4 ms·

There really is no argument here. Either SF wants to keep Twitter, or they don't. They aren't going to guilt trip Twitter into staying, so there is absolutely n

There really is no argument here. Either SF wants to keep Twitter, or they don't. They aren't going to guilt trip Twitter into staying, so there is absolutely no chain of events that ends in Twitter paying the SF payroll tax. Case closed?

rhizome 16y ago
Twitter benefits from having "San Francisco" on their letterhead. "Burlingame" and "Menlo Park" don't really have the same ring to them. Twitter wants to keep San Francisco just as much (if not more) than SF wants Twitter, but I doubt the BoS will call their bluff.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  Twitter can put "San Francisco" on their letterhead no matter where they're headquartered. As long as the zip code is correct, it'll get there.
  - rhizome 16y ago
    Yeah, that'll look good.
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      How many people would ever notice? That said, my point is more that it'd be a bafflingly tiny reason for a company as large as Twitter not to move. There are far more significant issues in the decision than how it looks on their letterhead.
      - rhizome 16y ago
        It's possible you underestimate the role of vanity in corporate America. Twitter is bluffing.
        hugh3 16y ago
        If Apple and Google can be located in the dull stretches of suburban mediocrity known as Cupertino and Mountain View, there's no reason Twitter should be too concerned about Brisbane.
        rhizome 16y ago
        Apple became identified with Cupertino before, well, pretty much anything. They could have been anywhere, but it was cheaper than Menlo Park and they needed proximity to HP. Mountain View and Google is a little more complicated, but back during the first dotcom bubble Mountain View was hotter than San Francisco is today. I remember seeing vacation pictures of people who came here and got their pictures taken in front of the Netscape business park sign. Google took over Silicon Graphics' wacky old buildings, which is yet another part of Silicon Valley's storied history that has nothing to do with Twitter. In fact, Twitter has none of this kind of history period, so really, if you think about it, Twitter should think "San Francisco" is important. It's pretty much the only real history they have aside from the fail whale and Ashton Kutcher. Think more "Wired Magazine" than Apple or Google. And really, you're right, they could move to Brisbane and all of my critiques would fall flat. I'm not saying they won't, but I'm also not going to agree that Twitter doesn't see value in "San Francisco." Heck, how many man-hours are they spending in order to secure this kickback? That certainly implies an internal level of value somewhat north of "trivial."

rhizome 16y ago

Twitter benefits from having "San Francisco" on their letterhead. "Burlingame" and "Menlo Park" don't really have the same ring to them. Twitter wants to keep San Francisco just as much (if not more) than SF wants Twitter, but I doubt the BoS will call their bluff.

ceejayoz 16y ago
Twitter can put "San Francisco" on their letterhead no matter where they're headquartered. As long as the zip code is correct, it'll get there.
- rhizome 16y ago
  Yeah, that'll look good.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    How many people would ever notice? That said, my point is more that it'd be a bafflingly tiny reason for a company as large as Twitter not to move. There are far more significant issues in the decision than how it looks on their letterhead.
    - rhizome 16y ago
      It's possible you underestimate the role of vanity in corporate America. Twitter is bluffing.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        If Apple and Google can be located in the dull stretches of suburban mediocrity known as Cupertino and Mountain View, there's no reason Twitter should be too concerned about Brisbane.
        rhizome 16y ago
        Apple became identified with Cupertino before, well, pretty much anything. They could have been anywhere, but it was cheaper than Menlo Park and they needed proximity to HP. Mountain View and Google is a little more complicated, but back during the first dotcom bubble Mountain View was hotter than San Francisco is today. I remember seeing vacation pictures of people who came here and got their pictures taken in front of the Netscape business park sign. Google took over Silicon Graphics' wacky old buildings, which is yet another part of Silicon Valley's storied history that has nothing to do with Twitter. In fact, Twitter has none of this kind of history period, so really, if you think about it, Twitter should think "San Francisco" is important. It's pretty much the only real history they have aside from the fail whale and Ashton Kutcher. Think more "Wired Magazine" than Apple or Google. And really, you're right, they could move to Brisbane and all of my critiques would fall flat. I'm not saying they won't, but I'm also not going to agree that Twitter doesn't see value in "San Francisco." Heck, how many man-hours are they spending in order to secure this kickback? That certainly implies an internal level of value somewhat north of "trivial."