
Stop lying on stage - amirmc
http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2010/10/stop-lying-on-stage.html
======
seiji
_This is the same issue we see with vanity metrics: companies are giving the
appearance of sharing information while actually engaging in spin or outright
deception._

I call it the CEO voice.

====== Normal conversation:

How was your weekend?

I dislocated a toe, slipped, then cut off a finger. It sucked spending the
weekend in the hospital.

====== CEO conversation:

How was your weekend?

It was great! I had a new experience, got to meet some excellent doctors, and
saw the inside of a state-of-the-art hospital too! I think we can do some
cross promotional revshare with them. Just think about it -- every time you
get sick, the hospital gives you a virtual item! We'll call it the Get Sick
For Pixels campaign.

Every interaction isn't required to be happy, bubbly, and falsely sincere.
Sometimes you can be honest and show a little humanity. (Blame it on thoughts
like <http://twitter.com/foundersatwork/status/22661724100>)

~~~
SkyMarshal
If I had a tenth of cent for every time someone in business used the word
'exciting' to describe something that really isn't, I'd be a googolilionaire.

Honestly, wtf are MBA schools teaching these days, how to use the most
generic, overused to the point of meaningless language to inaccurately express
your thoughts in the interest of expediency and/or buzzword compliance, even
after you finish writing your resume? They should assign some Melville and
Hemingway in their marketing and leadership courses.

------
adamsmith
This article misses the main reason people omit information: to avoid
embarrassing others.

I always talk about how Xobni Analytics failed, for example. Recently I've
been talking a lot to others about my own weaknesses.

But by necessity most of the stories about Xobni involve other people, and the
stories often involve internal conflict among some of the people on the team,
and to tell those stories properly would require being honest about others'
weaknesses as well. There's not a culture of doing that in public settings,
and I don't expect that to change.

EDIT: the two exceptions that prove the rule are High Stakes No Prisoners by
Charles Furgeson, and some of Steve Blank's recent blog posts, even though
Steve doesn't name names. AFAIK, both of these guys are basically retired from
the valley.

~~~
iamwil
Good point. Is there no way around it? Because given that the #1 reason
startups fail (according to pg) is founder fights, and that in organizations,
it's usually people to people problems, those might be lessons well learnt.

However, given the old adage of "praise others in public, and only criticize
them in private" (it assumes you're talking to the person you're criticizing
in private), I've often avoided saying anything, not to mention it'd sound
like I was bashing the other person, when in fact, not all puzzle pieces fit
each other, with no completely fault to each piece.

The only ways I've seen is to talk about it after some time, and to not name
names. But with time, accuracy comes into question, and if it's too recent,
it's too easy to infer and deduce the names.

------
JoeAltmaier
"On Stage" is too public - you can torpedo yourself with one careless remark.
You can't put your flaws in context, and they are likely to be taken wrong.
Private conversations are exactly the right place to learn the real nitty-
gritty.

~~~
jpuderer
I completely agree.

When you have a private conversation with someone, you get a lot more of the
shading and subtlety of their experiences.

In a public forum, people are most likely to share things that are safe. In
private, people are more likely to share their opinions, impressions, and half
formed ideas; all of which can change, but all of which give you the necessary
context to form your own opinions.

If you shared everything publicly, I'm pretty sure you'd come off as some sort
of a crank, flake, misanthrope or worse... Especially given the unforgiving
nature of Internet memory.

------
raganwald
I have spent a lot of time talking and writing about my failures. Now that
Eric has outed speakers as lying on stage, I ought to drop the pretence and
admit that I'm actually a very successful guy with a near-perfect track record
;-)

~~~
iuguy
This is shocking. I'd expect this from Michael Arrington, but not from you ;)

------
immad
"Lying" is way too harsh a word to use. It is a shame that everyone can't be
completely open and know they will never be misinterpreted or taken out of
context. But here is an example of when you are too open about your thoughts
on record:

[http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-
pinkus...](http://techcrunch.com/2009/11/06/zynga-scamville-mark-pinkus-
faceboo/)

~~~
mquander
I totally disagree. That may have been too open to serve Mark Pinkus's
interests, but it was exactly the right openness for the common good. If other
companies were equally open, we'd be better off.

------
aniket_ray
Successful startup CEO's have a lot of expectations on their shoulders.

On the other hand, they have little to gain by telling the whole truth to a
new breed of entrepreneurs. What will they gain, a little appreciation?

I really doubt that admitting that they have made mistakes in the past would
really be appreciated by employees, customers or investors.

Risks vs rewards dictates that they would continue to hide some of their past.

~~~
seltzered
True, it's even harder if, you're an entrepreneur telling the whole truth
while competing against a larger, slower, yet much more established
organization that's completely lying and comes off looking better in the
process.

------
ojbyrne
I would love to see this happen, but there's the entire Public Relations
industry to overcome. Not to mention Business mags.

------
dshah
I'm totally with Eric on this one. I've been on both sides of the issue. I
like to think of myself as relatively transparent, but getting into gory
details in a (relatively) short public talk is hard -- and there's the added
challenge of no alcohol.

The absolute best startup conversations I've EVER had are small group dinners
with peers. Most of the really useful insights I've learned have been through
those smaller gatherings where there is no agenda, no structure. I think of it
as a support group for startup founders constructed on an ad-hoc basis.

------
kristiandupont
I have been thinking quite a bit about this since I read pg's words. I
(currently) live in Denmark and I have always felt that I had pretty good
conditions for doing a startup even though I don't have access to the
networking that takes place in the valley. There is so much info online
anyway, and since I prefer bootstrapping, I am not that interested in meeting
with angels etc. However, if the material that is available online really is
that filtered, maybe I am being deluded?

