AllThingsD » advice

Carol Bartz Gives Some Straight-Talkin' Advice

Kara Swisher — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:00:00 +0000

Today, Bloomberg Businessweek is releasing its second “How To” issue, in which the magazine asked over 60 well-known people how to handle “real world problems big and small … from how to make coffee at home to how to save Greece, and even tell readers how to buy a supertanker and a dinosaur.”

Okey doke!

My favorite is one from Carol Bartz, titled “How to Speak Your Mind,” which made me dearly miss the mind-speaking stylings of the ousted Yahoo CEO. Well known for her ability to toss off a curse like it was breathing, she knows of what she speaks.

“Agreeing is easy,” she says. “Disagreeing takes more guts.”

Word. (That’s her above giving me the business at our seventh D: All Things Digital conference in 2009.

Here’s her priceless advice on the subject:

If you’re going to be a straight talker, you have to believe that it’s a virtue, that it’s an attribute you want associated with yourself. If you have an opinion and you just state it, it allows the other person to either try to change your opinion, to agree with you, or to agree to disagree — they have an action they can take. If you are quiet, people think you agree. How can you then further the conversation when you’re at different points and it’s not really exposed? Agreeing is easy. Disagreeing takes more guts. Several years back, when I was CEO at Autodesk, there was a very senior-level woman who was very smart and well-spoken, but she did not wear appropriate clothes. It was distracting and she was not being taken seriously. I said to her manager, who was male, “You need to tell her.” He said, “Oh, no way.” So I called her in and frankly stated what I thought was happening. I told her, “You’re not getting the respect you deserve.” I said, “Go to Nordstrom’s and get a personal shopper. Just say, ‘I’m a senior businessperson and need help dressing like one.’” She came back, and honest to God, it was a different person. She said she felt really good. And her currency went way up. Early in my business career, if people asked me a question, I’d try to answer it honestly. And that was rewarded. I had managers who wanted me around because I would actually tell them what was happening. I was raised by my gram, and she was a pretty straight talker because she thought you could handle it. My advice is, dip your toe in. If you’re honest and truthful, what is somebody going to say, that you’re stupid because you believe something? Being honest and truthful is part of being a good friend, a good associate, and a good leader. It’s also why I know I could never be a politician.

For Yahoo (And Me, Too), Time Is Brain

Kara Swisher — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:38:45 +0000

I hate to use a personal story to make a professional point — but when I was in the hospital recently, after suffering from a mini-stroke, I got an important piece of health advice that, oddly enough, applies perfectly to Yahoo, the Silicon Valley Internet icon I cover very closely.

I know, I know, but listen up …

When I was close to going home, one of my doctors told me I had to make sure I paid attention to any signs that might indicate a recurrence. The issue around any possible future ischemic attack taking place, he said, is speed in getting critical care once any unusual symptoms become apparent, such as numbness, tingling, confusion and cognitive difficulty.

That’s because every second of delay translates to increased damage to cerebral cells that could badly impact speech, movement and worse.

“Remember,” the doctor intoned with great and very appropriate gravity. “Time is brain.”

Yes, indeed it is — for me, and also very much so for Yahoo these days.

Leaving aside my own mortality, one of the most important issues going forward for Yahoo’s long-hoped-for revival will be how quickly the company moves in the next month, in what has so far been a lugubrious and rumor-heavy process to figure out its strategic plan in the wake of the firing of CEO Carol Bartz in early September.

That means — going into a major holiday season — Yahoo has about 30 working days to make what has to be a complex and multiparty deal. It is likely to include private equity firms, big companies, Asian partners, investment bankers, major shareholders and scrutiny from the media, in an effort that is approximately akin to herding cats.

This from a board that has often moved with snail-like reflexes in the midst of much more minors crises, and has shown a talent for disaster.

So, while speed is sometimes the enemy of reason, in this case, it is now more necessary than ever before.

There are three key reasons why Yahoo’s leaders have to perform quickly now, each of which could spell even more turmoil for the long-troubled company, if botched.

The first is the possibility — actually, the probability — of a proxy fight that might begin informally just after the new year.

That’s when you could start hearing from someone like activist shareholder Daniel Loeb of Third Point — who has been vocal about ousting Yahoo board members, including co-founder Jerry Yang. Yahoo directors are fully aware that he is eyeing this ugly option, which will include readying an alternate slate of directors.

According to a Yahoo spokeswoman, the earliest nominations for directors can be submitted is February 24 for those “shareholder proposals not intended for inclusion in proxy materials and for nomination of director candidates.”

But while there is a formal process, you will hear it coming long before that, unless Yahoo gives Loeb board seats to quiet him down — which is unlikely but possible.

Such a noisy fight is not one Yahoo can afford to have, and it has already shown some cloddish sensibilities in its response to a recent letter by Loeb — who has many more shares than Yang, and should still be accorded a certain amount of respect, no matter what he says.

Given how badly the last Yahoo shareholder tussle with Carl Icahn went, another proxy battle could be deadly, and might drag on through the first half of 2012. In his Yahoo tussle, Icahn ultimately got three seats on the Yahoo board, but eventually went away with everyone the poorer.

Second, Yahoo will report its fourth-quarter earnings in late January, which will likely continue to show weakness in key sectors of its business. While interim CEO Tim Morse is doing a laudable job given the shaky circumstances, drops in advertising revenue growth, engagement and search are not anything Yahoo can keep making excuses for.

While it is likely the company’s beleaguered operating execs will pull out the stops to make the numbers look better — a new game I like to play is “how many homepage ads can they jam in there at the quarter’s end?” — it’s no panacea for the kinds of dramatic and even drastic changes that new ownership will have to make, sooner than later.

And, speaking of beleaguered, perhaps the most important reason that Yahoo has to get the lead out and clarify its situation is due to one consistent thing about the company: Talent attrition and employee fatigue.

Speaking to one exec after another in recent weeks, it is dead clear that Yahoo is increasingly hard-pressed to hold on to the best of its current employees, or to attract any terrific new ones.

The impact on product innovation, morale and more is obvious.

One exec who has long been one of the more cheerleader types for Yahoo — often calling me out in the past for being too negative on the company’s prospects — has recently turned weary, cynical and even depressed about the future — so much so that I now find myself bucking up the worker.

“You can’t hire anyone, since you can’t tell them honestly who their bosses might be in three months,” said the staffer. “And you can’t look anyone who works for you now in the eye and tell them it will turn out right in the end, either, given the track record so far.”

Indeed. And, more than any other factor that could hurt Yahoo in the competitive tech sector, brain drain is what will always get you in the end.

What's In Store for Technology in 2011

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:03:49 +0000

It has been a big year in personal technology, from the debut and early success of Apple’s iPad, to the rise and continuous improvement of Google’s Android smart phone platform, to the continued surge in social services led by Facebook and Twitter.

[ See post to watch video ]

So I thought I’d take a look at the challenges and opportunities facing some major players in consumer tech in 2011. As with all my columns, this one is focused only on products and services provided directly to consumers, rather than to businesses. Also, as usual, this column isn’t meant to offer investment advice or to evaluate the management skills or financial condition of companies. It is a look at the products and competitive positions of the key contenders as they enter the new year.

Apple: Coming off a highly successful 2010, in which it introduced a new category of portable computer—the multitouch tablet—and sold millions of the product, Apple will have to withstand an onslaught of competitors by wowing consumers again with the second version of the iPad. At the same time, it will have to make a widely expected transition for the iPhone from a single carrier in the U.S., AT&T, to a second, likely Verizon. This could present a new opportunity to reach lots of new customers, but the sleek phone will have to work well on different network technology. At the same time, Apple will be hoping its planned new Macintosh operating system, Lion, can preserve the surprising momentum of the high-priced Mac, which the company is trying to enhance with certain iPad-like features, such as an app store and longer battery life.

Apple’s iPad will face an onslaught of competition in the coming year.

In 2011, Apple also is likely to try to address two areas where it has been weak: cloud computing and social networking. Both its MobileMe cloud service and its Ping social network had rough starts, and MobileMe charges $100 a year for services others give away. Apple is so popular, it has a huge opportunity to link users of its family of devices and of iTunes via the cloud and social networks, but it will have to aim higher and execute better. The second area where it likely hopes to improve is in the living room. The new, cheaper Apple TV is selling better than its predecessor but still lacks much Internet content. To break through, Apple will have to strike landmark deals with media companies.

Google: The search giant, also riding high, is now in so many product areas it competes with nearly everyone. In its core search business, it must focus on fending off a surprisingly strong challenge from Microsoft’s Bing by giving consumers more attractive, actionable results. Its Android operating system is a big hit, but still isn’t as polished or easy to use as the iPhone’s software, and even a Google official admitted it is still “an enthusiast product for early adopters.” One big test will be the forthcoming Honeycomb version of Android, meant for tablets that challenge the iPad.

A separate group at Google will try in 2011 to revolutionize the PC operating-system business and muscle in on incumbents Microsoft and Apple. Its new Chrome OS will power notebooks that essentially act as Web browsers, and run programs stored in the cloud, not on a hard disk. They also store all your files in the cloud. We’ll learn in 2011 how many consumers are comfortable with that approach.

Google also may take another whack at social networking, where it hasn’t made much of a dent after its Buzz service failed to take off. And it will have to rework its overly complex Google TV effort to bring Internet video to the living room.

Microsoft: The software giant still generates strong consumer loyalty with its older products, like Windows and Office and Xbox, all of which have had updates in the past year or two. But it faces big challenges in two hot areas: smart phones and tablets. Its new Windows Phone 7 platform has some nice design features, but also some missing capabilities that need to be addressed. Initial sales seem respectable, but will have to accelerate to get Microsoft back in a game it once led. The company also is a long way from the 300,000 apps available for the iPhone or the 100,000 for Android.

In tablets, Microsoft is hinting that a new version of Windows is being designed with a tablet focus to complement its PC focus. That product can’t be too late, given the rapid rise of the iPad and the many planned Android and other tablets for 2011. One golden opportunity Microsoft has is to expand the reach of its brilliant Kinect technology for games to other forms of computing. This system can recognize individual users and interpret gestures without the use of a controller device.

Meanwhile, Microsoft hopes to seize on a surge in concern about privacy to help keep its diminishing lead in browsers by building new privacy features, unavailable so far in other browsers, into the 2011 version of Internet Explorer.

RIM: The BlackBerry maker had a good 2010 in some ways, though sales were propped up by two-for-one giveaways, and consumer surveys show enthusiasm fading for the iconic smart phone. It needs a radically new user interface to keep up with iPhone and Android, and a lot more third-party apps. But it can’t afford to alienate its fan base. The company has an answer: a new software platform called QNX, but is vague on when that will show up on the BlackBerry. For 2011, RIM’s big move will be a new QNX-based tablet, the PlayBook, which looks speedy and highly attractive in the limited demos RIM has provided. What isn’t clear is how much the PlayBook will be aimed at consumers, as company officials have consistently stressed its appeal to businesses.

HP: The technology behemoth’s laptops and printers have proved popular with consumers. But it hasn’t had any real presence in smart-phones, tablets or consumer cloud services. To solve the problems, in 2010 HP bought innovative but struggling Palm, whose smart-phone operating system, webOS, and phones, the Pre and Pixi, got good reviews but sold poorly and didn’t attract many third-party apps. In 2011, HP hopes to use its ample money and talent to revive webOS with new phones and tablets to challenge Apple and Android. A successful Palm re-launch, with the new initiatives from RIM and Microsoft, would be good for consumers by providing more choice and competition. HP also hopes to boost home printing with a new line of printers that can print anything emailed across the Internet and wirelessly print from Apple’s hand-held devices.

Facebook and Twitter: The twin leaders in social networking were red-hot in 2010, attracting vast numbers of users. They have huge opportunities for further success, but face challenges. Smaller services, like social-coupon company Groupon, continue to emerge with new social and community ideas consumers like. Apple and Google could be big headaches if they get social right in 2011. Facebook must continue its recent initiative to let members share personal details with more limited groups of friends, and to find ways to make money while offering more privacy, which has been a thorn in its side. Twitter is on a mission to get more than an active minority to post, while convincing people it is a valuable way to keep up with news and opinion even if you never post.

Despite the poor economy, the consumer-tech companies continue to show vibrancy, innovation and success. But every year brings challenges and surprises, and 2011 promises to be another fascinating ride.

For all of Walt’s columns and videos, go to the All Things Digital site, walt.allthingsd.com.

Write to Walter S. Mossberg at walt.mossberg@wsj.com

Gogobot CEO Travis Katz Talks About Beta Launch of Social Travel Site

Kara Swisher — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 16:00:12 +0000

Last week, BoomTown sat down with former Myspace exec Travis Katz to talk about the private beta launch of his new start-up, Gogobot.

No, it’s not a robot from Google–it’s a social travel site, which uses friends to enhance the travel-planning experience.

The name means nothing really except that it sounded energetic and adventurous to Katz, with a bit of tech mixed in.

While in a bit of a stealth mode, Gogobot has been a bit of an open secret in Silicon Valley.

Katz and CTO Ori Zaltzman–most recently the chief architect of Yahoo BOSS–started the company earlier this year with a small team.

It garnered $4 million in venture funding from Battery Ventures, Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors and angel investors Chris DeWolfe, Keith Rabois and Oren Ze’ev.

Gogobot rides on top of social networking behemoths such as Facebook and Twitter.

Said Gogogot in its press release:

“Unlike other travel sites, Gogobot connects users with friends and people like them for travel advice and links the advice they give in real-time with maps, pictures, pricing and descriptions.”

Essentially, it feels like Facebook for trips, but with really good images.

Currently, Gogobot links users to hotels and other information, but eventually its business plan is to complete reservations and garner lead generation revenues.

We’ll see how it goes, but the online travel business, despite being huge among consumers, certainly could use some updating and organization–and some innovation.

Here’s the video interview I did last week with Katz–who ran international operations for Myspace–talking about where Gogobot is traveling to:

[ See post to watch video ]

And here are a pair of screenshots for the service (click on the images to make them larger):

Presto Chango: KaChing Becomes Wealthfront

Kara Swisher — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:00:00 +0000

Today, the execs at kaChing, a social investing site, are ringing the closing bell at the Nasdaq–actually, it is more of a button-pushing–to herald in a complete shift for the Palo Alto, Calif., start-up.

That includes a new name for the year-old company–it is now officially called Wealthfront–which signals a focus on linking professional money managers to customers and a move away from the “American Idol” investor talent discovery approach that kaChing had been founded on.

Now, Wealthfront is trying to solve the thorny problem of delivering good investment advice and actionable tools online.

Using a “methodology of the Ivy League endowments, to identify which money managers will outperform”–sounds fancy!–Wealthfront has vetted 25 investor options to be offered on its platform for anyone with a minimum of $10,000 to sink into equities (no bonds for now).

It’s certainly an interesting, if risky, move, for kaChing/Wealthfront, which has garnered $10.5 million in funding from a range of big Silicon Valley names, such as Marc Andreessen and OpenTable CEO Jeff Jordan.

Thus, here is a video interview I did yesterday with CEO Andy Rachleff and founder Dan Carroll explaining it all:

[ See post to watch video ]

And here is the official press release on the switcheroo:

KACHING BECOMES WEALTHFRONT, APPEAL OF PERFORMANCE ATTRACTS MORE THAN $100M TO INVESTING SITE IN FIRST YEAR

Wealthfront Introduces Manager Recommendations, Makes it Even Easier for
33 Million American Households to Invest Well

Palo Alto, Calif., October 20, 2010–One-year after launching its investing platform, the company known as kaChing formally announced today that it has changed its name to Wealthfront and unveiled a host of new product features as the company continues to deliver on its promise to make it easy to invest well. An SEC Registered Investment Advisor, Wealthfront also announced more than 25 registered money managers have qualified and joined Wealthfront, and that it has attracted more than $100 million in assets to its investing platform.

Average American investors, made up of 33 million American households with a net worth of between $100,000 and $1.5 million, have collectively invested $7 trillion in the stock market. Yet the average American with a net worth of less than $1.5 million has long been conditioned to believe it is impossible to outperform the market. A recent study, commissioned by Wealthfront and conducted by telephone by Harris Interactive confirmed this attitude, finding that only 6% of all U.S. adults, and only 3% of those with a financial advisor, “strongly agree” that financial advisors know how to consistently outperform the market. This finding is unsurprising since access to quality money managers has been traditionally limited to wealthy individuals with a net worth of at least $1.5 million who can afford the high minimum investment requirements.

“People have been conditioned to believe outstanding performance is impossible, but we think it IS possible,” said Andy Rachleff, CEO of Wealthfront. “Everyone deserves a better way to invest, and with our ability to vet, select and recommend outstanding money managers for investors, we believe Wealthfront can meet this need.”

Wealthfront Managers Outperformed the Market in Last Twelve Months

Wealthfront has built its business on the fundamental belief that it is not only possible to consistently outperform the market, but that it is also possible, using the methodology of the Ivy League endowments, to identify which money managers will outperform.

Since launching as an SEC registered investment advisor one year ago, Wealthfront has applied its rigorous vetting process, for which an average of only one in ten managers qualify, to add 25 top professional money managers to its investing platform and make them accessible to anyone with a minimum of $10,000 to invest. Together over the past year, Wealthfront’s managers have collectively outperformed the S&P 500 by more than 6% net of fees.

Today’s announcement, that Wealthfront has attracted more than $100 million in assets to its platform, further demonstrates the company’s appeal to both average investors looking for a better way to invest and to top professional money managers looking to scale their business through cost-effective distribution.

“With Wealthfront, we can easily and cost-effectively access a new segment of investors by taking on accounts well below our historic minimums,” said Colin Higgins, president of The Golub Group, an investment management firm with more than $600 million under management. “There’s no reason average investors with a net worth of less than $1 million shouldn’t have more options to invest their money. Now with Wealthfront–they do.”

Recommendations Make Finding the Best Money Managers for You Easy

According to the Harris Interactive survey, about one in two U.S. adults believe they know how to evaluate financial advisors. Responding to the need to make it easier for the average investor to invest well, Wealthfront also unveiled today its new recommendation engine to match investors with the most appropriate money managers for them. Taking an algorithmic approach, Wealthfront first vets managers to qualify for its platform. Investors then answer a few short questions about their investing goals, and Wealthfront recommends the best money managers to suit their goals.

Luxe Lowdown: Tony Sites Begin to Invite Buyer Reviews

Rachel Dodes — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:00:31 +0000

More than a decade after book and electronics retailers embraced online customer reviews, the most elite stores in the U.S. are opening their websites—and the brands they sell—to the slings and arrows of public opinion.
At the end of the month, Saks.com, the online arm of Saks Fifth Avenue, will unveil a five-star review system where customers can express their opinions on products ranging from $1,700 Jimmy Choo bags to $7 Kiehl’s lip balm. Macy’s Inc.’s Bloomingdale’s division and Neiman Marcus added their own versions of reviews recently, following the lead of Nordstrom, which began offering them last fall.
The changes are being driven by the need to beef up online sales, and a realization among luxury retailers that customers want the ability to take shopping advice from their peers.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The Right Kind of Ambition

Ben Horowitz — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:50:21 +0000

“Some say that I’m they favorite
But I aint hearing none of that
I’m about my team ho
Young money running back”
—Drake

“Stay in your place
While I sit here and rule
I’m king of a cow
And I’m king of a mule”
—Yertle the Turtle

In my last post, I mentioned that you should strive to hire people with the right kind of ambition. Surprisingly to me, I received a large number of responses from readers questioning whether or not this was good advice. Here’s how one commenter phrased it:

I agree with much of this post but I disagree with the following:
“As defined by Andy Grove, the right kind of ambition is ambition for the company’s success with the executive’s own success only coming as a by-product of the company’s victory.”
That may have worked in the past but I believe today, the company’s success and the executive’s success should go hand in hand, not one coming as a by-product of the other, particularly as described above.
Curious why should an employee be motivated first by a company’s success? Would this work in all departments—i.e. sales?
In addition to comments like the one above, my business partner Marc Andreessen suggested that I write a post on how to screen for the right kind of ambition. In response, this post aims to clarify why you should care about senior managers having the right kind of ambition and give some tips on how to screen for them in an interview.

Why should senior managers have the right kind of ambition?
At a macro level, a company will be most successful if the senior managers optimize for the company’s success (think of this as a global optimization) as opposed to their own personal success (local optimization). No matter how well the CEO designs the personal incentive programs, they will never be perfect. In addition, career incentives like promotions and territory ownership fall outside the scope of bonus plans and other a priori management tools. In an equity-based compensation structure, optimizing for the company’s success should yield better results for individuals as well. As my Opsware head of sales Mark Cranney used to say, “Two percent of zero is zero.”

It is particularly important that managers have the right kind of ambition, because anything else will be exceptionally de-motivating for their employees. As an employee, why would I want to work long hours to advance the career of my manager? If the manager cares about his career more than the company, then that’s what I’d be doing. Nothing motivates a great employee more than a mission that’s so important that it supersedes everyone’s personal ambition. As a result, managers with the right kind of ambition tend to be radically more valuable than those with the wrong kind. For a complete explanation of the dangers of managers with the wrong kind of ambition, I strongly recommend Dr. Suess’s management masterpiece Yertle the Turtle.

Screening for the right kind of ambition
As with any complex character trait, there is no way to perfectly screen for the right kind of ambition in an interview, but hopefully some of these thoughts will prove useful.

At a macro-level, everybody views the world through her own personal prism. When interviewing candidates, it’s helpful to watch for small distinctions that indicate whether they view the world through the “me” prism or the “team” prism.

People who view the world through the me prism might describe a prior company’s failure in an interview as follows: “My last job was my e-commerce play. I felt that it was important to round out my resume.” Note the use of “my” to personalize the company in a way that it’s unlikely that anyone else at the company would agree with. In fact, the other employees in the company might even be offended by this usage. People with the right kind of ambition would not likely use the word “play” to describe their effort to work as a team to build something substantial. Finally, people who use the “me” prism find it natural and obvious to speak in terms of “building out my resume” while people who use the “team” prism find such phrases to be somewhat uncomfortable and awkward, because they clearly indicate an individual goal which is separate from the team goal.

On the other hand, people who view the world purely through the team prism will very seldom use the words “I” or “me” even when answering questions about their accomplishments. Even in an interview, they will deflect credit to others on their previous team. They will tend to be far more interested in how your company will win than how they will be compensated or what their career path will be. When asked about a previously failed company, they will generally feel such great responsibility that they will describe in detail their own misjudgments and bad decisions.

When we hired the head of worldwide sales for Opsware, using this screen proved to be quite valuable. We interviewed over 20 candidates for the position before hiring the aforementioned Mark Cranney. Since this was a sales position, I should mention (in reference to the commenter above) that ambition for the company above ones own goals is particularly important for the head of sales. The reasons are many:

The local incentives in sales are particularly strong and difficult to balance without the right kind of leadership
The sales organization is the face of the company to the outside world. If that group optimizes for itself, your company will have a major problem
In hi-tech companies, fraud generally starts in sales due to managers attempting to perfect the ultimate local optimization

Throughout our interview process, candidates would take sole credit for landing extremely large deals, achieving impressive goals, and generating company success. Invariably, the candidates who claimed the most credit for deals would have the most difficult time describing the details of how the deal was actually won and orchestrated. During reference checks, others involved in the deals would tell a much different story.

When I spoke to Mark, on the other hand, it was difficult to get him to discuss his personal accomplishments. In fact, some of the other interviewers felt that Mark was standoffish and even obnoxious in the way he bristled at certain questions. One interviewer complained: “Ben, I know that he increased the size of the Nike deal from $1M to $5M, because our contact at Nike told me that, but Mark wouldn’t go into any detail on it.” When I interviewed Mark, he really only wanted to discuss how his old company PTC won. He went into great detail about how his team diagnosed weaknesses vs. the competition and how he worked with the CTO Hugh Hempleman to advance the product. He then talked about how he worked with the CEO Dick Harrison to revise the way the sales force was trained and organized.

When the conversation turned to Opsware, Mark had already interviewed sales reps at our number one competitor’s company and knew what deals they were in. He relentlessly questioned me on how we were going to win the deals that they were in and how we planned to get into the deals that we weren’t in. He wanted to know the strengths and weaknesses of everyone else on the team. He wanted to know the game plan for winning. The topics of his potential compensation and career advancement didn’t come up until the very end of the process. And then he only wanted assurances that compensation was performance and not politically based. It was clear that Mark was all about the team.

During Mark’s tenure, sales increased more than tenfold and our market capitalization increased twentyfold. More to the point, voluntary attrition in the sales organization was extremely low, customers were managed fairly and honestly, and our legal and finance teams often commented that first and foremost, Mark protected the company.

Final Thought
While it may work to have individual employees who optimize for their own careers, counting on senior managers to do all the right things for all the wrong reasons is a dangerous idea.

Mommy Bloggers Debate a PR Blackout

Marisa Taylor — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:00:55 +0000

How can so-called mommy bloggers navigate the murky territory of sharing advice with other mothers versus getting paid for the products they promote?

Moms who blog about all things baby and family are abuzz after the blog MomDot spearheaded a “PR Blackout challenge” for one week in August. Mommy bloggers should avoid publishing press releases, reviewing products or promoting giveaways, writes MomDot blogger Trisha Haas, because plugging products causes too much stress, deadline anxiety and time away from the family.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

BoomTown Asks "Ask Amy" for Some Web Advice

Kara Swisher — Sun, 10 May 2009 01:53:38 +0000

Several years ago, my longtime friend and colleague Amy Dickinson suddenly became, well, Ann Landers.

Well, not exactly Ann herself, as that would be weird–but she took over the famous syndicated advice column in the Chicago Tribune, which changed the name to “Ask Amy.”

So, BoomTown did just that on my recent visit to Chicago, interviewing Dickinson about what questions she gets about the Internet from readers.

While they now mostly send her emails instead of letters seeking help for their troubles and tribulations, the problems still are mostly about relationships, jobs and similar issues.

But, as the Web insinuates itself into people’s lives, there are also sticky situations galore, digitally speaking. To friend or not to friend, for example, that is the question.

Dickinson gets a lot of questions about Facebook and social networking, in fact, and uses a lot of such tools herself, including Twitter.

In other words, this is not your grandmother’s advice columnist!

Here’s the video interview I did (and you should also click this link to learn more about a marvelous new book by Dickinson called “The Mighty Queens of Freeville,” a memoir about raising her daughter as a single mother with a little analog help from her family and friends):

[ See post to watch video ]

Jason Calacanis Rolls Out the New Mahalo: Yahoo Answers-Killer

Peter Kafka — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:00:13 +0000

In October, Mahalo.com founder Jason Calacanis laid off staff at his human-powered search engine. Then he announced he was hiring engineers for a mysterious new “Project A.”

Today he’s unveiling it: An “answers” service designed to compete with one of Yahoo’s most successful sites.

Like Yahoo Answers, Mahalo’s new product relies on users to answer other users’ questions. Unlike Yahoo’s (YHOO) site, Calacanis promises to give his most prolific answer-givers a chance to make money, via a virtual currency they can earn by answering questions.

The proposition: Users can ask questions for free. But they can also buy “Mahalo Dollars” using real money and reward people who answer their queries. Users can eventually cash out the Mahalo currency they earn for real dollars, with Calacanis taking a 25 percent cut.

This aligns him with a growing number of Internet execs who think they can make money via virtual goods and currencies. That’s worked well for Asian companies and a handful of Western videogames, like Activision Blizzard’s (ATVI) World of Warcraft. But the market for virtual stuff has yet to appear at most U.S.-based Web sites.

Still, Calacanis thinks he’s got a better shot of making it work next year than his original plan for 2009: Selling ads on his site besides the ones he runs from Google’s (GOOG) AdSense. “I think it’s going to be very hard to make money selling ads,” he said. “The market needs this more than it needs us out there trying to sell inventory.”

All of this supposes that people are actually willing to pay for advice they get over the Internet. I’m dubious, but then again I had no idea Yahoo Answers was as successful as it was until Calacanis walked me through the user stats in his demo*: 24 million unique users in the U.S., according to Quantcast.

I did try it out myself, and found that Calacanis’s beta users (who are presumably incented to answer as many questions as they can) did a decent job of answering my query about moving my Palm data to my BlackBerry via my MacBook–and much better than the people at Yahoo Answers and Answers.com, who didn’t even try.

But it’s still not good enough. Looks like if I want to get this done I’m going to have to pay someone real cash.

*A note for anyone who ever has to demo a product: Find some way to watch Calacanis go through his paces live if you can. You can get a sense of the experience by reading his tutorial, or by watching video of him in action. But it’s another thing to get it in real time, and watch him simultaneously hype and soft-sell. Really effective stuff.

[Image Credit: Joi Ito]

Advice for Fired Yahoos: How to Build Your Own Business That Doesn't Suck

Peter Kafka — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:30:18 +0000

I don’t know if the timing is intentional, but it is fortuitous: On the same day that Yahoo (YHOO) is firing a couple thousand people, entrepreneur John Buckman is offering up a how-to guide for building your own business, over at LeWeb in Paris.

This won’t help former Yahoos who don’t have a nest egg, health insurance, and/or the drive or inclination to do their own thing. But it’s free advice, and it’s relatively sound advice for those who do want to strike out on their own.

Don’t be alarmed by the fact that there are 119 slides here–most of them have just a few words each. Around slide 79, Buckman slips into mini-pitch mode for Magnatune, his indie music distribution company. But that doesn’t last long–just power through. Oh–and don’t be alarmed by the title. Buckman’s point is that you’ll be happier working for yourself than you were working for Jerry Yang and co.

Employees Suck

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: bookmooch magnatune)

The Entire Video of John Doerr Giving 10 Tips for Start-ups to Avoid the Econalypse

Kara Swisher — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:29:59 +0000

Here’s a video of star VC John Doerr reciting his 10 tips for start-ups to follow in the economic downturn.

Doerr gave out the advice at VentureBeat’s “How to manage your start-up in the downturn” roundtable event, which took place at the Stanford Park Hotel in Palo Alto yesterday morning.

The Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers VC got a lot of attention for his list, which he culled from a survey of 18 of the companies his firm has invested in.

Doerr didn’t need a massive, noisy PowerPoint like Sequoia Capital to make his quick and clear points, which he delivered in four minutes flat.

Doerr was on an investors panel with Ram Shriram, one of Google’s first investors, Ron Conway, Kittu Kolluri of New Enterprise Associates and Matt Cohler of Benchmark Capital.

I moderated the second panel of entrepreneurs, including: Toni Schneider, chief executive of Automattic, the company that makes the WordPress blogging software; Max Levchin of Slide, Jason Calacanis of Mahalo; and Nirav Tolia of Web 1.0′s Epinions. Video of interviews with them and also Shriram to come later today!

But here’s Doerr reciting his 10 tips:

[ See post to watch video ]