zombie before she arrived." So you're saying that no one can save Yahoo, not in the past three years, not now, and not in the future? The company is simply doomed? Sorry, I don't buy it... Mayer had a leadership position and she failed.

cpeterso 10y ago
I wonder how other superstar CEOs would have managed Yahoo! differently. What would Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, or even Larry Page each have done differently?