Marissa Mayer Makes First Yahoo Acquisition: Stamped
mashable.com
mashable.com
Hiring your "buddies" is WAY lower risk that acqui-hiring strangers. They are a known quantity AND they have enough loyalty that they probably won't bolt the instant they are able. They'll also probably work harder for you than the average acquihire.
This is how the world works-- and it makes sense. It isn't just bullshit "who you know rather than what you know". Moral of the story is that you should kick ass, work hard, and make friends with executives-- it'll give you an alternative to startup-death when YOUR startup fails.
In answer to your question I would call up the people I know but I would expect them to only hire me if I brought the right skills.
The main question then becomes, were they hired more for relationship and connection or because of their credentials and experience?
Therefore, if a person is chosen because of their skills as well as their relationship, it cannot be cronyism.
Now, can you honestly say the hires have absolutely nothing to do with their skills? That she merely hired friends despite their skills? Because they have specific skills that are valuable, and unless you can back that up with something more than a wild accusation, it's just you trying to stir shit up with pointless comments.
I dont believe in your assessment.
If you've used the product, you can see that it was beautiful, usable, and the performance was solid. If we assume that the product is failing (even though they've raised two rounds of funding from seasoned and celebrity investors alike), we know that the team can execute well. Mayer wants to move to mobile-first, so acqui-hiring a team who know how to build well for mobile can be a smart move. It may also attract talent who respects that team. Perhaps Stamped wasn't growing like they planned, but I'm sure they and Mayer think that with the right direction at Yahoo they can do great things.
Who knows if it will work out. But it seems like a solid partnership for both sides.
What was that comparison? No one says, "congratulations on that huge loan you just took out!".
I'm sure the team was great, but I'm confused as to why we should be lauding this state of affairs. If they were making money, then why should they all have up and left to go work at Yahoo!?
From the, admittedly poor on information and high on snark, position I'm comfortably seated on it seems like you had a great team that was wonderfully subsidized by VC that managed to save face with an 'exit'.
I'm sure it's really fun to go through the motions, but I don't really see the part where they added value; I only see an elaborate social signaling event (again, obviously the team is competent, filled with A players) fully subsidized by Yahoo! shareholders.
If I'm missing out on something I'd love to know about it.
I'm not "lauding", I stated that it appears like the move that both sides want to make. A small company gets to take the lead on mobile where they can potentially make a very big difference, much bigger than they could make with their existing company, and really a rare opportunity that not many people get. Mayer gets good talent that she trusts to help lead an important part of her organization. If it works out like they all plan, then it makes those Yahoo! shareholders who subsidized that acquihire very happy.
And if you've ever raised funds then yes, it's an accomplishment and cause to celebrate. Just get back to work the next day.
Equity investments don't "raise the value" of the firm. They simply signal that other people with money believe you will generate X amount of dollars in the future. Debt financing involves signals, too: the interest rate reflects what other people with money think about your ability to generate X amount of dollars in the future (to hopefully pay back your loan). GE pays a very low interest rate on its bonds because of its value and perceived ability to pay back debt.
This is not true if you are destroying value, so its not true per-se. A Junkie with an Amex black meets this definition of success, for example.
Isn't killing successful products what Yahoo is known for?
-- The market
If I were a formed stamped dev and now a Yahoo dev, I would quit Yahoo and form a startup. After all, Yahoo bought their work for lots of money.
This means that consistently hiring objectively while following due process could be considered a competitive advantage.
Buying a successful iPhone app start up would have been way more expensive.
Definitely not a mobile success-- but they built pretty, intuitive, usable software that didn't break.
I read a blog post by MG Siegler about Stamped a few months ago (http://parislemon.com/post/28144863354/stamped-is-it-worthy), but didn't buy his enthusiasm. Stamped seemed like too difficult of a concept/activity for the masses to understand and too broadly marketed for early adopters to get really excited.
I don't think Yahoo's web presence can be salvaged - they have just fallen too far behind Google, Facebook, and the multitude of other leading social platforms.
But mobile is a chance for Yahoo to reset it's identity, it's brand, it's UI, it's relationship to users. It has a chance to become cool again.
On another topic, has anyone else noticed Marissa's hands in that photo?
WHAT THE. Here is a zoomed in screenshot: http://bluetide.pro/j6ch - What the heck is going on there? Bad Photoshop?
EDIT: Wow that was quick, three downvotes in less than five minutes. Must have missed the memo that she's the new Steve Jobs, or something.
The headlines from back then:
* The Instagram Deal: A Mark Zuckerberg Production [NYTimes.com]
* Zuckerberg did $1 billion Instagram deal on his own [CNET]
* With Instagram Buy, Mark Zuckerberg Shifts Facebook Into Acquisition Mode [Forbes]
* Mark Zuckerberg Announces Instagram Acquisition By Facebook [Huffington Post]
* Instagram Was Mark Zuckerberg's Last Hurrah as Facebook's Hacker King [The Atlantic]
Bizarre, but there you have it. The people who are interested in / cheering for Mayer will almost always be carrying an iPhone.