9 ms·

I've actually faced a similar situation, and let me tell you it was hard. Companies like Yahoo exist to make money - or, at least, they must continue to make mo

I've actually faced a similar situation, and let me tell you it was hard. Companies like Yahoo exist to make money - or, at least, they must continue to make money in order to continue existing. Like Dustin said, > "This is truly a nightmare scenario for any CEO: do you take the risk and proceed with the better user experience/product at the expense of short term numbers–with no promise that the better design will actually lead to long-term benefits–or do you scrap the new design and start over?" Would the simplified, modern design have led Yahoo into a new era of profitability? Maybe. Or maybe they'd just have a nicer site that made less money for a year. Our team made a site that made less per visitor, but we felt like it was a better-looking and more useful site. We decided to stick with it and work out the kinks, but ~6 months went by without reaching our old sites' benchmark. There was a ton of pressure on me to make it work or admit defeat and revert. I nearly gave in as the stress built, but eventually revenue surpassed the old site. I later learned that I was almost fired over it. My story has a happy ending, but just barely. I have sympathy for the people making these decisions.

kenko 13y ago
There's a lot of room between "exist to make money" and "must make money in order to exist". Like, a staggering amount of room.
- ksikka 13y ago
  there's also a lot of pressure when you're public
- baddox 13y ago
  I don't really see much of a difference. If a company must make money to continue to exist, then I think it's reasonable to say that company "exists to make money." Of course, that doesn't mean is exists only to make money.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - khafra 13y ago
    The practical difference disappears when your operating margin is 0. When you have money left over after paying your essential expenses, though, you can do stuff. Like, if you're Microsoft and you have 60 billion in cash, you can have a big R&D department that sometimes engages in blue-sky research.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    Do you consider a company like Raspberry Pi or Oxfam to "exist to make money"? They certainly need money to exist.
  - kenko 13y ago
    Lots of bookstores, cafes, antique shops, whatever, are labors of love. And not only things like that. A bakery---a good bakery!---exists to make good bread. It has to sell that bread and cover its costs, etc., in order to do that, but it doesn't exist in order to make the money necessary to cover its costs. If that were why it existed, it would be easier to abandon the end of making good bread!
- pshin45 13y ago
  Exactly, reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "We survive by breathing but we can't say we live to breathe. Likewise, making money is very important for a business to survive, but money alone cannot be the reason for business to exist."
vra 13y ago
interesting
ampersandy 13y ago
To be fair, revenue could have kept growing with the old design; you still don't know if you've achieved more with the new one!
wisty 13y ago
> Companies like Yahoo exist to make money - or, at least, they must continue to make money in order to continue existing. Hows that working for Yahoo now? Actually, that's kind of disingenuous. Google optimises for less clicks per user, because Google is a site for people who want to get stuff done. Yahoo and Facebook are time-wasters. And unlike Yahoo, I can't see it ever transitioning to anything other than a time-waster. Time-wasters are basically unprofitable (you're getting clicks from people who are looking to kill time, not find a new insurance policy), but that's what Facebook is. Unless Facebook wants to become the new Linked-In (and they don't - Linked-In just doesn't have the market cap), they just have to be a better time-waster. If Facebook had a lower valuation, they might be able to move to a position where their focus was on serving people doing stuff, not wasting time, but they can't.
- dionidium 13y ago
  Hows that working for Yahoo now? Is that supposed to be snark? I realize they're not fashionable, but Yahoo is still quite successful.
- mehwoot 13y ago
  Hows that working for Yahoo now? Pretty well, considering they are still around more than a decade after they stopped being "cool". They're not trendy in tech circles, they are just a business that makes money. Yahoo and Facebook are time-wasters... Time-wasters are basically unprofitable Yeah, unprofitable to the tune of $600 million a year. That's Yahoo's net profit last year. I swear to god, the blindness of people to anything that's not hip right now is amazing. People assume because they personally stopped caring about something that it must have failed.
  - hrjet 13y ago
    IIRC, they were the top destination 15 years back. They were the default homepage in most browsers. From that spot to "just a business that makes money" is perhaps not the best thing to happen to them. At the same time, I don't think Yahoo is purely money-minded. From what I read, they were the only company which challenged the FISA orders last year (even before the Snowden leaks).
cfontes 13y ago
It happened www.lifehacker.com a few years ago. But I think they really made it worst after the updated UI, I never got back there.

kenko 13y ago

There's a lot of room between "exist to make money" and "must make money in order to exist". Like, a staggering amount of room.

ksikka 13y ago
there's also a lot of pressure when you're public
baddox 13y ago
I don't really see much of a difference. If a company must make money to continue to exist, then I think it's reasonable to say that company "exists to make money." Of course, that doesn't mean is exists only to make money.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- khafra 13y ago
  The practical difference disappears when your operating margin is 0. When you have money left over after paying your essential expenses, though, you can do stuff. Like, if you're Microsoft and you have 60 billion in cash, you can have a big R&D department that sometimes engages in blue-sky research.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  Do you consider a company like Raspberry Pi or Oxfam to "exist to make money"? They certainly need money to exist.
- kenko 13y ago
  Lots of bookstores, cafes, antique shops, whatever, are labors of love. And not only things like that. A bakery---a good bakery!---exists to make good bread. It has to sell that bread and cover its costs, etc., in order to do that, but it doesn't exist in order to make the money necessary to cover its costs. If that were why it existed, it would be easier to abandon the end of making good bread!
pshin45 13y ago
Exactly, reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "We survive by breathing but we can't say we live to breathe. Likewise, making money is very important for a business to survive, but money alone cannot be the reason for business to exist."

vra 13y ago

interesting

ampersandy 13y ago

To be fair, revenue could have kept growing with the old design; you still don't know if you've achieved more with the new one!

wisty 13y ago

> Companies like Yahoo exist to make money - or, at least, they must continue to make money in order to continue existing. Hows that working for Yahoo now? Actually, that's kind of disingenuous. Google optimises for less clicks per user, because Google is a site for people who want to get stuff done. Yahoo and Facebook are time-wasters. And unlike Yahoo, I can't see it ever transitioning to anything other than a time-waster. Time-wasters are basically unprofitable (you're getting clicks from people who are looking to kill time, not find a new insurance policy), but that's what Facebook is. Unless Facebook wants to become the new Linked-In (and they don't - Linked-In just doesn't have the market cap), they just have to be a better time-waster. If Facebook had a lower valuation, they might be able to move to a position where their focus was on serving people doing stuff, not wasting time, but they can't.

dionidium 13y ago
Hows that working for Yahoo now? Is that supposed to be snark? I realize they're not fashionable, but Yahoo is still quite successful.
mehwoot 13y ago
Hows that working for Yahoo now? Pretty well, considering they are still around more than a decade after they stopped being "cool". They're not trendy in tech circles, they are just a business that makes money. Yahoo and Facebook are time-wasters... Time-wasters are basically unprofitable Yeah, unprofitable to the tune of $600 million a year. That's Yahoo's net profit last year. I swear to god, the blindness of people to anything that's not hip right now is amazing. People assume because they personally stopped caring about something that it must have failed.
- hrjet 13y ago
  IIRC, they were the top destination 15 years back. They were the default homepage in most browsers. From that spot to "just a business that makes money" is perhaps not the best thing to happen to them. At the same time, I don't think Yahoo is purely money-minded. From what I read, they were the only company which challenged the FISA orders last year (even before the Snowden leaks).

cfontes 13y ago

It happened www.lifehacker.com a few years ago. But I think they really made it worst after the updated UI, I never got back there.