Honest question - was Sean Rad ever the "CEO?" That is, given that Tinder was an IAC unit, does the concept of a "singular" chief executive have any meaning? Or was his position more akin to that of a vice president of a business unit of a larger corporation, subject to the whims and direction of the IAC CEO, Gregory Blatt?
The article brought up the point that he's an employee.
You're right. And it's funny people fight over the title "Founder" when that word doesn't mean anything on paper. Articles of Incorporation don't contain any mention of "Founder". Only CEO, Manager, etc. Founder seems to be an ego thing.
In reality Rad is not a Founder/CEO but was a General Manager or something.
Did he take risk? No. It was funded by IAC.
Did he innovate with the product? Yes.
He was a great employee and tool for Diller. And Diller got rewarded for his risk.
Sucks for Rad in that he didn't want to believe he was just an employee on paper. On paper he was like a General Manager of Quiznos. But look, he gets to drive his $115k mercedes around with Justin, retain equity and still cling to the notion that he was the Founder/CEO of Tinder. Whatever that means.
> It's a big difference. A CEO answers to the board, and the board only.
>
> Sean Rad sounds something more like a President in this scenario.
Let's think this through. The board represents the owners of the company. A President is different from a CEO how? Because there are other employees of the company who can fire them? Okay, what employees of Tinder can fire Sean Rad? None. Who can fire him? Hatch Labs, because with 100% ownership they completely control the board of Tinder...
Which all goes to show that in many, many ways, a CEO who doesn't have an ownership stake in a company is very much an employee.
