8 ms·

Mutiny at HQ Trivia Fails to Oust CEO

113 points by daniel_iversen 8y ago

jblow 8y ago
This article is gross. Very one-sided, no attempt to paint an objective picture. If someone did this about a person, it’d be scummy, but about a company it’s okay? I am sure the company is messed up, but come on.
- empath75 8y ago
  Companies aren’t people. I think a lot of people are curious about what happened to HQ trivia, and I think it’s sad that the company seems to be falling apart. (Ps, I think The Witness is one of the best games ever made and everyone should buy it)
- ineedasername 8y ago
  HQ as a whole and Yusopov in particular refused to comment on the story. Instead it's left with multiple employee accounts. It may be one sided in that it conveys mainly the employee point of view, but when that point of view represents at least half of all employees (more than half signed the letter to oust Yusopov) then it would seem to have a fair bit of credibility.
- m-p-3 8y ago
  Hard to not make it one-sided if the other side is not willing to comment. As long as the article writer gave the other side ample chance to comment, it's on them if they didn't.
wsdfsayy 8y ago
At this point, why wouldn't you just quit? I get that there's equity on the line, but the average tenure is probably around a year (if that) given how new the company is. It was clear from the WSJ article on the drama between the two founders up to the other one's death that the current CEO is a textbook sociopath. Convinced the only reason why talented rank-and-file employees would petition instead of leave is because we live in a world where we're all expected to become grossly emotionally attached to our work, despite how toxic work environments can be.
- olliej 8y ago
  Because you need to pay the rent? Seriously, this is the risk aspect of working for a startup that people seem willing to ignore when justifying VC getting preferential treatment to employees. If you have a non-C-level job at a startup you likely need that to pay your rent, to buy food, to have health insurance (become HI system in the US actively fights freedom of employment). The best you can do is delay while you find jobs elsewhere, as the article said the people who had an easy time working elsewhere have already left - the first step in employment in tech is to know people at other companies so you can skip the randomness of standard recruitment. I cannot imagine that the remaining people in this startup aren't actively searching for or negotiating new jobs.
  - wheelerwj 8y ago
    yeah, 100%. not everyone can just bounce or put up with a significant amount of downtime between jobs. But still, a petition is a terrible idea in a startup. Its just going to make things worse. > If you have a non-C-level job at a startup even C-level people need to pay their rent, especially in early stages where its likely the founding c-team is likely compensated mostly in stock.
    - nwsm 8y ago
      Being compensated mostly in stock would make it easier to leave if you are just worried about paying rent.
      - olliej 8y ago
        I guess what you're trying to say is that "if you're being paid mostly in stock then you're earning so little cash you're not really losing much cash if you quit". This is a fundamentally incorrect assessment. If your cash salary is lower it is harder to leave the company. Being able to leave a company without a replacement job lined up requires having enough saved cash (not unsaleable pre-IPO stock), but if you're being paid less cash you have less to save after paying rent. Put very simply, you're interpreting a "low cash income given actual market rates" and "no cash income" as being somewhat interchangeable. Hopefully when phrased that way it should be obvious why that isn't the case if you have mortgage/rent/healthcare to worry about.
zitterbewegung 8y ago
I remember a previous post saying that the Host Scott Rogowsky would have an extreme pull in the company and would present a big risk if he ever left the company. I guess this company could try to pivot onto someone else but I'm not sure they have the ability to do so. (they cite themselves in the article)
- randomacct3847 8y ago
  The company has been diversifying hosts and games for awhile now. I never thought the success of the company was going to or should ride on him alone.
  - rmwaite 8y ago
    The other hosts are pretty meh, TBH. Scott is pretty charismatic and I think has a lot of power because of that. Edit: I see now that Scott is no longer hosting. That’s a shame IMO, he was a big reason why I personally liked the game. Oh well.
- HenryBemis 8y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised. The host would appear to be the likable face of the company, and with the current CEO being a prick, he would be the preferred choice for the cover page. Lorne doesn't appear on every episode of SNL, Kenan Thompson and Kate MacKinnon are. (I do NOT imply that Lorne Michaels a prick)(but a business needs to use the faces that will market the product service better more effectively)
  - intuitionist 8y ago
    Lorne Michaels is pretty famously a prick, though.
    - evanelias 8y ago
      Indeed, several movie villains were infamously modeled after his mannerisms -- including Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorne_Michaels#In_popular_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorne_Michaels#In_popular_cult...
cletus 8y ago
Ok, so this is Startups for Employees 101. The warning signs to get out were here 1.5 years ago [1]. And they are: 1. Nut-bar egomaniac CEO bordering on the delusional; and 2. A business that probably should never take VC money. Producing content (which is what HQ Trivia does at the end of the day) is a notoriously hard business to scale. I can remember years ago when Rovio (remember when Angry Birds was a thing?) took VC money. Huge mistake. HUGE. It is seriously detrimental to your long term viability as a business that generates an income. So yeah, stay at your own peril. [1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/ceo-of-hq-the-hottest-app-going-if-you-run-this-profile-well-fire-our-host https://www.thedailybeast.com/ceo-of-hq-the-hottest-app-goin...
- minimaxir 8y ago
  To be fair, Rus becoming the CEO was tragically unplanned.
  - randomacct3847 8y ago
    Did you read the WSJ article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tech-whiz-behind-vine-and-hq-trivia-made-millions-in-his-20s-he-was-dead-by-34-11550283078 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tech-whiz-behind-vine-and-h... The reporter basically insinuates that Rus had been aggressively trying to undermine and get employees to turn on Colin for a year and leaves an open question on whether stress resulting from their toxic relationship contributed to him increasing his drug usage. Basically, it was maybe not a complete accident unrelated to his work.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  Minor nitpick, but Rovio seems to be doing ok. https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ROVIO:FH https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ROVIO:FH. Their price went down pretty hard after the IPO, but lately they've been trending up. They currently have a market cap of $500M. Would they ever have gotten that far without VC? Their only big raise was $42M, if Wikipedia is to be believed.
  - doctorpangloss 8y ago
orliesaurus 8y ago
I didn't know their old CEO died of drug overdose...wow! That's crazy to think... bad luck? I wonder if VCs have C levels take any drug tests or carry pretty thorough background check on founders who they invest into?!
- kenneth 8y ago
  Drug use is rampant in silicon valley. You wouldn't be a very successful investor is drug use was a disqualifying factor. Of course it depends what kind of drugs. Potheads don't make very good CEOs and Cocaine is usually associated with destructive behavior. A lot of people in tech do the occasional hallucinogens or ecstasy without much issues.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    I seem to remember an article (maybe TC?) citing low-dose LSD as a trendy drug in SV to spur on creativity etc. Edit: couldn't find it on TC, but here's a link to the same think from HuffPo: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/microdosing-lsd-placebo-study_n_5b8d1e48e4b0511db3daaaff https://www.huffpost.com/entry/microdosing-lsd-placebo-study...
  - asdff 8y ago
    Has there ever been a large scale, well controlled study evaluating CEO performance under the influence of THC/coke/anything else vs. sober? Absolutely not, because as you say, these are only baseless behavioral associations to character flaws. If you are concerned about character flaws, evaluate that directly. Failing a drug test ruins peoples lives worse than smoking that joint ever did, and there are plenty of terrible people who've been sober all their life.
    - kenneth 8y ago
      They say Donald Trump doesn't drink — which is surprising when you think of his reputation as a womanizer.
- etaerc 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
etaerc 8y ago
Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion? I'd argue torturing people is more in their interest than actual public opinion. With the latter they just try to stay above zero as long as possible to continue with their actual addiction, getting hard-ons from watching people suffer. That's also why such people can under no circumstances really succeed with businesses. It's not the same kind of personality as Steve Jobs for instance. Jobs also hurt people, but the goal was always to increase public opinion and make money. The differences between a sociopath (Jobs) and a parasite (this dude here). And knowing that he's a parasite and not a sociopath, why keep him on as a CEO? The secretary or toilet cleaning person would have a lower chance to screw everything up.
- pm90 8y ago
  > Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion? Its more common than you imagine. Its incredibly clear that the CEO dude is super insecure person who feels some kind of inadequacy and a constant need to control everything. If you read the daily beast article showing the actual interaction, it shows. If he stopped thinking all about himself for a little while he could have done a much better job. But he has so far not faced consequences for his toxic behavior (his co-founder sounds shady af too and that person actually died of a drug overdose... what a mess).
  - HenryBemis 8y ago
    +1 And on top of that, he probably thinks that thing that what got him "here" will also get him "there". Maybe being vocal made it to the first mile so if he continues his act (and get louder) he believed it would get him to the finish line (the one he has in his mind). One f-bomb makes a comedy. A thousand make zero ratings and lawsuits. He didn't realize he crossed the line being a sociopath and making is increasingly difficult to receive the messaging.
ctvo 8y ago
I thought HQ was incredibly polished when it launched. Props to the tech team regardless of the management mess.
- Dork_Sider 8y ago
  It had terrible lag issues though for quite a long time after release.
nihonde 8y ago
Lots of drama here, but the real problem was obvious from the start: no path to making money. They literally gave it away daily. Anyone with half a brain could see where this was headed.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  Gameshows have given away money with ad support for decades.
  - nihonde 8y ago
    Made sense on syndicated television for a generation that grew up on that medium.
- cooperadymas 8y ago
  The app typically shows 350k - 500k participants in their nightly shows. They're giving away usually $5000. Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune have around 10 million viewers each with over 30 years of history. Jeopardy gives away around $23k each day, I believe WoF rings in a little higher. They air 5 days a week and clock in around 200-230 episodes per season. Back of the napkin math puts that at $0.53 per viewer per year. HQ is still at $4.29 per viewer per year. At their current rate they still need about 10x growth to match J! or WoF. But HQ is also only 2 years old on a somewhat new media format (live interactive entertainment). Those numbers are just for the prize money. Pat Sajak and Alex Trebek each earn north of $10 million per year (and Vanna White somewhat less, but still in the millions), and the shows almost certainly have larger staffs. The actual value difference is probably closer to a 3-4x multiplier rather than 10x. That said, since HQ is phone based there's a good chance the viewers are more valuable to advertisers since they can collect more information than on broadcast television. I don't think HQ would/could have a path to profitability (setting aside internal business politics), but it's a matter of 1) convincing businesses that a new media format is worth their advertising dollars, 2) keeping players long-term, 3) finding effective ways to advertise in the more limited format that the game affords.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
mathattack 8y ago
Apparently the other founder had some harassment issues in the past too. http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/hq-trivia-losing-investors-sexual-harassment/ http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/hq-trivia-losing-investors-sex...

This article is gross. Very one-sided, no attempt to paint an objective picture. If someone did this about a person, it’d be scummy, but about a company it’s okay? I am sure the company is messed up, but come on.

empath75 8y ago
Companies aren’t people. I think a lot of people are curious about what happened to HQ trivia, and I think it’s sad that the company seems to be falling apart. (Ps, I think The Witness is one of the best games ever made and everyone should buy it)
ineedasername 8y ago
HQ as a whole and Yusopov in particular refused to comment on the story. Instead it's left with multiple employee accounts. It may be one sided in that it conveys mainly the employee point of view, but when that point of view represents at least half of all employees (more than half signed the letter to oust Yusopov) then it would seem to have a fair bit of credibility.
m-p-3 8y ago
Hard to not make it one-sided if the other side is not willing to comment. As long as the article writer gave the other side ample chance to comment, it's on them if they didn't.

wsdfsayy 8y ago

At this point, why wouldn't you just quit? I get that there's equity on the line, but the average tenure is probably around a year (if that) given how new the company is. It was clear from the WSJ article on the drama between the two founders up to the other one's death that the current CEO is a textbook sociopath. Convinced the only reason why talented rank-and-file employees would petition instead of leave is because we live in a world where we're all expected to become grossly emotionally attached to our work, despite how toxic work environments can be.

olliej 8y ago
Because you need to pay the rent? Seriously, this is the risk aspect of working for a startup that people seem willing to ignore when justifying VC getting preferential treatment to employees. If you have a non-C-level job at a startup you likely need that to pay your rent, to buy food, to have health insurance (become HI system in the US actively fights freedom of employment). The best you can do is delay while you find jobs elsewhere, as the article said the people who had an easy time working elsewhere have already left - the first step in employment in tech is to know people at other companies so you can skip the randomness of standard recruitment. I cannot imagine that the remaining people in this startup aren't actively searching for or negotiating new jobs.
- wheelerwj 8y ago
  yeah, 100%. not everyone can just bounce or put up with a significant amount of downtime between jobs. But still, a petition is a terrible idea in a startup. Its just going to make things worse. > If you have a non-C-level job at a startup even C-level people need to pay their rent, especially in early stages where its likely the founding c-team is likely compensated mostly in stock.
  - nwsm 8y ago
    Being compensated mostly in stock would make it easier to leave if you are just worried about paying rent.
    - olliej 8y ago
      I guess what you're trying to say is that "if you're being paid mostly in stock then you're earning so little cash you're not really losing much cash if you quit". This is a fundamentally incorrect assessment. If your cash salary is lower it is harder to leave the company. Being able to leave a company without a replacement job lined up requires having enough saved cash (not unsaleable pre-IPO stock), but if you're being paid less cash you have less to save after paying rent. Put very simply, you're interpreting a "low cash income given actual market rates" and "no cash income" as being somewhat interchangeable. Hopefully when phrased that way it should be obvious why that isn't the case if you have mortgage/rent/healthcare to worry about.

zitterbewegung 8y ago

I remember a previous post saying that the Host Scott Rogowsky would have an extreme pull in the company and would present a big risk if he ever left the company. I guess this company could try to pivot onto someone else but I'm not sure they have the ability to do so. (they cite themselves in the article)

randomacct3847 8y ago
The company has been diversifying hosts and games for awhile now. I never thought the success of the company was going to or should ride on him alone.
- rmwaite 8y ago
  The other hosts are pretty meh, TBH. Scott is pretty charismatic and I think has a lot of power because of that. Edit: I see now that Scott is no longer hosting. That’s a shame IMO, he was a big reason why I personally liked the game. Oh well.
HenryBemis 8y ago
I wouldn't be surprised. The host would appear to be the likable face of the company, and with the current CEO being a prick, he would be the preferred choice for the cover page. Lorne doesn't appear on every episode of SNL, Kenan Thompson and Kate MacKinnon are. (I do NOT imply that Lorne Michaels a prick)(but a business needs to use the faces that will market the product service better more effectively)
- intuitionist 8y ago
  Lorne Michaels is pretty famously a prick, though.
  - evanelias 8y ago
    Indeed, several movie villains were infamously modeled after his mannerisms -- including Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorne_Michaels#In_popular_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorne_Michaels#In_popular_cult...

cletus 8y ago

Ok, so this is Startups for Employees 101. The warning signs to get out were here 1.5 years ago [1]. And they are: 1. Nut-bar egomaniac CEO bordering on the delusional; and 2. A business that probably should never take VC money. Producing content (which is what HQ Trivia does at the end of the day) is a notoriously hard business to scale. I can remember years ago when Rovio (remember when Angry Birds was a thing?) took VC money. Huge mistake. HUGE. It is seriously detrimental to your long term viability as a business that generates an income. So yeah, stay at your own peril. [1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/ceo-of-hq-the-hottest-app-going-if-you-run-this-profile-well-fire-our-host https://www.thedailybeast.com/ceo-of-hq-the-hottest-app-goin...

minimaxir 8y ago
To be fair, Rus becoming the CEO was tragically unplanned.
- randomacct3847 8y ago
  Did you read the WSJ article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tech-whiz-behind-vine-and-hq-trivia-made-millions-in-his-20s-he-was-dead-by-34-11550283078 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-tech-whiz-behind-vine-and-h... The reporter basically insinuates that Rus had been aggressively trying to undermine and get employees to turn on Colin for a year and leaves an open question on whether stress resulting from their toxic relationship contributed to him increasing his drug usage. Basically, it was maybe not a complete accident unrelated to his work.
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Minor nitpick, but Rovio seems to be doing ok. https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ROVIO:FH https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ROVIO:FH. Their price went down pretty hard after the IPO, but lately they've been trending up. They currently have a market cap of $500M. Would they ever have gotten that far without VC? Their only big raise was $42M, if Wikipedia is to be believed.
- doctorpangloss 8y ago

orliesaurus 8y ago

I didn't know their old CEO died of drug overdose...wow! That's crazy to think... bad luck? I wonder if VCs have C levels take any drug tests or carry pretty thorough background check on founders who they invest into?!

kenneth 8y ago
Drug use is rampant in silicon valley. You wouldn't be a very successful investor is drug use was a disqualifying factor. Of course it depends what kind of drugs. Potheads don't make very good CEOs and Cocaine is usually associated with destructive behavior. A lot of people in tech do the occasional hallucinogens or ecstasy without much issues.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  I seem to remember an article (maybe TC?) citing low-dose LSD as a trendy drug in SV to spur on creativity etc. Edit: couldn't find it on TC, but here's a link to the same think from HuffPo: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/microdosing-lsd-placebo-study_n_5b8d1e48e4b0511db3daaaff https://www.huffpost.com/entry/microdosing-lsd-placebo-study...
- asdff 8y ago
  Has there ever been a large scale, well controlled study evaluating CEO performance under the influence of THC/coke/anything else vs. sober? Absolutely not, because as you say, these are only baseless behavioral associations to character flaws. If you are concerned about character flaws, evaluate that directly. Failing a drug test ruins peoples lives worse than smoking that joint ever did, and there are plenty of terrible people who've been sober all their life.
  - kenneth 8y ago
    They say Donald Trump doesn't drink — which is surprising when you think of his reputation as a womanizer.
etaerc 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

etaerc 8y ago

Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion? I'd argue torturing people is more in their interest than actual public opinion. With the latter they just try to stay above zero as long as possible to continue with their actual addiction, getting hard-ons from watching people suffer. That's also why such people can under no circumstances really succeed with businesses. It's not the same kind of personality as Steve Jobs for instance. Jobs also hurt people, but the goal was always to increase public opinion and make money. The differences between a sociopath (Jobs) and a parasite (this dude here). And knowing that he's a parasite and not a sociopath, why keep him on as a CEO? The secretary or toilet cleaning person would have a lower chance to screw everything up.

pm90 8y ago
> Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion? Its more common than you imagine. Its incredibly clear that the CEO dude is super insecure person who feels some kind of inadequacy and a constant need to control everything. If you read the daily beast article showing the actual interaction, it shows. If he stopped thinking all about himself for a little while he could have done a much better job. But he has so far not faced consequences for his toxic behavior (his co-founder sounds shady af too and that person actually died of a drug overdose... what a mess).
- HenryBemis 8y ago
  +1 And on top of that, he probably thinks that thing that what got him "here" will also get him "there". Maybe being vocal made it to the first mile so if he continues his act (and get louder) he believed it would get him to the finish line (the one he has in his mind). One f-bomb makes a comedy. A thousand make zero ratings and lawsuits. He didn't realize he crossed the line being a sociopath and making is increasingly difficult to receive the messaging.

ctvo 8y ago

I thought HQ was incredibly polished when it launched. Props to the tech team regardless of the management mess.

Dork_Sider 8y ago
It had terrible lag issues though for quite a long time after release.

nihonde 8y ago

Lots of drama here, but the real problem was obvious from the start: no path to making money. They literally gave it away daily. Anyone with half a brain could see where this was headed.

whatshisface 8y ago
Gameshows have given away money with ad support for decades.
- nihonde 8y ago
  Made sense on syndicated television for a generation that grew up on that medium.
cooperadymas 8y ago
The app typically shows 350k - 500k participants in their nightly shows. They're giving away usually $5000. Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune have around 10 million viewers each with over 30 years of history. Jeopardy gives away around $23k each day, I believe WoF rings in a little higher. They air 5 days a week and clock in around 200-230 episodes per season. Back of the napkin math puts that at $0.53 per viewer per year. HQ is still at $4.29 per viewer per year. At their current rate they still need about 10x growth to match J! or WoF. But HQ is also only 2 years old on a somewhat new media format (live interactive entertainment). Those numbers are just for the prize money. Pat Sajak and Alex Trebek each earn north of $10 million per year (and Vanna White somewhat less, but still in the millions), and the shows almost certainly have larger staffs. The actual value difference is probably closer to a 3-4x multiplier rather than 10x. That said, since HQ is phone based there's a good chance the viewers are more valuable to advertisers since they can collect more information than on broadcast television. I don't think HQ would/could have a path to profitability (setting aside internal business politics), but it's a matter of 1) convincing businesses that a new media format is worth their advertising dollars, 2) keeping players long-term, 3) finding effective ways to advertise in the more limited format that the game affords.
- ineedasername 8y ago

mathattack 8y ago

Apparently the other founder had some harassment issues in the past too. http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/hq-trivia-losing-investors-sexual-harassment/ http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/hq-trivia-losing-investors-sex...