4 ms·

5 CEOs That Need To Get Fired

34 points by kwamenum86 18y ago

jfornear 18y ago
I figure my thoughts are just as randomly justified/qualified as Wired's: If Facebook replaced Zuckerberg, I bet users wouldn't be opposed to paying a monthly subscription. I agree that the Blockbuster CEO needs out. I think he has even been quoted mocking Netflix as non threatening. I don't know what I feel about Jerry Yang. I feel like Yahoo's situation has to be more complicated than coverage conveys.
- arockwell 18y ago
  > By any reckoning, Jerry Yang should be out of a job. > The Yahoo CEO spent a good part of the year fighting off an unsolicited bid by Microsoft which valued his company at about three times what it's worth today. That seems pretty clear cut to me. In terms of share holder value, that's pretty catastrophic.
  - jrockway 18y ago
    What's good today might not be good a year from now. Not that I necessarily believe that that applies to Yahoo's decision... but it is something to consider.
  - raganwald 18y ago
    I don't want to defend Mr. Yang, but I appeal to everyone to remember that people said exactly the same thing when Apple rejected Sun's offer of $24 a share, a 50% premium over their stock price (at the time) of $16. And soon thereafter, if memory serves me, AAPL fell even lower as the arbitrageurs cut their losses.
    - jeroen 18y ago
      A fair point, until you figure in this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081106/bs_afp/usitinternetyahoomicrosoft;_ylt=Ak353aBaQ5QtJZVYpAY0xWKIzdAF http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081106/bs_afp/usitinternetyaho... "'To this day, I would say the best thing for Microsoft is to buy Yahoo,' Yang said" If he wanted to sell, he should have done it then, not now.
      - raganwald 18y ago
        You're so right about Jerry that I regret not saving my entire week's allowance of upmods for you. But I think we're in violent agreement on the point. There is a difference between wanting to sell all along and wanting to stay independent. If he wanted to sell all along and he was just playing negotiating games, I have no sympathy for him and his board. They should face the full wrath of the shareholders. On the other hand, if he wanted to make a go of it independently and it's a case of things falling apart to the point where he's going back to Ballmer on his knees... I have sympathy for him. In Apple's case, after rejecting the buyout they went with Plan B, engaging in one of the greatest "HR Acquisitions" in history. Jerry's Plan B hasn't worked out quite so well.
    - indiejade 18y ago
      Jerry gets an unfair rap. I really hope Yahoo can make it through this rough patch without succumbing to the fangs of the big M. First of all, Yahoo is still a young company, relatively speaking. There are a multitude of far worse examples in stock-price fluctuation and company valuations over time. For those who disagree, I'll point you to one of the pioneering (and free!) resources for such information: Yahoo! Finance at http://finance.yahoo.com/ http://finance.yahoo.com/ Second, how can anyone blame him for wanting to keep Yahoo independent from Microsoft? It's Microsoft, for the sake of Pete. The number and types of stakeholders (which are technically different from shareholders, but still important) are a different breed. There was a time I had a stock portfolio, and I owned shares of both Microsoft and Yahoo! -- for very different reasons: I admired the formidable online presence of Yahoo, and I thought (at the time, in early 2005) that Microsoft had a great business in its console gaming business with the X-Box. Third, Microsoft's bid for Yahoo is a reactive to the shift to changes in the market. And one of the (highly intangible) advantages of being a first-mover is bargaining power over distribution channels. Yahoo, being in its more formidable online position (as interest switches from desktops to the web) operates in an entirely different sphere than Microsoft and should be able to reap the rewards of their investment in the online sphere. If shareholders don't see it now, they will someday -- if they allow Yahoo! to continue independent. Short-term greed kills innovation.
- chollida1 18y ago
  > If Facebook replaced Zuckerberg, I bet users wouldn't be opposed to paying a monthly subscription. I'm curious as to why you think the users willingness to pay is linked to Zuckerberg being the CEO. Could you elaborate?
  - kwamenum86 18y ago
    I think he is saying that the new CEO would be willing to implement subscriptions and the fb community would comply. I don't think anyone is waiting for Zuck to step down so they can pay a fee to talk to their friends :)
    - jrockway 18y ago
      Actually, I think Facebook users would just go elsewhere. Remember that they are college and high school kids with no income, so they don't have a lot of money to spend. That's why Facebook ads don't work.
      - kwamenum86 18y ago
        Most college students have a certain amount of discretionary funds. They just tend to exhaust it very quickly. They can and should practice price discrimination. Charge those who can afford it more and those who can't less. Getting a fraction of 110 million users to pay even 5 dollars annually could actually double their revenue (strange but true).
        deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
- oakmac 18y ago
  "I bet users wouldn't be opposed to paying a monthly subscription." If Facebook started charging a monthly fee to be a member it would die a swift death. What Facebook should do is start charging for additional services beyond a basic profile. For example: basic profile is limited to 20 photos/month, $2/month gets you unlimited.
  - kirse 18y ago
    Last time I gave some serious thought to FB's revenue problem this is what I came up with. They'd have to find a way to sneak in a few initial tiny costs that don't abruptly cut off users who don't pay (i.e. limiting # of photos etc...). Once you get enough people with their credit card info in there, make it easy as heck (one-click) to upgrade to "Premium" or something and push the Premium site hard. Microsoft does this with their Xbox Live service. It's so ridiculously easy to spend money on that service once they get your CC# for something tiny. All you have to do is press the X button (or something) to buy just about anything.
  - curiousgeorge 18y ago
    My girlfriend just spent 3 hours copying her contact info from one phone to the next. Facebook could easily charge people for exporting their contact info into other applications.
- thomasmallen 18y ago
  Two words: Student discount. Students pay nothing, but once you're out in the working world, pay a nominal annual fee ($10-25). You could cheat it, but then you'd be labeled on the site as a student forever. It may even be a "coming of age" thing for Facebook users...I wouldn't know, I don't use that site.
kwamenum86 18y ago
Zuckerberg should be commended for his talent and vision but if you have do take out a loan to keep your company afloat because you don't have enough revenue (as was widely reported) and you are STILL not worried about having a business model something is wrong. He recites his "we are not worried about revenue for at least a few years, we just want to grow" line religiously but it seriously sounds like entrepreneurial advice crica 2006. Get with the program!
- river_styx 18y ago
  This is the modus operandi for basically every web 2.0 company. I think never before in history has there been such a large number of businesses springing up and carrying on blithely with no idea how they're going to make money.
  - unalone 18y ago
    It's because they were told sometime in the last decade that you could make a site profitable through ads alone. Because it worked for Google so incredibly. They forgot that Google works because they target massively relevant ads to people who are looking for links to begin with. Interestingly enough, Facebook's revenue plan involves making money off of Live Search ads, as of the last month or so. Essentially, they're ripping off Google as honestly as they can: by emulating them. I'm interested in seeing how they'll fight against embedded Google search: that's their huge competitor right now.
  - alaskamiller 18y ago
    Is there something inherently wrong with this?
    - river_styx 18y ago
      I don't see anything inherently wrong, really. It's just strange that, given the point of starting a business is to make money, there would be so many businesses out there running along seemingly without much concern as to revenue. If your aim is to build a large user base and flip, that's fine, but keep in mind that it's an unsustainable business model. It's basically a crapshoot.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
iamdave 18y ago
investors usually move to replace founders with more experienced executives. I don't like that at all. Captains sink with their ships, it's the most time tested adage of being a leader. The notion that investors pull out the founders and replace them with Executives I think showcases a problem with how we analyze human relations in business: people are expendable and don't matter as long as they can keep the gears turning that pad wallets. I understand the point of business: make money. But when did it become fashionable to give up the ability to command your crew just because a petty officer comes along and says "get lost" just because he's paying the bills? Pay the bills or not, I stand by my opinion: a captain should sink with his ship. Got a shitty founder, teach him how to be a better founder and in the end you'll all benefit. Or are we all just too greedy to give a damn?
- thomasmallen 18y ago
  If I go the startup route, I'll do it without investors. Start small. Then earn a little, grow a little, and make smart business decisions. Repeat. I'd much rather be on a solid foundation in ten years than on top of the world in two and back on the streets in another.
alizaki 18y ago
Right on the money, except for Dell. The company is putting money into key trend and technology. Case in point: the netbook and the 19 hour battery life laptops.
Sam_Odio 18y ago
It's interesting that the article seems to be using a reddit backend. Notice the url of the vote links: http://reddit.wired.com/ceos/.. http://reddit.wired.com/ceos/... It's nice to see reddit integrated into Conde Nast's other properties. I wonder what else they have in store for the technology.
saint 18y ago
i have failed to understand the criteria for the list, while i can understand yangs failure, i do not think that facebook has come to an end yet as it is rather new model nobody understands.

34 points by kwamenum86 18y ago

I figure my thoughts are just as randomly justified/qualified as Wired's: If Facebook replaced Zuckerberg, I bet users wouldn't be opposed to paying a monthly subscription. I agree that the Blockbuster CEO needs out. I think he has even been quoted mocking Netflix as non threatening. I don't know what I feel about Jerry Yang. I feel like Yahoo's situation has to be more complicated than coverage conveys.

arockwell 18y ago
> By any reckoning, Jerry Yang should be out of a job. > The Yahoo CEO spent a good part of the year fighting off an unsolicited bid by Microsoft which valued his company at about three times what it's worth today. That seems pretty clear cut to me. In terms of share holder value, that's pretty catastrophic.
- jrockway 18y ago
  What's good today might not be good a year from now. Not that I necessarily believe that that applies to Yahoo's decision... but it is something to consider.
- raganwald 18y ago
  I don't want to defend Mr. Yang, but I appeal to everyone to remember that people said exactly the same thing when Apple rejected Sun's offer of $24 a share, a 50% premium over their stock price (at the time) of $16. And soon thereafter, if memory serves me, AAPL fell even lower as the arbitrageurs cut their losses.
  - jeroen 18y ago
    A fair point, until you figure in this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081106/bs_afp/usitinternetyahoomicrosoft;_ylt=Ak353aBaQ5QtJZVYpAY0xWKIzdAF http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081106/bs_afp/usitinternetyaho... "'To this day, I would say the best thing for Microsoft is to buy Yahoo,' Yang said" If he wanted to sell, he should have done it then, not now.
    - raganwald 18y ago
      You're so right about Jerry that I regret not saving my entire week's allowance of upmods for you. But I think we're in violent agreement on the point. There is a difference between wanting to sell all along and wanting to stay independent. If he wanted to sell all along and he was just playing negotiating games, I have no sympathy for him and his board. They should face the full wrath of the shareholders. On the other hand, if he wanted to make a go of it independently and it's a case of things falling apart to the point where he's going back to Ballmer on his knees... I have sympathy for him. In Apple's case, after rejecting the buyout they went with Plan B, engaging in one of the greatest "HR Acquisitions" in history. Jerry's Plan B hasn't worked out quite so well.
  - indiejade 18y ago
    Jerry gets an unfair rap. I really hope Yahoo can make it through this rough patch without succumbing to the fangs of the big M. First of all, Yahoo is still a young company, relatively speaking. There are a multitude of far worse examples in stock-price fluctuation and company valuations over time. For those who disagree, I'll point you to one of the pioneering (and free!) resources for such information: Yahoo! Finance at http://finance.yahoo.com/ http://finance.yahoo.com/ Second, how can anyone blame him for wanting to keep Yahoo independent from Microsoft? It's Microsoft, for the sake of Pete. The number and types of stakeholders (which are technically different from shareholders, but still important) are a different breed. There was a time I had a stock portfolio, and I owned shares of both Microsoft and Yahoo! -- for very different reasons: I admired the formidable online presence of Yahoo, and I thought (at the time, in early 2005) that Microsoft had a great business in its console gaming business with the X-Box. Third, Microsoft's bid for Yahoo is a reactive to the shift to changes in the market. And one of the (highly intangible) advantages of being a first-mover is bargaining power over distribution channels. Yahoo, being in its more formidable online position (as interest switches from desktops to the web) operates in an entirely different sphere than Microsoft and should be able to reap the rewards of their investment in the online sphere. If shareholders don't see it now, they will someday -- if they allow Yahoo! to continue independent. Short-term greed kills innovation.
chollida1 18y ago
> If Facebook replaced Zuckerberg, I bet users wouldn't be opposed to paying a monthly subscription. I'm curious as to why you think the users willingness to pay is linked to Zuckerberg being the CEO. Could you elaborate?
- kwamenum86 18y ago
  I think he is saying that the new CEO would be willing to implement subscriptions and the fb community would comply. I don't think anyone is waiting for Zuck to step down so they can pay a fee to talk to their friends :)
  - jrockway 18y ago
    Actually, I think Facebook users would just go elsewhere. Remember that they are college and high school kids with no income, so they don't have a lot of money to spend. That's why Facebook ads don't work.
    - kwamenum86 18y ago
      Most college students have a certain amount of discretionary funds. They just tend to exhaust it very quickly. They can and should practice price discrimination. Charge those who can afford it more and those who can't less. Getting a fraction of 110 million users to pay even 5 dollars annually could actually double their revenue (strange but true).
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
oakmac 18y ago
"I bet users wouldn't be opposed to paying a monthly subscription." If Facebook started charging a monthly fee to be a member it would die a swift death. What Facebook should do is start charging for additional services beyond a basic profile. For example: basic profile is limited to 20 photos/month, $2/month gets you unlimited.
- kirse 18y ago
  Last time I gave some serious thought to FB's revenue problem this is what I came up with. They'd have to find a way to sneak in a few initial tiny costs that don't abruptly cut off users who don't pay (i.e. limiting # of photos etc...). Once you get enough people with their credit card info in there, make it easy as heck (one-click) to upgrade to "Premium" or something and push the Premium site hard. Microsoft does this with their Xbox Live service. It's so ridiculously easy to spend money on that service once they get your CC# for something tiny. All you have to do is press the X button (or something) to buy just about anything.
- curiousgeorge 18y ago
  My girlfriend just spent 3 hours copying her contact info from one phone to the next. Facebook could easily charge people for exporting their contact info into other applications.
thomasmallen 18y ago
Two words: Student discount. Students pay nothing, but once you're out in the working world, pay a nominal annual fee ($10-25). You could cheat it, but then you'd be labeled on the site as a student forever. It may even be a "coming of age" thing for Facebook users...I wouldn't know, I don't use that site.

kwamenum86 18y ago

Zuckerberg should be commended for his talent and vision but if you have do take out a loan to keep your company afloat because you don't have enough revenue (as was widely reported) and you are STILL not worried about having a business model something is wrong. He recites his "we are not worried about revenue for at least a few years, we just want to grow" line religiously but it seriously sounds like entrepreneurial advice crica 2006. Get with the program!

river_styx 18y ago
This is the modus operandi for basically every web 2.0 company. I think never before in history has there been such a large number of businesses springing up and carrying on blithely with no idea how they're going to make money.
- unalone 18y ago
  It's because they were told sometime in the last decade that you could make a site profitable through ads alone. Because it worked for Google so incredibly. They forgot that Google works because they target massively relevant ads to people who are looking for links to begin with. Interestingly enough, Facebook's revenue plan involves making money off of Live Search ads, as of the last month or so. Essentially, they're ripping off Google as honestly as they can: by emulating them. I'm interested in seeing how they'll fight against embedded Google search: that's their huge competitor right now.
- alaskamiller 18y ago
  Is there something inherently wrong with this?
  - river_styx 18y ago
    I don't see anything inherently wrong, really. It's just strange that, given the point of starting a business is to make money, there would be so many businesses out there running along seemingly without much concern as to revenue. If your aim is to build a large user base and flip, that's fine, but keep in mind that it's an unsustainable business model. It's basically a crapshoot.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

iamdave 18y ago

investors usually move to replace founders with more experienced executives. I don't like that at all. Captains sink with their ships, it's the most time tested adage of being a leader. The notion that investors pull out the founders and replace them with Executives I think showcases a problem with how we analyze human relations in business: people are expendable and don't matter as long as they can keep the gears turning that pad wallets. I understand the point of business: make money. But when did it become fashionable to give up the ability to command your crew just because a petty officer comes along and says "get lost" just because he's paying the bills? Pay the bills or not, I stand by my opinion: a captain should sink with his ship. Got a shitty founder, teach him how to be a better founder and in the end you'll all benefit. Or are we all just too greedy to give a damn?

thomasmallen 18y ago
If I go the startup route, I'll do it without investors. Start small. Then earn a little, grow a little, and make smart business decisions. Repeat. I'd much rather be on a solid foundation in ten years than on top of the world in two and back on the streets in another.

alizaki 18y ago

Right on the money, except for Dell. The company is putting money into key trend and technology. Case in point: the netbook and the 19 hour battery life laptops.

Sam_Odio 18y ago

It's interesting that the article seems to be using a reddit backend. Notice the url of the vote links: http://reddit.wired.com/ceos/.. http://reddit.wired.com/ceos/... It's nice to see reddit integrated into Conde Nast's other properties. I wonder what else they have in store for the technology.

saint 18y ago

i have failed to understand the criteria for the list, while i can understand yangs failure, i do not think that facebook has come to an end yet as it is rather new model nobody understands.