4 ms·

This whole issue is fascinating to me and no doubt will be studied in schools in the coming years. One of the lead product designers on Zillow Offers wrote a re

by moshun 5y ago

This whole issue is fascinating to me and no doubt will be studied in schools in the coming years. One of the lead product designers on Zillow Offers wrote a retrospective yesterday that outlines, broken user journeys, greed and the attempt to algorithmically one-size-fits-all the whole market. He lays a lot of the blame squarely at the feet of incompetent executive leadership From his notes: “They valued old-school growth hacks from 2007 over taking user-centered, data-informed, research-backed approaches. They spent more time flexing and building decks that drove an internal narrative of Sellers being happy, than actually addressing real and persistent product problems that ultimately led most sellers down a path where they didn't know what to expect, didn't understand the process and were inundated with calls and scheduling.” https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bardlavens_zillowoffers-zillowfailure-activity-6864367665520234496-yuld https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bardlavens_zillowoffers-zillo...

ilamont 5y ago
He adds: Many of these leaders, were leaders not on their merit, success or competency, but simply because they stayed at the company long enough that their titles grew as the company did. Curious how people at FAANG and other midsized to large technology companies feel about this. Can we look at a company like Google and find senior people who rose through the ranks not so much because of talent or intelligence or leadership qualities but rather because they stuck around long enough? Or is this something found mainly in toxic companies like the author described Zillow to be?
jimj 5y ago
If I didn't know he was talking about Zillow in that quote I would have thought he worked at my company.
danrocks 5y ago
I read it and while I appreciate the speaking up, this retro does not look nearly as good as the poster thinks it does. First, it is written from a perspective of "I/we know better, they didn't listen to us, they're incompetent", as in here: > We knew back then how many home sellers felt jilted, offended, etc. by this product. Then he doesn't clarify anything about why sellers would feel this way, what does "many" mean - is it all? A significant majority? 0.3%? Quantifying this would have brought his point across better. Then there's an assertion that they "should have taken a nuanced approach engaging with local communities" again without any justification as to why they needed to do it, with a mention to failure in new markets vs. success in markets already served by Opendoor without any context or even reason to be there. What does that even mean? The descent into the "toxic, abusive, etc.", "meritless leaders" name-calling is poor form and takes away from the best paragraph of this, which is where the author starts hinting at some of the real problems - sellers inundated with calls - he wants to discuss. Obviously the Zillow leadership screwed up on this, but this rant does little to illuminate why and frankly hits at some political ideology disagreement in addition to bad product design.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  I felt the same way and find it somewhat ironic that this guy now works at...wait for it...Facebook. You know, the world's most non-toxic, consumer-centric charity. It's also amusing that he has this in his LinkedIn bio: > Previously, he led design for Zillow’s newest venture, Zillow Offers—building the team and product vision of an end-to-end experience for buying, selling, financing and managing a home, all within the Zillow ecosystem. So he takes credit for leading the design for Zillow Offers and building the team and product vision, but then posts a retrospective criticizing it all and disavowing any responsibility in the product's failure? Strange, but perhaps explains why he's a good fit for Facebook.
  - kyleee 5y ago
    Yep he's likely trying to put a good face on it and rationalize away the failure. It's human nature especially when career/rep/money is on the line. I'm sure there were problems outside his control but it's highly unlikely this is an accurate and objective account of the project's history
    - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
      > It's human nature I think this is only true to an extent. In my own career, I've worked for and hired people who were honest about their roles, taking a reasonable amount of credit where appropriate while also owning the things that didn't go so well. In tech, there's really no downside to this because the industry is pretty damn forgiving. Failure is expected, and a lot of super successful people had multiple failures under their belt before they succeeded. It's really, really cringey to have a LinkedIn bio where you basically position yourself as the owner of a product and then elsewhere make it sound like you not only had nothing to do with said product's failure but in fact knew how to make it successful but couldn't because everyone else was flawed in some way.
      - voakbasda 5y ago
        I have been in the position of leading products in what turned out later to be bad directions. It does not matter if you are “in charge of a product” when management shoves bad ideas down your throat and ultimately derails any attempt to keep the train running smoothly on its tracks. Unfortunately, this is no way to address such a situation. If you have already moved on to greener pastures, consider yourself lucky and let it go.
jchonphoenix 5y ago
I ran Opendoor's pricing unit for the years leading up to IPO. I can say that this designer has a fundamental misunderstanding of the housing market and the Seller mindset which is likely why leadership ignored him. In housing, EVERY OWNER BELIEVES THEIR HOME IS WORTH MORE THAN IT IS, and will be offended by a fair offer. Period. The failure of their lead designer to realize this after all these years is just one signal into why Zillow couldn't succeed where Opendoor did.
- wil421 5y ago
  Every owner who sells their house obviously thinks they have a fair offer other wise they wouldn’t have sold in the first place. In my area OpenDoor bought the same quirky weird homes as Zillow that were ugly, had shoddy repair work done, or were in a very weird lot. The reason these sellers sold to OpenDoor or Zillow at slightly below asking was because it was an easy quick sale without all the questions a homeowner would ask themselves before buying.
  - mint2 5y ago
    > Every owner who sells their house obviously thinks they have a fair offer other wise they wouldn’t have sold in the first place. Because no one ever has a deadline to sell or any of a thousand other reasons one might take a lowball offer?
  - jchonphoenix 5y ago
    The genius of Eric Wu is that he created a premium product for home sellers wanting convenience. Even when we give you an offer, we tell you up front to go test the market with an agent if you want to price optimize.
mrosett 5y ago
That post strikes me as wildly off the mark. Zillow didn't fail because "many home sellers felt jilted, offended, etc. by this product." They failed because they systematically overpaid for assets. (Anecdotally, the one person I know who sold to Zillow is very happy with his experience; not because the process was perfect, but because they gave him more money than his house is worth.) This post is about the wrong battle ("Why does our conversion rate suck?") If I were to steel man his argument, I'd say that maybe the bad user experience meant they had to overpay to get people to actually use the product. But he seems very narrowly focused on "this wasn't a good experience for sellers" when that's at most an indirect factor in the failure.

by moshun 5y ago

ilamont 5y ago

He adds: Many of these leaders, were leaders not on their merit, success or competency, but simply because they stayed at the company long enough that their titles grew as the company did. Curious how people at FAANG and other midsized to large technology companies feel about this. Can we look at a company like Google and find senior people who rose through the ranks not so much because of talent or intelligence or leadership qualities but rather because they stuck around long enough? Or is this something found mainly in toxic companies like the author described Zillow to be?

jimj 5y ago

If I didn't know he was talking about Zillow in that quote I would have thought he worked at my company.

danrocks 5y ago

I read it and while I appreciate the speaking up, this retro does not look nearly as good as the poster thinks it does. First, it is written from a perspective of "I/we know better, they didn't listen to us, they're incompetent", as in here: > We knew back then how many home sellers felt jilted, offended, etc. by this product. Then he doesn't clarify anything about why sellers would feel this way, what does "many" mean - is it all? A significant majority? 0.3%? Quantifying this would have brought his point across better. Then there's an assertion that they "should have taken a nuanced approach engaging with local communities" again without any justification as to why they needed to do it, with a mention to failure in new markets vs. success in markets already served by Opendoor without any context or even reason to be there. What does that even mean? The descent into the "toxic, abusive, etc.", "meritless leaders" name-calling is poor form and takes away from the best paragraph of this, which is where the author starts hinting at some of the real problems - sellers inundated with calls - he wants to discuss. Obviously the Zillow leadership screwed up on this, but this rant does little to illuminate why and frankly hits at some political ideology disagreement in addition to bad product design.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
I felt the same way and find it somewhat ironic that this guy now works at...wait for it...Facebook. You know, the world's most non-toxic, consumer-centric charity. It's also amusing that he has this in his LinkedIn bio: > Previously, he led design for Zillow’s newest venture, Zillow Offers—building the team and product vision of an end-to-end experience for buying, selling, financing and managing a home, all within the Zillow ecosystem. So he takes credit for leading the design for Zillow Offers and building the team and product vision, but then posts a retrospective criticizing it all and disavowing any responsibility in the product's failure? Strange, but perhaps explains why he's a good fit for Facebook.
- kyleee 5y ago
  Yep he's likely trying to put a good face on it and rationalize away the failure. It's human nature especially when career/rep/money is on the line. I'm sure there were problems outside his control but it's highly unlikely this is an accurate and objective account of the project's history
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    > It's human nature I think this is only true to an extent. In my own career, I've worked for and hired people who were honest about their roles, taking a reasonable amount of credit where appropriate while also owning the things that didn't go so well. In tech, there's really no downside to this because the industry is pretty damn forgiving. Failure is expected, and a lot of super successful people had multiple failures under their belt before they succeeded. It's really, really cringey to have a LinkedIn bio where you basically position yourself as the owner of a product and then elsewhere make it sound like you not only had nothing to do with said product's failure but in fact knew how to make it successful but couldn't because everyone else was flawed in some way.
    - voakbasda 5y ago
      I have been in the position of leading products in what turned out later to be bad directions. It does not matter if you are “in charge of a product” when management shoves bad ideas down your throat and ultimately derails any attempt to keep the train running smoothly on its tracks. Unfortunately, this is no way to address such a situation. If you have already moved on to greener pastures, consider yourself lucky and let it go.

jchonphoenix 5y ago

I ran Opendoor's pricing unit for the years leading up to IPO. I can say that this designer has a fundamental misunderstanding of the housing market and the Seller mindset which is likely why leadership ignored him. In housing, EVERY OWNER BELIEVES THEIR HOME IS WORTH MORE THAN IT IS, and will be offended by a fair offer. Period. The failure of their lead designer to realize this after all these years is just one signal into why Zillow couldn't succeed where Opendoor did.

wil421 5y ago
Every owner who sells their house obviously thinks they have a fair offer other wise they wouldn’t have sold in the first place. In my area OpenDoor bought the same quirky weird homes as Zillow that were ugly, had shoddy repair work done, or were in a very weird lot. The reason these sellers sold to OpenDoor or Zillow at slightly below asking was because it was an easy quick sale without all the questions a homeowner would ask themselves before buying.
- mint2 5y ago
  > Every owner who sells their house obviously thinks they have a fair offer other wise they wouldn’t have sold in the first place. Because no one ever has a deadline to sell or any of a thousand other reasons one might take a lowball offer?
- jchonphoenix 5y ago
  The genius of Eric Wu is that he created a premium product for home sellers wanting convenience. Even when we give you an offer, we tell you up front to go test the market with an agent if you want to price optimize.

mrosett 5y ago

That post strikes me as wildly off the mark. Zillow didn't fail because "many home sellers felt jilted, offended, etc. by this product." They failed because they systematically overpaid for assets. (Anecdotally, the one person I know who sold to Zillow is very happy with his experience; not because the process was perfect, but because they gave him more money than his house is worth.) This post is about the wrong battle ("Why does our conversion rate suck?") If I were to steel man his argument, I'd say that maybe the bad user experience meant they had to overpay to get people to actually use the product. But he seems very narrowly focused on "this wasn't a good experience for sellers" when that's at most an indirect factor in the failure.