> Did this go through comms? There’s a typo (you can use a double-hyphen instead of an em-dash but not both), two slogans where one would do, and an all-caps shout.
In all seriousness, do you want a company that spends its time and money vetting feature announcements, or do you want a company that spends its time and money building the thing that it is supposed to be building?
I would much, MUCH rather do business with, or buy products from a company with poor marketing and a fantastic product than the seemingly thousands of companies out there now that spend more on marketing than actual products [1]
[1] Note: I may have PTSD about this. The Telco I formally worked for commonly spent 10x on marketing a new product a service compared to what it cost to roll out, which was also many times more money than the product was ever forecast to bring in in revenue.
The chief executive of a public company should have impeccable writing.
You could forgive a founder for poor writing on the assumption that they are bringing something else to the table, but as I understand it Yaccarino is in this role as a professional exec.
I disagree, I'm not an x fan just nitpicking. A CEO doesn't need impeccable anything, however they should have the ability to farm it out to somebody who does and if they can't they should be fired. She obviously can't figure pr out at all, which says something about someone being CEO of a social media company.
> Sure, but this company's entire mission is enabling human communication
Right, they enable people to communicate with each other. It simply doesn't matter how "they" communicate.
Like Ford's job is to build cars for people to get from A to B. Who cares how well the executive team at Ford can drive, that has nothing to do with making a good car.
> And yet the main reason Elon is famous and rich and owns Twitter is because he is a very successful communicator and Twitter's most adept user.
The dude also has Asperger's.
And personally, when I'm getting stuff done I don't really care about punctuation and spelling in the email I send to the VPs saying I got the system backonline and saved $10M in billing for the month.
> I think you will find that the people who work at Ford are, by and large, "car guys" (/gals/thems).
My meeetings with major OEMs in the US has sadly been the opposite. All the car enthusiasts were replaced with Marketing people long, long ago (which again emphasizes my point that actually doing is much more important than marketing that doing)
In all seriousness, do you want a company that spends its time and money vetting feature announcements, or do you want a company that spends its time and money building the thing that it is supposed to be building?
I would much, MUCH rather do business with, or buy products from a company with poor marketing and a fantastic product than the seemingly thousands of companies out there now that spend more on marketing than actual products [1]
[1] Note: I may have PTSD about this. The Telco I formally worked for commonly spent 10x on marketing a new product a service compared to what it cost to roll out, which was also many times more money than the product was ever forecast to bring in in revenue.