5 ms·

I saw the talk, and felt his point was hypocritical. He said that FB couldn't have made it outside of the valley, but that knowing what he knows now, it probabl

by nhangen 15y ago

I saw the talk, and felt his point was hypocritical. He said that FB couldn't have made it outside of the valley, but that knowing what he knows now, it probably could were he starting it today. In other words, he needed the valley when he was young and inexperienced, but it's not necessary if you have the experience and connections already. [Edit: The reason I'm saying it's hypocritical is because his point was initially obfuscated, and if you took that statement at face value, you wouldn't get the whole point.]

tiles 15y ago
That doesn't seem inconsistent. That's why he was saying if he started Facebook today, presumably after having some Facebook-like success. The caveat is this is not advice that should be taken by inexperienced entrepreneurs. The important takeaway is that he would be willing to trade a culture of connections for a place where there's less drive for big cash-outs (like Boston or New York, presumably) from entrepreneurship. This gels with his particular philosophy that entrepreneurship should not be about building companies, but building products. In practice there is a spectrum and neither approach is less valid than the other. EDIT: Agreed. Though even he called that headline being on TechCrunch, when he tried to couch his reasoning more carefully than just "I would've started in Boston".
buss 15y ago
I don't think it was hypocritical at all, but I think Zuck didn't clearly explain what he was trying to say. His point was that the valley was essential for when facebook was starting because he didn't know anything and could have only learned the necessary things and met the right people in the valley. Because he has learned so much, he was saying that if he started over, knowing what he knows now, then it wouldn't matter where he started because he knows what to do right.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
grandalf 15y ago
I don't think his point was hypocritical, just a bit illogical. He realized he'd contradicted himself right at the same time he and Jessica both realized he'd said something mildly insulting about the valley, which was a bit awkward. Jessica tried to make a joke (by saying that the press would have a field day with the comment) and Zuck bore down and restated his comment, in the process inadvertently de-emphasizing the original comment's counter-factual nature. His point was that the valley was critical to FB's success, but that if he were starting a new company today he'd do it in Boston b/c he no longer needs what the valley has to offer and his perception is that in Boston long term value is preferred over short term exits. I think Zuck's answer started out as a clever non-answer intended to communicate his appreciation of building long term value... probably 100% on message for Facebook's current growth strategy... but went slightly awry.
- redcircle 15y ago
  I don't agree with his point that employees stick it out for long-term success in other places, while they don't in the Valley. Just because people stay with a company for a longer time doesn't mean that they subscribe to a different culture. I've worked in lots of places, and I got the impression that many people hold onto their jobs due to insufficient opportunities in the local area. If they had those opportunities, and a feeling of better security, I bet that they would move around more. In a way, it sounds like he wants to have employees hang around longer without the company having to invest in a culture that makes them want to stay. The best way to keep employees onboard is a culture in the company that attracts the employees to want to stay. So many startups have compelling cultures at first, then bring in professional management, or excessive growth, and then the original employees seek their desired culture elsewhere. I sure don't want to hang around at a company that brings in traditional management techniques. I care about who I work with, and the conditions --- these days I think I prioritize those criteria over what I work on (and renumeration is a pretty low priority), because I can make lots of things that I work on interesting, but I can't change the management's attitudes (well, I'm trying to write a book to do so, but I wouldn't want to as a leaf node).
HSO 15y ago
I think you're looking for a different word here. Hypocritical, according to my dictionary, means "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case".
lukejduncan 15y ago
He started off by saying there were two forms of the question: 1) If I knew what I know now and 2) If I were starting from scratch all over again. By case he responded: 1) I'd have probably stayed in boston, I like the culture (paraphrased) 2) I'd be here. There's no better way to do it if you don't already know everything

by nhangen 15y ago

tiles 15y ago

That doesn't seem inconsistent. That's why he was saying if he started Facebook today, presumably after having some Facebook-like success. The caveat is this is not advice that should be taken by inexperienced entrepreneurs. The important takeaway is that he would be willing to trade a culture of connections for a place where there's less drive for big cash-outs (like Boston or New York, presumably) from entrepreneurship. This gels with his particular philosophy that entrepreneurship should not be about building companies, but building products. In practice there is a spectrum and neither approach is less valid than the other. EDIT: Agreed. Though even he called that headline being on TechCrunch, when he tried to couch his reasoning more carefully than just "I would've started in Boston".

buss 15y ago

I don't think it was hypocritical at all, but I think Zuck didn't clearly explain what he was trying to say. His point was that the valley was essential for when facebook was starting because he didn't know anything and could have only learned the necessary things and met the right people in the valley. Because he has learned so much, he was saying that if he started over, knowing what he knows now, then it wouldn't matter where he started because he knows what to do right.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

grandalf 15y ago

I don't think his point was hypocritical, just a bit illogical. He realized he'd contradicted himself right at the same time he and Jessica both realized he'd said something mildly insulting about the valley, which was a bit awkward. Jessica tried to make a joke (by saying that the press would have a field day with the comment) and Zuck bore down and restated his comment, in the process inadvertently de-emphasizing the original comment's counter-factual nature. His point was that the valley was critical to FB's success, but that if he were starting a new company today he'd do it in Boston b/c he no longer needs what the valley has to offer and his perception is that in Boston long term value is preferred over short term exits. I think Zuck's answer started out as a clever non-answer intended to communicate his appreciation of building long term value... probably 100% on message for Facebook's current growth strategy... but went slightly awry.

redcircle 15y ago
I don't agree with his point that employees stick it out for long-term success in other places, while they don't in the Valley. Just because people stay with a company for a longer time doesn't mean that they subscribe to a different culture. I've worked in lots of places, and I got the impression that many people hold onto their jobs due to insufficient opportunities in the local area. If they had those opportunities, and a feeling of better security, I bet that they would move around more. In a way, it sounds like he wants to have employees hang around longer without the company having to invest in a culture that makes them want to stay. The best way to keep employees onboard is a culture in the company that attracts the employees to want to stay. So many startups have compelling cultures at first, then bring in professional management, or excessive growth, and then the original employees seek their desired culture elsewhere. I sure don't want to hang around at a company that brings in traditional management techniques. I care about who I work with, and the conditions --- these days I think I prioritize those criteria over what I work on (and renumeration is a pretty low priority), because I can make lots of things that I work on interesting, but I can't change the management's attitudes (well, I'm trying to write a book to do so, but I wouldn't want to as a leaf node).

HSO 15y ago

I think you're looking for a different word here. Hypocritical, according to my dictionary, means "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case".

lukejduncan 15y ago

He started off by saying there were two forms of the question: 1) If I knew what I know now and 2) If I were starting from scratch all over again. By case he responded: 1) I'd have probably stayed in boston, I like the culture (paraphrased) 2) I'd be here. There's no better way to do it if you don't already know everything