4 ms·

I love Tumblr, but this article is a bit distorted from reality. Tumblr was failing to execute on the revenue side of their business, both before their acquisi

by davidu 10y ago

I love Tumblr, but this article is a bit distorted from reality. Tumblr was failing to execute on the revenue side of their business, both before their acquisition, and then after. At some point, Tumblr had to try and become a business and not just a website. This article points blame at Marissa, but shouldn't it really be pointing at David, or a team of leaders?

Infinitesimus 10y ago
I agree with the sentiment that the article reads as if "This is Yahoo's fault" - not to say they didn't play a role as the parent company. Bottom line here is that Tumblr (with or without Yahoo) failed to monetize their platform. This line stuck out to me as very true reflection of what the Valley sometimes looks like: > Tumblr’s stumbles under Yahoo may go down as a cautionary tale, both for the perils of a large corporation buying a hot startup and for Silicon Valley’s belief that any social network reaching hundreds of millions of people will inevitably generate boatloads of cash one day. There was talk of "We'll make it an advertising platform" but did anyone really ask the Tumblr team "How" ? (I'd love to hear info from any insiders on HN) Makes me wonder how many times a day the execs at Facebook wonder how they can ever monetize expensive companies like Whatsapp.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I suspect purchases such as whatsapp to Facebook were less about opening up new revenue streams, and more about locking in potential competitors. Not everybody uses their Facebook account but they may be more prolific on Instagram. They might not like being constantly monitored by Facebook Messenger but even with WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption, Facebook is still provided with valuable metadata, and the more diverse data sources, the more metadata resembles regular, easily interpretable data. It's like Microsoft buying LinkedIn: the market was clearly bearish on the company, but a tech Titan like Microsoft has a lot to gain by keeping its finger on the pulse of potential hires around the world - with a crucial head-start before headhunters can find star performers.
- elliottcarlson 10y ago
  The advertising platform was in development prior to the acquisition, and in my humble opinion, the plan that was in place was not bad at all, and certainly had users best interests in mind as well. I moved off of the ads team when initial integration started with Yahoo, so I don't have as much insight in to this.
mathattack 10y ago
The buck stops at the CEO. If you pay a billion dollars for something, you can't say "They failed to execute before I bought them." Post-purchase execution falls under the CEO too. You can fire the manager, but you can't escape the blame if you're the boss. If you hire a roofing company to fix your roof, and one of the workers screws up, it's still the responsibility of the owner who hired them.
ukyrgf 10y ago
The article pretty clearly says they were failing to monetize because Karp didn't want intrusive ads, so he was happy to get bought out and have that become their problem rather than his.

by davidu 10y ago

Infinitesimus 10y ago

I agree with the sentiment that the article reads as if "This is Yahoo's fault" - not to say they didn't play a role as the parent company. Bottom line here is that Tumblr (with or without Yahoo) failed to monetize their platform. This line stuck out to me as very true reflection of what the Valley sometimes looks like: > Tumblr’s stumbles under Yahoo may go down as a cautionary tale, both for the perils of a large corporation buying a hot startup and for Silicon Valley’s belief that any social network reaching hundreds of millions of people will inevitably generate boatloads of cash one day. There was talk of "We'll make it an advertising platform" but did anyone really ask the Tumblr team "How" ? (I'd love to hear info from any insiders on HN) Makes me wonder how many times a day the execs at Facebook wonder how they can ever monetize expensive companies like Whatsapp.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I suspect purchases such as whatsapp to Facebook were less about opening up new revenue streams, and more about locking in potential competitors. Not everybody uses their Facebook account but they may be more prolific on Instagram. They might not like being constantly monitored by Facebook Messenger but even with WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption, Facebook is still provided with valuable metadata, and the more diverse data sources, the more metadata resembles regular, easily interpretable data. It's like Microsoft buying LinkedIn: the market was clearly bearish on the company, but a tech Titan like Microsoft has a lot to gain by keeping its finger on the pulse of potential hires around the world - with a crucial head-start before headhunters can find star performers.
elliottcarlson 10y ago
The advertising platform was in development prior to the acquisition, and in my humble opinion, the plan that was in place was not bad at all, and certainly had users best interests in mind as well. I moved off of the ads team when initial integration started with Yahoo, so I don't have as much insight in to this.

mathattack 10y ago

The buck stops at the CEO. If you pay a billion dollars for something, you can't say "They failed to execute before I bought them." Post-purchase execution falls under the CEO too. You can fire the manager, but you can't escape the blame if you're the boss. If you hire a roofing company to fix your roof, and one of the workers screws up, it's still the responsibility of the owner who hired them.

ukyrgf 10y ago

The article pretty clearly says they were failing to monetize because Karp didn't want intrusive ads, so he was happy to get bought out and have that become their problem rather than his.