
Reddit Founder: “I Wish I Still Owned Reddit Now” - AndrewWarner
http://mixergy.com/steve-huffman-reddit-interview/
======
timcederman
Full context of quote:

 _Andrew: Have you ever regretted selling when you did instead of holding on
for a little bit longer?

Steve: A little bit longer, no. Also, when we sold it was the fall of 2006,
right before the economy totally tanked. And so, if we had held on a little
longer, I think we would have had dark days ahead. If we could have seen the
whole future that in four years things would recover and Reddit would be huge
and traffic would be great, yeah, I wish I still owned Reddit now and owned it
for the last four or five years.

For everything to have gone right for us, to have the stomach to survive that
economy, I mean, who knows, like Conde Nast’s umbrella helped us during that
economy. We could still hire and pay market salaries when a lot of people
couldn’t. So, maybe we wouldn’t have even survived. It’s hard to say._

~~~
vaksel
well the hiring thing, they only had like what 4 employees?

~~~
redthrowaway
Yeah, but they've always been reticent to capitalize on traffic with ads, and
the ads they do have are empty half the time. I think they could very easily
make quite a bit of money, but it would require monetizing their traffic and
selling user data to advertisers. This could likely be done in a way that
didn't exploit the trust that the community places in the admins, but it would
have to be done carefully, openly, and with a significant development
investment.

~~~
SnydenBitchy
From what reddit’s admins have stated, Condé Nast has been unwilling to let
reddit undercut its other properties on ad rates—they want reddit to be a
“premium brand,” like the _New Yorker_ or _Vogue_. Anyone who’s waded through
the typical morass of racism, sexism, and other cluelessness and juvenilia on
reddit knows how hopeless this vision is. Compounding the problem, redditors
also like to fancy themselves a premium audience—no joke—so even if Condé were
willing to let reddit run the caliber of ads that keep sites like 4chan
afloat, reddit would face a massive user revolt. It’s an unenviable situation,
but that’s what happens when you attract an audience as socially,
intellectually, and demographically unappealing as reddit’s.

~~~
shabda
Demographics,

<http://www.quantcast.com/reddit.com#demographics>

45% Female Affluance level relative to US internet: 114/100 "There is a high
index of Graduates and Post Graduates here." 31% household income > 100K

[https://www.google.com/adplanner/site_profile?#siteDetails?i...](https://www.google.com/adplanner/site_profile?#siteDetails?identifier=reddit.com&geo=US&trait_type=1&lp=false)

Female: 24% 31% Household income > 75K Bachelor's degree or more: 53%

Yeah this demographic is so unappealing.

~~~
SnydenBitchy
First, reddit’s own admins have called out these statistics as inaccurate
(even the numbers you’ve cited wildly contradict each other). Secondly, and
more importantly, have you seen the kind of content that always floats to the
front page? Advertisers willing to associate themselves with content like this
discussion
([http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/du2sa/wow_she_is_hot_w...](http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/du2sa/wow_she_is_hot_wait_wtf/?sort=top))
and this submission
([http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/d6y0n/once_you_go_bla...](http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/d6y0n/once_you_go_black_pic/))
are not typically the kind that pay premium rates. I know reddit likes to
think of itself as a community of intellectuals and sophisticates, but this
self-image has little basis in reality, and every would-be advertiser looking
at the site knows it.

~~~
shabda
> even the numbers you’ve cited wildly contradict each other

The idea of those two separate was that while they both contradict each other,
they both prove the premiumness of reddit demographic.

> First, reddit’s own admins have called out these statistics as inaccurate

Link please.

You gave an unsubstantiated claim that Reddit demographic is

unattractive to advertisers, which are proven to be wrong by two most widely
used site demographic markers. Showing two links which are hate speech, racism
or worse etc don't prove that the demographic is not advertising friendly.

> I know reddit likes to think of itself as a community of intellectuals and
> sophisticates ...

Reddit doesn't need to be intellectual to command premium rates. If > 30% of
its audience makes > 75K/yr, it has premium ad inventory. Have you seen
Icanhascheeseburger's ad rates? :)

~~~
SnydenBitchy
Link, as requested: [http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-
our-...](http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-our-
traffic.html)

I would just add that reddit’s difficulties selling its ad space—they’ve had
to resort to serving Flash games and pretty pictures _just to fill the
advertising frame_ , though they spin this e.g. “Instead of an ad, here’s a
flower/Just our way of saying thanks”—speak volumes about reddit’s ability to
appeal to sponsors of the sort sought by Condé Nast.

~~~
v21
They definitely have problems getting enough quality advertisers, but that may
have something to do with them not having anyone (until recently?) whose job
it is to sell ad space. Vogue does.

------
mahmud
Personally I see reddit more as a liability than a commercial asset.

The community is the loveliest on the internet, but also extremely self-
conscious and suspicious of change, much less one dictated from the top.
Whoever owns reddit will have to foot the development, support and hosting
fees, while remaining subservient to a moody and very sophisticated user-base.

Better cash out and be a community hero.

~~~
endtime
>The community is the loveliest on the internet

I hope you're being sarcastic. reddit's been a sordid mix of conspiracy
theorists, political extremists, and 4chan users for the last year or two.

~~~
mahmud
Reddit raises money for people in need. They might dabble in their fun kiddie
pool subreddits, but they have consistently walked the walk when and where it
matters.

Let me say that I have only yesterday signed up to reddit, for the first time,
under my own name. And that I would happily go elsewhere for intelligent
feedback. But if I was wronged by a bigger adversary (government, business,
etc.) Reddit would be the first place to air my grievance.

Even in their most sordid humor, they're both clever and humane. I just get
the feeling they're _nice_ people. People post pictures of their kids, their
pets, their hand-drawings, hobbies, even their own private parts (if you know
where to look.) I think Reddit covers the whole spectrum of the human
experience .. if all humans were charitable, fairly well educated,
suburbanite, closet-Marxists with short attention span (which I emphatically
identify with :-)

~~~
cookiecaper
Maybe you haven't noticed how reddit treats the users who espouse ideas they
don't like. /r/atheism redditors have launched invasions on /r/christianity
multiple times now, and go in and totally destroy threads that contained
nothing especially provocative; they've downvoted all the Christian viewpoints
and upvoted all the mocking viewpoints. I expect most other religious
subreddits have encountered similar intimidation.

Even isolated within subreddits, it's hard to get someone who is at odds with
the ideas of most of reddit's userbase to visit a friendly subreddit when they
visit the main page and see a bunch of f-bombs, nsfw links, militant atheist
and liberal content, etc. My parents, for instance, would be offended by
something on the main page at almost any time you captured it. Things are
better now that /r/atheism is off the front page, but it's still not good.

Reddit changes its logo site-wide to celebrate same-sex marriage victories.
Any time the Salvation Army is mentioned on reddit 100 redditors jump to write
about how the Salvation Army opposes pornography so nobody should ever donate
to them. And so on.

~~~
StavrosK
That's not really fair, though. /r/atheism is the atheist equivalent of
Christian fundamentalists. If atheism is a religion like "not collecting
stamps" is a hobby, /r/atheism wants everybody to stop collecting stamps.

Everyone who has been on reddit for a while knows to unsubscribe from
/r/politics, /r/atheism and maybe /r/worldnews.

~~~
cookiecaper
One would have to unsubscribe from almost every popular subreddit to avoid
that kind of thing. IAmA is full of "I grew up in a Christian household where
I was abused by being taught that religion is good, when I turned 24 I snapped
out of it, AMA" or "I am a sex worker, AMA" or "I have sexual fantasies about
gravy, AMA", and the comments are usually about what you'd expect; users
congratulating each other for not being religious any more, etc., and if
someone comes in and tries to defend it, just by virtue of defending a
religious viewpoint, they are downvoted to oblivion.

The attitude prevails throughout almost every popular reddit.

~~~
StavrosK
I have no idea where you're getting this from, it sounds like prejudice. To
wit:

<http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA>

~~~
cookiecaper
#3: I am a brothel keeper, AMA #13: Waitress at high-end strip club #15:
"Evangelical pastor's kid". Inside: "I'm 27 now and agnostic bordering on
atheist." and so on, that's just on the first page just right now.

Of course, it's not necessarily _bad_ to have these come up sometimes. It's
just the amazing frequency with which they do, the universally supportive
attitude of reddit, and their extreme desire to lynch and denigrate anyone who
violates their universal support.

~~~
StavrosK
I don't understand why users shouldn't support someone of an unusual
profession. Are they supposed to get all riled up because someone owns a
brothel, or is a waiter in a strip club?

Hell, I remember a pedophile who recognised that his tendencies were harmful
to children and had vowed never to act on them. Given that he can't change his
condition, I think that was a brave and mature thing to do. While I obviously
don't support pedophilia, I think that realizing that your desires can cause
harm and restraining yourself from them is not something to condemn.

Apart from that, I find that it's really valuable to try and see things from
someone's viewpoint, no matter who that person is. There have been many people
doing IAmAs, and I find that critically deciding whether this person is
someone to support or to condemn was eye-opening. Can you elaborate on why you
find the community's support a bad thing?

~~~
cookiecaper
I don't find support of these people to be a bad thing. I find the homogeneity
and cruel, almost-textually-violent reactions of redditors to non-homogenous
thought to be the bad thing. Look for AMAs where the subject is positive to
religion ("IAmA practicing Mormon", "IAmA Catholic priest") or opposed to
same-sex marriage, etc., and see how those turn out.

reddit is extremely antagonistic toward people who they consider
unenlightened. There is a culture of incivility. It's not a numbers game -- it
doesn't matter for instance that a larger portion of reddit is irreligious
than religious -- it's just a matter of human decency, courtesy, open-
mindedness and humility, which are almost non-existent on reddit.

~~~
StavrosK
I have seen quite a few religious IAmAs, and, as a rule, everyone was
respectful. Reddit mostly has a problem with people who try to undermine
rationality and critical thinking in the name of religion, not with religion
itself. If you show me a post where redditors are being disrespectful to a
(sane) IAmA-er, I will be very surprised.

In fact, I remember a recent post by a theologian, it had hundreds of comments
and everyone (including the poster) loved it, it was very civilized and
informative.

~~~
rdmlx
Do you remember the title or have the link? I'd be interested in reading this.

~~~
StavrosK
Yep, here:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d3j03/iama_retired_pas...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d3j03/iama_retired_pastor_scholar_of_ancient_greek_and/)

------
AndrewWarner
Sorry. The site is having trouble. I'm not sure why, but maybe it's because my
hosting company had a power outage somewhere.

Here's a Google Doc with the transcript: <http://bit.ly/9gRoGl>

------
radioactive21
He could have pulled a Kevin Rose and shot himself in the face. There are
people who are good at certain things, knowing when to walk away is very
important.

There are entrepreneurs that are great at creating startups, but beyond that
they are horrible. There are countless stories of founders who dont know how
to lead companies pass certain points and refuse to hire anyone else, watching
their business fail.

------
8ren
Another great interview, Andrew. I think it's the combination of fantastic
guests, and you asking the really interesting questions (that are often
somewhat uncomfortable), and sort of harping on them a bit until you get it
across. That's what I tend to do also.

I want to give some negative feedback too: I read the transcript this time
instead of watching. (1). It was a little slow to start, so I skimmed a bit
near the beginning, but it quickly got interesting (I don't know how to fix
this - I do the same thing with many great theatlantic articles). (2). One
reason I read the transcript was that I do feel a little uncomfortable with
the probing questions - but that's also what I value most. (so again I can't
offer a solution). (3). Another reason to not watch the video is that I feel
really uncomfortable when you look away from the guest while they are talking
(while eg. googling something) - it _feels_ really rude (even though I know
it's not). And for this one, I have a solution to suggest! I think it's really
demanding on you to maintain eye-contact throughout a long interview, and TV
interviewers don't need to do this, because it's edited to cut between the
interviewer and guest. So it's your format, of showing both heads, that
creates this problem. So a simple solution is to just cut to the guest when
you google or otherwise need to look away (assuming your video software has a
hotkey for that).

Anyway, the ratio of my negative vs. positive comment length doesn't reflect
my opinion, which was that this was another excellent interview - thanks very
much!

------
Jun8
Steve gave a talk at the MidVentures LAUNCH event in Chicago a couple of weeks
ago. My take-aways: (i) This guy is just a kid :-) (goes to show how quickly
one can build things, note to self: if reborn, don't waste time on a PhD);
(ii) He is _very_ modest and unpretentious, as far as I can see no cocky Zuck
thing going on here; (iii) He also looks like Brian Johnson in The Breakfast
Club :-)

He talked about his experiences in founding Reddit, when their original idea
was turned down by YC.

------
dools
This was a fantastic interview and I'm going to set aside 1 hour a week to
watch more on Mixergy.com

I think his interview technique is very polished and this interview was
incredibly watchable.

Anyone concerned about the "context" of the quote should also note: he
explicitly asks what headline to give the interview in order to "game reddit"
and increase hits - I think he did pretty well, don't you?

------
jonathanjaeger
The conversation about selling Reddit was very interesting, but I definitely
thought a more intriguing part was the discussion about how some startups fail
in Y-combinator (not having the stamina to try a new idea, not sticking long
enough with an idea that was good in the first place, etc.).

------
rms
Steve, if hipmunk does well maybe you and friends and the reddit users can buy
reddit back.

------
aditya
Brings up another question, though.

Is Conde Nast the right place for Reddit?

~~~
pavs
You know, if you asked me this 2-3 years ago, I would have said definitely no.
But they have been mostly (they were few incidents) off-hand. I honestly don't
see most other company doing it.

If it weren't for the link at the bottom of the page, outsiders wouldn't even
know that reddit is owned by Conde. I say, they definitely deserve some kudos.

