A wartime CEO doesn't usually start the wars.
Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
11–20 of 59 posts
Re: Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is certainly true. But my understanding of Twitter - and this may be flawed - was that it was always a mission driven company over a profit driven one. Elon said he wanted to continue that tradition, but with the debt load Twitter is literally in an existential crisis. So this begs the question, can Twitter be successful being “twitter”? My guess is no, Musk can make a lot of money going after video or m…
> Ship of Theseus adjacent, when does Twitter stop being “twitter”? When the users that people are interested in - politicians, news organizations, certain brand accounts, celebrities - go away. The problem for Twitter is that politicians and celebrities don't really want to hang around on a platform where they have to deal with abusive content all the time.
Looking at some content there, „abusive“ is relative to say the least.
Re: Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
#13Companies often seem to employ terms related to armed conflict to heighten the sense of urgency and action.
In reality noone working at a software company is "getting their asses shot off" or even "goes to war".
Stop using silly terms like that in business. We are not here to murder people or commit genocide, using this vernacular diminishes and marginalizes the immense suffering of humans caught in an actual war for any reason.
I get it, war seems "cool" from far away and action movies/games, but I can assure you it is not.
edit: fix typos
Re: Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
#14A "wartime" business person is a hilarious idea. Gotta feel manly somehow, I guess!
War is a business
Re: Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ship of Theseus adjacent, when does Twitter stop being “twitter”? When the users that people are interested in - politicians, news organizations, certain brand accounts, celebrities - go away. The problem for Twitter is that politicians and celebrities don't really want to hang around on a platform where they have to deal with abusive content all the time.
> The problem for Twitter is that politicians and celebrities don't really want to hang around on a platform where they have to deal with abusive content all the time. Maybe. At a certain point, that's probably true, but are we close to that? Sometimes you have to look at what people do, not what they say. It costs a celebrity nothing to say nice things about seeking peace and love and opposing hatred and wanting to…
> My guess is that most celebrities would figuratively crawl through a field of broken glass to get their fix of attention and kudos from their supporters.
Yeah I think the network effects are stronger than anyone would like to admit. I think Twitter has a lot of challenges going forward and my analytical read of the situation says he’ll fail, but my gut says he’ll succeed, now it just remains to be seen — succeed at what?
Re: Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
#16Companies often seem to employ terms related to armed conflict to heighten the sense of urgency and action. In reality noone working at a software company is "getting their asses shot off" or even "goes to war". Stop using silly terms like that in business. We are not here to murder people or commit genocide, using this vernacular diminishes and marginalizes the immense suffering of humans caught in an actual war for…
The analogy is apt because war is an existential threat for the nation. Similarly, competition is an existential threat to the business.
I don’t think this is about war being cool so much as competition in the market place can kill your business just like an invading army can conquer your territory.
It’s about then mindset that you should adopt. Do you suppose that it’s ok for a business to let’s it’s competitors take its clients and market share? No of course not. You have to fight to keep it and take theirs. If you are equally matched then you will likely find equilibrium in the market. If you aren’t then someone is going to get eaten.
Re: Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
#17Re: Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
#18Companies often seem to employ terms related to armed conflict to heighten the sense of urgency and action. In reality noone working at a software company is "getting their asses shot off" or even "goes to war". Stop using silly terms like that in business. We are not here to murder people or commit genocide, using this vernacular diminishes and marginalizes the immense suffering of humans caught in an actual war for…
> using this vernacular diminishes and marginalizes the immense suffering of humans caught in an actual war for any reason.
I don’t know that anyone (or at least a sizeable number of people) in an actual war views it this way.
What is the causal link in your mind?
Should we also ban the phrase “I’m starving”? What about “I’m sick and tired…”? Upping the intensity factor, what about “the underdog annihilated the #1 ranked player”?
Re: Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem for Twitter is that politicians and celebrities don't really want to hang around on a platform where they have to deal with abusive content all the time. Maybe. At a certain point, that's probably true, but are we close to that? Sometimes you have to look at what people do, not what they say. It costs a celebrity nothing to say nice things about seeking peace and love and opposing hatred and wanting to…
> My guess is that most celebrities would figuratively crawl through a field of broken glass to get their fix of attention and kudos from their supporters. Yeah I think the network effects are stronger than anyone would like to admit. I think Twitter has a lot of challenges going forward and my analytical read of the situation says he’ll fail, but my gut says he’ll succeed, now it just remains to be seen — succeed at…
Instinct is jet fuel to help work through uncertainty.
Re: Peacetime CEO / Wartime CEO (2011)
#20Not to make everything about him, but this peacetime/wartime lens of viewing the world is interesting to think about in light of Elon Musk taking over Twitter. You can make a case that part of Twitter's big problem in the last decade or so is that their company has been operating in sort of a relaxed peacetime mode when they really needed to be operating in a wartime frame of mind due to their lack of profitability.…
I think this is certainly true. But my understanding of Twitter - and this may be flawed - was that it was always a mission driven company over a profit driven one. Elon said he wanted to continue that tradition, but with the debt load Twitter is literally in an existential crisis. So this begs the question, can Twitter be successful being “twitter”? My guess is no, Musk can make a lot of money going after video or m…
I think Twitter can continue to operate and even be profitable. But without completely adding a new product offering it's hard for me to imagine it growing to be worth a lot more than what Elon paid for it.