
Facebook loses 3 more executives - chrisacky
http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/02/with-stock-price-at-low-facebook-loses-3-more-executives/
======
programminggeek
Keep in mind, this is also a great time to leave FB, there is a talent crunch
in the tech world and sometimes the easiest way to advance your career is to
go to another company. If your goal is to be a CEO, you will never get there
by staying at FB.

------
joelandren
Remember when "Executives" were C-Level or at least SVPs?

I'm not saying anything about these particular folks, just noting that the
tech press tends to overuse the term executive.

~~~
laconian
The tech press loves bloodshed, just like the regular press.

------
spdy
As expected. Many people have and will leave Facebook. They came to cash-out
thats what they did after the IPO. And now they are off to new ventures.

Same has happend and will happen to all big hits who go IPO. You will lose a
lot of talent. Maybe this was one of the reasons they pushed out the IPO date
so many times.

Golden Handcuffs are good sometimes.

~~~
drumdance
I thought they were locked up until 6 months after the IPO?

~~~
cjrp
3 months for some people:
[http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2012/05/17/facebook-
sho...](http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2012/05/17/facebook-shortens-
lock-up-period-for-some-holders/)

Also, once your options have vested, nothing to stop you leaving before the
lock-up expires.

------
samstave
Whomever took the google deals to stay at google must be so happy with their
choice given the poor performance of FB.

~~~
danielweber
If I could have taken a job at Facebook five years ago, I would have. I'd
still have made out like a bandit despite their recent troubles.

~~~
vtry
No you would have not, lockup for employee is in November. Might be below $5 a
share by then.

~~~
smackfu
Prices are meaningless without knowing what the option grant price was. Or if
someone got 10,000 shares, $5 is still just fine.

~~~
sadga
$50K over 5 years, not so much. 100,000 shares, maybe.

------
mtgx
Are these the same sort of people that quit their other companies a year
before the IPO for Facebook stock?

------
bceagle
I think that it is inevitable execs and talented developers will leave an
organization at some point because there is only so much value you can get by
sticking around indefinitely. The issue here is the timing of when they are
leaving. You can't ignore the signals that Zuckerberg is in way over his head.
He did a great job getting the company to this point but perhaps the next
major departure/reassignment is his. It is not unprecedented to have the board
of a public company replace the founder with a more experience CEO and that is
what it seems like is needed in this case.

~~~
SkyMarshal
_> You can't ignore the signals that Zuckerberg is in way over his head._

Yeah, you can. You can chalk them up to statistical noise resulting from a few
engineering and business model problems that need to be solved, which
shouldn't be surprising in the relatively early days of a unique new business
model like Facebook.

Just ignore the Silicon Valley and Wall Street news industry echo chamber,
their fundamental business model is about turning statistical noise into ad
impressions and cash flow. This too will pass.

 _> He did a great job getting the company to this point but perhaps the next
major departure/reassignment is his. It is not unprecedented to have the board
of a public company replace the founder with a more experience CEO and that is
what it seems like is needed in this case._

As pointed out above, Zuck owns a controlling interest, so this won't happen.
But more importantly, there _no CEO alive with more experience in this domain
than Zuck_.

Who are you thinking of, Tom the Myspace founder? An ex-Yahoo CEO? There's
still no one better than Zuck for this, so even if he could be replaced it
would be foolish to do so.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"But more importantly, there no CEO alive with more experience in this
> domain than Zuck."_

This is a big mistake in the corporate world: thinking that you need a CEO
with _specific_ experience. On that high of a level, business is business.
There are plenty of corporate executives who could do as good a job or better
at running Facebook.

But that's not to say Zuck doesn't have unique advantages having built the
company. He is also going to learn as he goes; no one is born with CEO
experience.

~~~
lsc
>On that high of a level, business is business.

Now, I have about as much experience at that level as you likely do, which is
to say, none, but one of the primary functions of a leader is choosing
empoloyees. And it takes one to know one.

I'm sorry, but it's extrordenarily difficult to hire outside of what you know.
Do you know how many people have approached me /this week/ as an expert? I
mean, I laugh, but I really am the best those people could find. This wasn't
due to lack of money; this was because they didn't have much knowledge of my
field, and because I'm loud. (I mean, some of that has value; I do write
better than most people. I am more outgoing and have more tolerance for
bullshit than most people that are actually experts. But that is mostly
bullshit.)

I mean, sure, get a trusted co-founder or what have you. but if you don't have
those skills? you won't know if that co-founder is a real expert... or me.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"but one of the primary functions of a leader is choosing empoloyees."_

With you 110%. This is, really, the role best filled by the leader.

> _"And it takes one to know one."_

Nope, disagree here. I am fully confident that I can hire a great rocket
scientist, especially with the resources of a major corporation. And I'm most
certainly not a rocket scientist.

We're disagreeing on the fundamentals here. I believe that a good CEO knows
that he doesn't need to understand the engineering of a social network in
order to run a social network. At all. He has to put together the right
strategy and the right team. It's not _easy_ to accomplish, but it's certainly
not complicated.

~~~
lsc
>Nope, disagree here. I am fully confident that I can hire a great rocket
scientist, especially with the resources of a major corporation. And I'm most
certainly not a rocket scientist.

How would you hire a rocket scientist?

I mean, I'd go ask a friend who is one, but that's... largely blind luck. I
mean, I know the guy is smarter than I am; I can tell he knows more physics
than I do. but that's not saying a whole hell of a lot. And even if my friend
is a good rocket scientist, I then have to trust he's good at picking other
good rocket scientists.

It's a similar problem to how I'd hire an accountant. I mean, super important
job, right? keeps me outta jail. Me? I found someone that ran a public q/a
site. I knew she was good at explaining things, and I know she had certain
certifications... but really, I had no idea (and still have no idea) if she's
really doing the acccouning correctly. I mean, I have refered her to a few
friends, who all have said positive things about her, so it sounds like I made
a good choice, but I don't really know. I can't, at least until I get audited.

I mean, picking good people is a skill; sharing a knowledge base with the role
you are picking is not sufficent to pick someone good. I have a very good
friend that is a much better programmer than I am. But, her initial
impressions, like most people's, mostly focus on confidence. She was
interviewing for her boss, and was very excited about one prospect. "I think
he's better than I am" she gushed. But, being a rational person, she gave some
take-home work. The next day I got a call. "Would a person fail a take-home
test on purpose?" Turns out, the guy was just a big talker. But still; the
take home test saved her from an embarrassing co-worker. If she didn't have
the knowledge to make and judge that test? she would have ended up hiring the
idiot.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"How would you hire a rocket scientist?"_

Without getting bogged down with literals, I'd do my best to determine what
constitutes a good rocket scientist, and work away. I suppose I'm just
confident I could do it. I've had to hire good people in my field (pharmacy),
but I have no formal connection to the industry. Sure, _maybe_ if I _was_ a
rocket scientist, I'd have a slight edge in this specific case. But don't
forget, being a CEO doesn't mean you're hiring all rocket scientists (or in
FB's case, engineers). You have to hire people of all types, so you lose any
competitive advantage rather quickly.

~~~
lsc
>CEO doesn't mean you're hiring all rocket scientists (or in FB's case,
engineers). You have to hire people of all types, so you lose any competitive
advantage rather quickly.

eh, but depending on the company, some roles are more important than others. I
mean, in facebook's case, it'd be marketing. Facebook, really, doesn't need
top of the world Engineers; paying 5x what they would otherwise on
infrastructure won't kill them. (they do need good people for the places where
Engineering and Marketing colide. They need people that are good at psychology
and at least mediocre programmers.) But marketing is what they /do/ - their
business plan and their P/E is predicated on capturing a huge percentage of
the world's advertising dollars. without best in the world marketing types,
they are sunk.

This is why having even a relitively small edge in hiring the best people in
one particular area can make such a huge difference, and one of the major
reasons why I think CEO experience is not particularly portable across fields.

------
s_henry_paulson
I wonder what a "mobile marketing manager" for Facebook does, seeing as how
they don't have any mobile advertising.

99% of mobile downloads are from people searching their respective app stores
for "Facebook" and clicking download.

Easiest job ever?

~~~
webwright
You're misunderstanding the breadth of what marketing is at Facebook (and most
modern consumer software companies). It certainly isn't "if we aren't getting
downloads, go buy some ads". It's about increasing the rate of acquisition
(inbound and outbound marketing), improving activation (signup to active
user), increasing the rate of sharing (viral), increasing the rate of
conversions from sharing, internationalization, etc. Check:

<https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+growth+team>

------
hxf148
It's a boon of new money and fresh funded interests to the community. Better
for everyone but I would not have gone public. (limited actual knowledge of
real world pressures.. but still. They were not in control and give up more.

It is not your thing if it's everyone's thing and when everyone is bored of
their thing. Well...

------
weezer
It's relevant that they can sell their shares after they leave, but if they
continue working at FB they have to wait a few more weeks to months for the
lock-up period to expire. Maybe they're scared about the stock and want to
prevent further losses.

~~~
rowborg
Just curious, why do you say this? Most lockups are structured in such a way
that they are binding whether or not you continue to be employed by the
company. Your shares can only be sold via the company stock plan manager
(often the underwriter) and they will enforce the agreement.

Is there any reason you believe FB's lockup is structured differently?

~~~
nerd-on-bay
First: I know nothing about facebook lockups.

There is a intersecting web of securities law and the terms of the original
share sales to private investors.

Here is some information about registration rights and investment term sheets:

[http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/venture-capital-term-
sh...](http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/venture-capital-term-sheet-
registration-rights)

------
pixie_
Good. Less management, more engineers. Facebook is profitable, and Zuckerberg
has 56% voting stake in the company, so screw everyone else. I say let Mark do
whatever he and his engineering team want to do, and don't bow down to people
who would rather make a quick buck than build a great company.

~~~
shashashasha
So you're saying that no one will fill these roles?

