21–30 of 72 posts
SNAP IPO should herald the death of dual share class listings. They sold billions in equity to the public, but gave the shares 0 voting rights. So now investors have no recourse to push for changes at the board level.
The headline is a bit confusing: the CEO wasn't named CBO, he named someone and then (apparently?) fired her before she took the role.
I'm going to be devil's advocate here but the CEO (especially of a troubled company like Snap) needs to take the best decisions for the company and stretch solvency and viability for as long as possible. Of course, it's unpopular to promote someone, then rescind that offer and hire someone else. But in this case, the tradeoff seems reasonable. Hiring a well connected, veteran exec who comes from a company known for i…
That's a charitable way to look at it. A less charitable way would be the CEO is shooting from the hip and doesn't have a clue what the company needs.
- He continued backing the redesign long after it was clear the public hated it
- He continued to push spectacles and insist they were a "camera" company, long after the market showed there was no demand from it.
- In the last 5 years he's gone from insisting that snap is a "social media company", to "a camera company", to "the fastest way for people to connect".
In my mind, he seems like he's pretty out of touch with what the public wants from Snapchat and is just bouncing from one idea to another hoping to get lucky again.
I feel like he was a college kid who built an app that he wanted, but as he's aged he no longer identifies with Snap's user base. He's trying to push his idea of what Snap should be (because that worked originally) as opposed to asking users what they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a charitable way to look at it. A less charitable way would be the CEO is shooting from the hip and doesn't have a clue what the company needs.
> A less charitable way would be the CEO is shooting from the hip and doesn't have a clue what the company needs. - He continued backing the redesign long after it was clear the public hated it - He continued to push spectacles and insist they were a "camera" company, long after the market showed there was no demand from it. - In the last 5 years he's gone from insisting that snap is a "social media company", to "a c…
Welcome to the world of social software!
I'm not convinced that anyone really knows what people want in this market.
The headline is a bit confusing: the CEO wasn't named CBO, he named someone and then (apparently?) fired her before she took the role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A less charitable way would be the CEO is shooting from the hip and doesn't have a clue what the company needs. - He continued backing the redesign long after it was clear the public hated it - He continued to push spectacles and insist they were a "camera" company, long after the market showed there was no demand from it. - In the last 5 years he's gone from insisting that snap is a "social media company", to "a c…
just bouncing from one idea to another hoping to get lucky again. Welcome to the world of social software! I'm not convinced that anyone really knows what people want in this market.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=evan+spiegel+%22pro...
I'm going to be devil's advocate here but the CEO (especially of a troubled company like Snap) needs to take the best decisions for the company and stretch solvency and viability for as long as possible. Of course, it's unpopular to promote someone, then rescind that offer and hire someone else. But in this case, the tradeoff seems reasonable. Hiring a well connected, veteran exec who comes from a company known for i…
It's important to note that Kristen O’Hara was also an outsider who is a "well connected, veteran exec." She had only been with Snap for 2 months. Characterizing her as a "good employee, but ultimately an employee with no new insights or inputs" is probably not accurate.
Also, 2 months is a very short time for everyone but Snap. In a 12 months runway, 2 months is 16% of the time you have before running out of cash.
I'm going to be devil's advocate here but the CEO (especially of a troubled company like Snap) needs to take the best decisions for the company and stretch solvency and viability for as long as possible. Of course, it's unpopular to promote someone, then rescind that offer and hire someone else. But in this case, the tradeoff seems reasonable. Hiring a well connected, veteran exec who comes from a company known for i…
That's no excuse. If they needed a connected, veteran executive now, they also needed one when they decided to promote someone who didn't have those credentials. So this indicates poor leadership qualities in multiple ways. Not the least of which is treating a valued employee like garbage.
Sure, walk back a commitment if it's the right thing to do--but your employees/investors will be right to ask why you made the commitment in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're probably right, but I'd be very surprised if Snap survives - they've been outplayed by Facebook and Zuckerberg is a better CEO. If you're looking for a stock to short Snap seems like a good choice - I'd bet on failure in a few years or some sad acquisition on poor terms. The only other tech company I'm pretty confident will fail is Magic Leap, but unfortunately they're private so hard to bet against.
I’ve made a good amount of cash shorting SNAP, I can’t understand who is buying when they have provided guidance of decreasing DAU’s for at least one more quarter. I hope employees at SNAP are negotiating more stock or salary, they could do so much better at other firms.