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.
All you say is correct, even down to the "it's who you know line", but I disagree that we should exploit it or even tolerate it. It's just Cronyism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism) and my personal moral compass rejects it.
If you were looking for a job, would you call up the people you know or dive into the classifieds? When you hire a contractor, would you go with someone you know or a stranger? Relationships and social proof make the world go round. There's certainly a spectrum here-- but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Cronyism is when one hires useless people just because they are beneficial for your own sake, not for the collective good. Wikipedia agrees "" The practice of favoritism based on relationships and connections - rather than someone who demonstrates top credentials and well-suited experience "".
The main question then becomes, were they hired more for relationship and connection or because of their credentials and experience?
Cronyism says nothing about the skills of the people. They may well be the best people for the role. It merely means they were chosen on the basis of relationship.
"Cronyism says nothing about the skills of the people." Being the best has nothing to do with it. Cronyism "merely means they were chosen on the basis of relationship."
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.
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 wasn't equating funding with success. I was saying that labeling the product and company a failure even though very smart people who do this for a living have recently put their money behind the company is a leap. If the company was failing, why would these investors put in their money?
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.
Raising the value of your firm is not the only reason to celebrate as a company; successfully making it possible to continue operating/expanding for another year is a good thing.
And a loan would let you do the same. The comparison is valid. For some reason there's a stigma against debt financing because it has to be "paid back" in installments. Equity financing still has to be paid back, the transaction just has different mechanics.
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.
Your comment is far more meta than the OP, he makes a claim that Yahoo has propensity for killing acquired services... that's germane to the subject of this thread, yours is not...
"Meta"ness is not a problem here. Rudeness is. Comments like mine are necessary if the level of discourse is to remain higher here than other sites. Comments like the OP's are not.
The founders don't appear to be devs, one guy is a product manager, another started his career as a tech manager. The other worked on "partnerships and marketing". Quoting crunchbase here.
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.
I've began to think of late that this may be the most prevalent market inefficiency in the world. Hiring people you know without due process is a big reason for the incompetence that creeps into companies after a while.
This means that consistently hiring objectively while following due process could be considered a competitive advantage.
Well, they were failing in terms of user traction and numbers yes, but the app itself was really nice to use, well designed and will give Yahoo a nice iOS developer talent pool to work with.
Buying a successful iPhone app start up would have been way more expensive.
Yeah, the chart tells the story. I think they had a difficult time picking up traction. They did a kind of pivot recently when they added the ability to stamp books, music, TV, movies, iOS apps, etc. But when I used the app it was confusing and scattered.
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.
