Hilarious given that Jason Fried was on the board of directors of Groupon (his comments on this "disgusting scenario" here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2617160).
* as a personal favor to Andrew Mason
* to get some board experience
* he had not changed his stance on bootstrapping companies
* his board involvement was not an endorsement of groupon
* he sold his shares when given the chance
I wish people would at least read the link they paste, if they intend to use it for their arguments. The link answered/refuted his own 'claims'.
However, the saying "If you lay down with dogs, then you get up with fleas" still applies. Even if you publicly disavow the fleas.
Fried was on GroupOn's board way before any of the investment scandals came up.
However, if he actually believes them, and if Groupon really is "absolutely disgusting," why would have he not only given advice but retained shares in in the company? Personally, I don't even give free advice to things I think are "absolutely disgusting" unless it is to clean up before talking to me, and I'm not sure why we should expect anything different from Jason.
Like I said, I'm open to the idea that Jason is simply exaggerating to set his "slow company" apart from the pack, but if I'm going to write a critique it is going to have to be with the words on the page, not my idea of what is going on in Jason's head.
edit: will accept a third possibility, that Jason's ideas have grown stronger as he has witnessed Groupon from the inside.
2nd edit: "invested" -> "retained shares in"
If you're just saying that you think owning equity in a company not run the way he runs his own company undercuts everything he writes... ok, but what a boring objection to raise.
I know this is a message board and we're all committing message board thinking, but snap out of it for just a second.
We're talking about a real person --- a person who by the way is posting on this very thread --- who runs a real business. From what I've seen of that business, it runs, successfully, the way he describes it. I wish we'd stop talking as if Fried was Chairman Mao and we're really debating global communism.
He's a great CEO (at least in the context of 37 Signals), and has a set of values which are internally consistent, and sits on a board of a company which is inconsistent with those values. I'm not sure how to reconcile this with my belief that boardmembers have a responsibility to exert governance and oversight over their companies.
Based on reading his responses elsewhere in the thread (left the board in 2010, was his first board seat, novelty, etc.), it makes more sense. I guess I am overly sensitized to passive board members from watching HP, Yahoo!, eBay, RIMM, etc.
Options presented by me:
A) "absolutely disgusting" is an exaggeration
B) JF is a hypocrite
C) JF has changed his mind over time
On the link you posted he mentioned that he hasn't invested on the company, and that the options he sold were ones he received as compensation for his work on the board.
Thing is Jason is all about living the good life not being rich. Good life != rich. He was doing well for himself before Basecamp and Basecamp was just part of his strategy to manage his own work more effectively so he would have time for stuff that is actually better than coding or designing - like spending time with family or driving race cars a la DHH.
First, let's get your facts straight: I have not invested a penny in Groupon. I haven't put any personal money into any private company other than my own. I was awarded options as compensation for participating on the board, just as other board members were.
Why did I give them advice? Because they asked me for it and I thought I could help. A lot of people ask me for advice, and i'm happy to help where I can. I don't have to agree with someone on everything to give them advice. I like Andrew, he asked me to help him, I wanted to help him, I'd never served on a board before, so it sounded like a great learning experience. It was - I don't regret the experience at all.
Andrew knew where I stood - and where I stand - on VC, investments, growing quickly, hiring a bunch of people, etc. He was interested in my perspective on product, design, and user experience, not on financing, growth, etc.
I was asked to leave the board in 2010.
Is it better to stand by and let them get on with it, or to join them and provide a different opinion? A counterbalance?
I'm in the second camp; work with people, spread your ideas. Give it a try.
Of course I'm also of the opinion that, at board level, it's healthy to have a range of opinions. Only then can you make informed and reasonable decisions.
For the observant (or the fellow Hollanders), we call it the Polder Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_Model).
This is very true... perhaps its one reason why Groupon is struggling so much. Without knowing the board dynamics, its impossible to say, but if I was in their position, I'd want people on the board criticizing every move. So long as it wasn't a majority of the board that is...
But all jokes aside, its not uncommon to have BOD compositions of mixed expertise. Having a design or product guy. A Politician, etc. As a group, they need to be effective. But singling out one individual, for "guilt by association" is perhaps stretching a bit. (edit: Unless he was on the audit comittee!)
The fact that he sold his shares, in some ways, also not per-se a bad sign if it reflected his views (it became public information). This is signalling to the public, and seems consistent with his other expressed opinions.
Ego has this astonishing effect of completely bending[1] the space-time-reality fabric of the universe.
1. Or ripping it apart, depending on how well off you've become and how many sports cars you've bought.
Which is mighty fine.
I'f I'm telling you to be good and I'm bad, them I'm a hypocrite.
That doesn't mean that my advice is bad, or that you shouldn't follow it.
Follow an advice (or not) by the intrinsic value of it, not by who the one giving it is or what he does.