Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

Remember that executives are never fired for bad decisions, they are fired for bad press. The Unity business model & strategy changes/price hike were most definitely approved by the board. The CEO's job was to make it digestible to the general public, and he failed at that. Don't expect the new one to pull a 180. He will simply hire better PR firms and do better sugar coating.

View on HN

> Remember that executives are never fired for bad decisions, they are fired for bad press.

Executives are fired for bad decisions all the time. You just don’t hear about it when there isn’t bad press.

Often with an absurd golden parachute though.

No, a citation is not needed. It’s entirely normal that poor performers are fired. What is utterly implausible is the idea that poor performers are never fired. That’s a weird fiction people like to repeat here that doesn’t stand up to the slightest amount of thought.

If by "normal" you mean "reasonable", then you're right. If you mean "common", then try working at a large publicly-traded company for a few years. I agree that this stance doesn't stand up "to the slightest amount of thought", but yours doesn't measure up to the reality in the field. The reason people are saying something that makes no sense is probably because it's actually happening a lot.

I work in a world-famous publicly-traded company and previous top head was unceremoniously fired when their superiors realized we're years behind competition on a lifeline product.

Regardless of that product, how long was he making bad decisions before he was replaced? If it's less than two years, are you hiring? :)

That's good! One example. But we need thousands more to be able to say this is common though.

There's a reason the term "fail upwards" is so commonly used.

And it will fail again. Companies that target indie creators really don't fit into the VC model. Their customers will riot every time they try to maximize profits.

Unity, like every other shitty tech company these days, is just an ad company. Their customers are ad purchasers, not game devs.

But just like Google has to make sure you keep searching on google.com and keep watching youtube, Unity has to make sure people keep playing Unity games, which requires people to make Unity games. You can't sell ads when you don't have anywhere to put them.

Arguably, Unity could survive without the game engine -- they just need to survive the consolidation of the mobile ad business. Many companies already used Unity Ads without using Unity engine, even moreso after the acquisition / near merger with Ironsource. That acquisition was entirely about staying a step ahead of the consolidation wave, and nothing to do with the engine.

Of course, while that idea may be arguable it's also absolutely idiotic. But I won't be at all surprised if Unity continues to steer in that direction, especially now that the Ironsource people comprise a large part of the company.

Unity is mainly targeting mobile games studios, who are certainly not indie creators, but are pretty big companies themselves. I don't think that indie game developers who release games on steam make up a significant portion of their income.

But what class of customer doesn't riot when they try to maximise profits?

But who proposed those changes? Ultimately the CEO is accountable.

The board

I'm not an expert on corporate governance, but does a board of directors get into the nitty gritty of pricing models? I can totally believe they told the CEO to "bring in more revenue, or get replaced", but I have a hard time imagining they got too involved in the details how that would happen. Many board members sit on multiple boards or are CEOs of other companies. Do they really have time to do the kind of market research you'd need to propose such a change?

I'm an "expert" on corporate governance and I can say that no, boards do not get involved to the degree of making any market research -- they don't "initiate" initiatives such as a pricing model change (if you will pardon the redundancy). Public company CEOs (and their teams, really) come up with these plans. Boards do vet the executive's team business plan at the time of budgeting and during quarterly updates, but it's the CEO who is in charge of ideation and execution.

Having been in board meetings where members went in on the nitty gritty of our _salesperson_ compensation structure, I would say yes.

They'll sure scrutinize this or that, I'd be surprised if they _suggested_ a salesperson compensation structure.

Nah, it'd fit. Everyone knows that sales is the only part of the company that actually makes money. Everything else is just a cost center that needs to be shrunk aggressively.

Public company boards?

A majority holder on the board dictates how the company operates. It usually goes like give me a plan to get maximum revenue so I can collateral the company to get more debt to acquire other company or get me maximum profit so I can exit and invest on other company.

Board members aren't doing research, bud. Lol

Research and information is compiled for them, which they then review.

What're your thoughts on politicians who are in multiple subcommittees? Not smart enough?

It is not the role of the board to make executive decisions like this. That's what the 'E' in CEO means.

In certain companies, everything above a certain size (money spent or count or items or staff affected) requires a board decision, by charter.

Negative, it's the CEO.

Unity has been hemorrhaging money, and the shareholders want to see profits. The board and the CEO have no choice but to execute on their demands.

> The Unity business model & strategy changes/price hike were most definitely approved by the board.

I mean.. maybe? But it would be surprising.

What makes a bad decision then? Excellent press while customers still bailing out wouldn't make it a good decision would it?

Wait until you hear who was until recently the chairman of the board.

> The CEO's job was to make it digestible to the general public, and he failed at that.

No. It was to either do that or be the scapegoat and take the golden parachute. Either way it's wins all around.

Now he can be blamed for the board's decisions. Meanwhile it remains to be seen how much anything will change. After all, the cause of the problem is gone now, right? /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com