Dear Marissa: Think Different
500hats.com
500hats.com
Imagine if Yahoo made a serious bid for Pinterest, and then Marissa went really crazy and made their homepage into a Pinterest-like site. Not only would it cause a great sensational uproar in the press, but it would make Yahoo a serious contender again.
P.S. Not offended by the fact that Dave said "pink".
Michael Porter defines strategy as how you are different from your competitors. Strategy means saying no, whereas Yahoo has always said yes. Southwest has a strategy (one class of service, only 737s, no reserved seats, no hub/spoke...) whereas United and American Airlines do not. Yahoo has been a tech version of a conglomerate. With no clear way to decide what projects are off strategy, all projects survive and the company has no focus.
Yes its a concern that yahoo's strengths (sports, finance) may not fit that direction. But this is the first time, ever, tht I've heard an actual strategy of any kind proposed for Yahoo. And that's cool because I was skeptical there could be one.
Step 2: add no new features to it for five years, but force users to create a yahoo account to use it.
Step 3: fire all the developers.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: profit.
Oh wait, that was Flickr.
Heck, nothing's too crazy for a company in free fall.
Before Dyson vacuums were marketed to women exclusively. If you suggested marketing a vacuum to men before Dyson, you'd be laughed out of the boardroom. Dyson threw that all out the window and entered the market with a vacuum that actually looks like a sci-fi weapon, and to great success.
Anyway, your point is noted. One of my favorite tweets ever was one by Amy Jane Gruber, to the effect of: Boys say “If we get a dog, I’ll clean up after it,” and men say, “If we get a Dyson, I’ll vacuum!”
Sounds discriminatory to me.
Just like I suppose there is an "industry-wide preference for female employees" in K-6 education.
Incidentally, even if we were to pretend to compare the industries of "technology" and "education of children between the ages of 6 and 12", your quip fails the test: A majority of teachers may be female, but there is no such majority among those in "leadership positions" (administrators, principals and superintendants).
Take as example a company where 90% of the programmer applicants are male. As I understand the word "preference", a resulting workforce of 90% males would indicate no preference one way or the other (assuming the men and women were equally skilled).
Further, a 91% male workforce would be evidence of a male preference, while an 89% male workforce evidence of a female preference.
Is that what you mean by "preference"?
I was using "preference" in a more generic complex-systems-analysis sense. We begin with a potential workforce, at birth, of half men and half women. Over time, the further you go into the industry, you see more and more men and fewer and fewer women. The women are being rejected, the men are being selected for, this demonstrates a preference. Again, not imputing any consciousness here, it's just what the system is doing.
The claim we are asked to accept is that this reflects a something real and measurable, such as my transportation preference for cars over horses, rather than something subjective and arbitrary, such as my berry preference for blueberries over strawberries.
That there is a majority is a statistical fact. Whether anyone has a preference for male employees is the controversial question you refer to.
My family is a computer family, through and through. Surprise, surprise, my sister is in software too.
Don't attribute malice where there is none. Quite simply, women are not encouraged to be scientists by OTHER WOMEN. Not men. Men LOVE women who love science.
Sure, Yahoo and Microsoft are boring, but they're still profitable.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials...
Because the only things that get attention in SV are products with growth. Yahoo is a very profitable company and has billions in the bank, so it'll be around for a while, with or without a rebound.
That's not to say Yahoo can't sell these and purchase the properties Dave mentions, of course. It's just that Yahoo currently doesn't have a core strength in targeting women and would need to reach out a lot to build that competency.
mail.yahoo.com 48.76%
login.yahoo.com 29.14%
yahoo.com 24.39%
search.yahoo.com 19.22%
answers.yahoo.com 16.42%
news.yahoo.com 15.16%
sports.yahoo.com 6.35%
finance.yahoo.com 6.25%
omg.yahoo.com 5.86%
my.yahoo.com 4.71%
in.yahoo.com 4.67%
tw.yahoo.com 3.39%
docs.yahoo.com 2.78%
movies.yahoo.com 2.75%
shine.yahoo.com 2.59%http://www.quantcast.com/answers.yahoo.com#!demo&anchor=...
Female: 53%
Male: 47%
And interestingly, Yahoo.com's demographics are:
http://www.quantcast.com/yahoo.com#!demo&anchor=panel-GE...
Female: 52%
Male: 48%
Whereas Google is:
http://www.quantcast.com/google.com#!demo&anchor=panel-G...
Female: 50%
Male: 50%
Looks like Yahoo does indeed have a slight skew towards a female audience. Dave may be on to something.
- PETA might say just hearing the word "slaughter" brings them to tears.
- religious groups are offended by all kinds of things. (eg. homosexuality)
No one can claim a monopoly on being offended. Part of living in our modern multicultural society is that you grow a shell towards these things. Your problem with these words should not impede the freedom of those around you.
Rape in and of itself is a terrible crime. Yet the word is just that, a word, and your personal offence is not unique. I get offended too, everyone does. Just to different things.
Can you imagine the bland and chaste world we might live in if every complaint for personal offense on the radio, tv or internet was taken into account.
It kind of surprised me, given this is an internet and HN is not a religious or kids website, to see her getting offended by me using this word especially in this unregular context. I guess I have seen worst language flying around and never thought someone can get offended. Maybe shes very sensitive. I know for sure, living in NYC, cannot be too sensitive and been working with some women cursing very hard. I dont like it but I tend to ignore it.
This also reminds me, btw, about my friends Asian immigrant girlfriend. Supposedly their culture forbids heavy language. They were dating for 11 months when he used the word "crazy" to describe something that happened to him at work. She broke up with him the same day explaining she doesnt date americans who curse.
"Offense is taken, not give". However sad someone's experience may be this is not a good excuse to censor the expression of others. And not very effective at that.
It trivializes someone's tramautic experience, and reminds them how others see it as No Big Deal.
I am completely about freedom of speech, but I reserve my right to condemn those who use certain types of speech.
What is wrong with a little bit of courtesy?
Thought crime! God's teeth. Were you dragged up?
personally, i think proper grammar is mostly a waste of time... as has happened previously, its use will be eroded by pop culture and mainstream behaviors rather quickly.
also, for some reason i think capitalizing the word 'I' is somehow king of arrogant. don't know why that is, but just seems that way to me.
Just a bit of literary criticism here, take it or leave it: when I read the classic articles on your site, with the ransom-note formatting, the presentation often overwhelmed the content. I mean, anyone drawing that much attention to their rejection of social norms must mean that to be the primary purpose of the performance. I often slogged through -- and it was a slog -- to get at the meaty arguments hidden somewhere in the pink/green/etc text.
I'm totally on-board with grammar being essentially arbitrary and fluid (this is a True Statement about material reality), but given that this is true, the Dave-maximizing approach is probably not to say "stufz da grammerz!!1" but rather to write well-enough-to-be-understood and not care about the occasional transgression or three.
(There are other writers who make the stylistic choice to be near-perfect paragons of English grammar -- that totally works, too. It communicates something a wee bit different, for example that one is really going for university professor levels of erudition, but that works for some people. PG's writing style, for example, causes me to pull out a dictionary if I see a spelling mistake because it means there is probably a word I haven't learned yet. On the other hand, I generally tend to aim for about a 98% on the mechanics of standard English, don't sweat the last 2% all that much, and frequently break the rules for comedic/dramatic/etc effect. It's much more noticeable when you aren't breaking the rules all of the time.)
This is entirely compatible with continuing the iconoclastic Dave McClure branding, because that branding is a consequence of thinking fairly radical thoughts and articulating them, rather than being entirely a consequence of the packaging of thoughts that are under the surface exactly the same as every other VC's.
> i think proper grammar is mostly a waste of time...
It is is you think that clear communication is also the waste of time.
I may tolerate someone who cannot write properly because they never learnt (or are non-native speakers, like myself), but when someone can write properly but chooses not to—I cannot see that in any other way but the lack of respect to the target audience. "You cannot decipher some gibberish I wrote? Your problem"—this is arrogant.
And to the hell with popular culture where signal to noise is so low that you cannot see the signal any more.a person could be stylistically arrogant, eg they are creating through their subcommunications (body language, overuse of first person pronounces etc) that they care about their own position greatly and think of themselves as important. (which may or may not be justified view of course - most often not)
i suspect many would align with that view of arrogance. perhaps it is also possible that a person could come across that way, but in fact be humble in what the objective facts they are making.
and vice versa..i've seen a few people who are charming, friendly, likeable and they don't 'feel' arrogant, but yet making the most arrogant claims, if you stop and think about it.
Edit: Just noticed that Gina Trapani helped forge the headline... It's probably OK ;)
It seems to me that it's almost always better for a strategy to be explicit rather than implicit. Plenty of successful strategies are gender focused, so you're opting for some kind of ideological purity over possible success.
But I tend to agree with you on discrimination in the bad sense ("discrimination" just means telling things apart, but I assume you mean "bias").
i.e. what a lot of people think has been wrong with Yahoo for a long, long time now.
Tech firms don't build sites with the stated aim of being "for men", they make sites that provide finance news, sports scores, gadget reviews etc. To redress the gender bias, we should be looking to find what the smart/wealthy/interesting women are doing and build sites that they love.
Suggesting the highest ranking woman CEO in the tech sector should concentrate on serving women, is slightly sexist.
Both men and women use Yahoo. Demographic splits aren't necessarily as gender specific as the author assumes. We're not living in the 1950s.
What's up with the spelling of the last line, though?
There's one potential negative to the "pink" strategy, however. Regardless of how some might like it to be, the overwhelming majority of hackers do seem to be male. If you evolve your company to be female oriented in their product suite, you may make the company less attractive when recruiting and retaining male hackers. And ultimately having talent on staff is the bottleneck. But there may be a way to pursue a balanced path which gives the advantages of a pink strategy while not being too bitten by the negative, so you come out ahead.
I also wish they'd drop the "!". Just "Yahoo". Much cleaner.
I think those currently working at companies like Pinterest and Etsy would disagree.
I greatly admire those companies and as a developer seek teams with a good culture that grt stuff done anf create great products. I would argue that the market focus of a company is not the key determinate in attracting developers but rather your reputation for valuing devs and being a great place to work.