
Zynga's Tough Culture Risks a Talent Drain - timr
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/zyngas-tough-culture-risks-a-talent-drain/?hp
======
philk
The worst thing about working yourself to death at Zynga would be knowing you
were toiling to produce shoddy little pseudo-games. At least when, say, jwz
was putting in insane hours at Netscape he was building Netscape Navigator.

Also those Farmville character cutouts in the photo are possibly the creepiest
thing in the universe.

~~~
suivix
Those 'pseudo-games' keep my wheelchair bound grandmother occupied (and
possibly even entertained) throughout her day. They provide value to some
people.

~~~
jemfinch
And millions more waste atrocious amounts of time being unproductive--or
worse, becoming addicted or going into debt.

Farmville abuses the social guilt that evolution built into our human nature
to bring profit to Zynga. Do you really think its net contribution to society
is positive because of your grandmother and people like her?

~~~
skrebbel
Oh my god!

There's people out there being _unproductive_!

If you really think that that's a problem, you must've had a terrible life.

~~~
blub
Slackers, not merely unproductive. And guess who has to pick up all the
slack...

~~~
achompas
Who...you? The government?

Come on now. Let's not get sanctimonious about what people do with their time.
It's their problem.

------
m0nastic
This part seemed especially troubling:

 _"But PopCap’s founders worried about the company’s reputation after hearing
rumors of the company’s rescinding share awards and fierce internal
competition, said two people with first-hand knowledge of the situation.
Instead, PopCap agreed to a rival offer from Electronic Arts, worth $750
million in cash and stock and the potential of an additional $550 million if
certain earnings goals were met."_

You agree to be acquired for less money by EA because of the culture of Zynga?
EA. Arguably the worst-regarded place for game developers to work.

~~~
pkteison
I have 3 friends who have worked for EA recently, in different offices in
different states. They all agree that things are noticeably better since the
EA wife lawsuit. It's not perfect, but it's not the constant death marches it
used to be. I'd say Zygna has handily surpassed EA in the horrible reputation
department.

~~~
_delirium
EA also has _some_ history of allowing semi-independence of studios they buy
out if they have enough clout and fight for it. Maxis managed to even stay in
a physically different location, partly to maintain cultural independence, and
partly because Will Wright didn't want to commute to Redwood City. Admittedly,
being Will Wright is sort of an exceptional case when it comes to negotiating
clout.

~~~
gamble
The essence of EA's management style is that they're content to leave studios
on their own, so long as the studio is consistently laying golden eggs. When
that studio experiences a significant failure (when, not if) EA corporate has
no qualms about slicing open the goose to find out what went wrong.

They're better in this regard than they once were, because they have _some_
level of restraint now, but the creative hit-or-bomb nature of the video game
business means that eventually they eventually feel compelled to exert control
over all of their acquisitions. Wright had a large degree of autonomy for a
long time because he made staggeringly massive amounts of money for EA with
The Sims, but it didn't protect him from being pushed out when Spore turned
out to be an epic flop.

------
Jgrubb
A tangential story, pardon me.

I was in San Francisco a couple weeks ago playing a couple shows at the
Independent. My buddy Fritz owns a bar/restaurant called the Connecticut
Yankee, and was giving me a ride from the hotel to the airport with a
breakfast and Irish coffee stop over at the Yankee on the way. We cruised
right past Zynga's HQ, which is a few blocks away.

"Wow, Zynga's right there, huh?"

[aggravated grumbling from Fritz]

"Why? What could a bar owner have against a big business full of people making
lots of money being a few blocks away?"

"Well, all these tech companies hire their own chefs now. None of those people
even leave the building all day. It's totally slaughtered my lunchtime crowd."

I'd never really considered the micro-economic effects of the Google Chef
before, but there you go.

~~~
jedc
IIRC, Google only hired Charlie Ayers when they moved out of downtown Palo
Alto to suburban Mountain View. Perhaps the free food phenomenon might have
never happened if Google had moved to SFO instead?

------
jpancake
I work, tangentially, in the games industry. A reasonably well-known
programmer, who had a monster hit in the Atari days, works in my office. The
topic of Zynga came up on an internal list recently. He had this to say:

"Zynga continues to set precedents in the high-tech field. This ranks up there
with a friend of mine who, while working at Zynga suffered a heart attack
without warning one day (in his 40s).

In the 3 days he was in the hospital, his boss was replaced and his new boss
reorganized the department. The new boss called my friend on the hospital room
phone and fired him.

(Yes, there was a lawsuit. And yes, Zynga settled while – of course – denying
any wrongdoing.)

But seriously... Who does that sort of thing?"

------
owyn
I don't think you can run a 3000 person ~1B/y company like a startup. It's one
thing if there are make or break projects at a bigger company that people sign
up for explicitly, but it's not scalable. Not everybody can work at that pace
and people who can't or won't are just as valuable (perhaps even more so) over
the long haul. You have to pace yourself for the long term and put in a reward
structure to match that goal. Look at Apple vs a place like Zynga and think
about who is more likely to be around in 5 years...

Also, I've seen that 4-5 years is about how much time engineers are willing to
put into a startup company before they want some kind of a cash out :
liquidity : burn your options in a barrel at burning man situation. If you
think about the expected half-life of a silicon valley engineering career, you
can probably do 2 or 3 of those before you are burned out entirely or prefer
to work at a non insane company. Founders are probably not as aware of this
because they naturally are 100% invested, but you have to surround yourself
with quality employees who won't put up with your bullshit forever.

~~~
nostrademons
"Look at Apple vs a place like Zynga..."

Bad example. The folks I know at Apple are _ridiculously_ overworked. I've got
a cousin who works on FileMaker that's been putting in 12+ hour days and
weekends for the last year. I've got a friend who works on iMessage for the
iPhone, and his roommates never see him at home unless they specifically
arrange a social event with him.

I think that if you want a company in Silicon Valley with decent work/life
balance, it'd probably be Microsoft, Adobe, Cisco, or one of the other last-
generation giants. Google depends on your team; there're parts of
Infrastructure, Apps, etc. that work reasonable hours with little deadline
pressure, but people on the money teams (Search, Ads, Android, Doodles) are
often there at all hours because they set very ambitious and complex goals for
themselves. Facebook has a reputation for long hours and weekend hackathons.
Yahoo is apparently very variable: some folks are putting in 12-14 hour days
and still not getting all their work done, while others work for like 2-3
hours and spend the rest of the day on Facebook. Apple I already mentioned.

~~~
owyn
Good point, I have no first hand knowledge of working at Apple. I have worked
at some smaller companies (and that's where I am now) that do have a good
work/life balance but nobody would recognize those names so I just picked one.
Definitely appreciate the insight though. I do occasionally contemplate
working at a bigger company, and it's good to think about all the trade-offs.
It's also interesting to think about the culture of a company, how that grows
and evolves, and how that matches your own goals and ideals. It's not just
about the money. I do think it's possible to do good work and be happy at a
small/medium sized company that has a pretty cool product but isn't going to
be the "next xyz".

~~~
wisty
Apple gets away with it because they have a fantastic brand, and produce
widely admired products. If people will tattoo your logo to themselves, you
can probably get them to pitch in a few extra hours. If you tell them the
product they are contributing to will be a cultural icon for years, they'll
work weekends.

Tobacco companies and casinos look after their staff, because they know their
staff are in it for the pay and conditions.

I'm not saying that Zygna is a _bad_ company, but it's not a great one, given
the money it's making. The people in it are not there to make a difference,
they want a fat paycheque, a big exit, or a relaxed working environment.

------
akkartik
Man, this article has the fingerprints of the submarine all over it
(<http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html>). Lots of emphasis on corrective
measures, just a passing mention of option clawbacks, with the reassurances
that it "affected only a limited number of senior employees."

~~~
drivingmenuts
Well, on the other hand, you have Uncrunched with two Rand-ian articles about
how you should just put up with the beatings.

You pays your money, you takes your picks.

~~~
akkartik
Ah, I just saw what you mean: <http://uncrunched.com/2011/11/27/the-evil-
zynga>

------
andrewfelix
_" the organization thrives on numbers, relentlessly aggregating performance
data"_ Enron had a system like this, designed to retain top level staff and
lose the dead wood. It actually created an obsession with short term gains and
an effort to get good 'review' scores. It also led to employees shitting on
each other in an attempt to stay employed.

------
jtchang
Company culture can sometimes be stressful. Zynga is no different. What
worries me though is that compensation packages are being rescinded. This is
generally a bad sign. I am constantly reminded of the spirit and the letter.
The spirit of these packages is that early employees took a risk and should be
rewarded. Even though the packages can watered down and taken away doesn't
make it right.

------
melindajb
Not surprising to any of us who live here and have been hearing the stories
for quite some time. While hard work is essential and data driven decision
making critical; when it crosses the line into abusiveness without offering
any of the benefits of a steve jobs, it's over the line. What happens when
investment bankers run amok. there's a reason profits are flattening....

------
DanielRibeiro
Now this was interesting:

 _While such a culture is not uncommon in the game industry, it can create
problems. Employees at Electronic Arts and Activision Blizzard have filed
lawsuits against their employers, with claims of hostile work conditions and
withheld compensation. In 2006, Electronic Arts settled two class-action
lawsuits by game artists and programmers for about $15 million each_

~~~
nerfhammer
see <http://andymerrett.co.uk/blog/2004/12/09/ea-the-human-story/>

------
rickmb
On the other hand, Zynga is actually addressing these issue. If they integrate
that self-reflection into their company culture, they may end up being a
better place to work than so many start-ups that only have a "cool" company
culture because the owner is cool.

At a certain scale (and this comes very quickly) you need to actively maintain
a company culture. So many companies forget to do that, and then fall back
into old school corporate methods to manage the problems that come with
growth.

------
klochner
Wonderful implication of this ridiculous assertion without actually stating
it:

    
    
       [Mark's excel spreadsheets] allow Zynga to fine-tune its
       games to optimize engagement, helping the company attract
       some 270 million unique users each month

~~~
skrebbel
I'm too stupid. Care to elaborate?

------
koops
Add this to the fact that they steal others' ideas, and it's a tough company
to like.

~~~
pkteison
I think most people here on hacker news understand that imitation is the
sincerest form of flattery and it's execution that counts. There are -plenty-
of things to dislike about Zygna before complaining about the fact that
FarmWhatzit works just like Uncle Bob's MyFarmifier or whatever. "But x did it
first" arguments on simple things that anybody could up with simply don't help
anything in any way.

~~~
gfodor
I think you should read more about exactly what the parent post is referring
to. Zynga's history of one of blatent theft -- there is a hair's breadth
between their games and the people whose originals they ripped off.

~~~
pkteison
It's a -facebook- game. See: Myspace, Friendster, Six Degrees.

I'm familiar with the fact that Zygna's web based farm simulator plays like
somebody else's web based farm simulator. But that's a very similar argument
to "bing is just like google is like altavista is like yahoo" - you type in a
search box, you get back a list of web pages, every time one adds a feature
the others do same.

Also: If you come up with a better dating site tomorrow, should you need to
apologize to match.com? Many of us here are hoping to come up with a better
mousetrap, and have no intention of saying "oh, well, I guess Acme made
mousetraps first." We intend to build a better mousetrap. If we succeed, if
Acme has any brains they will do likewise and everybody wins.

So I just don't think 'they are stealing ideas' is the right grounds to
assault them on. If the idea mattered enough, the first fake farm crop clicker
would have won.

Much better places to start: "It's not a game", "wall spam gets in the way of
real friendships", "their founder bragged about getting profitable off the
evilest ads they could find", "they took away options from employees", "all of
their games are reskins of the same exact thing", and "is there an ethical
bound where speeding up timers in a virtual click thing is charging too much
for too little? (zygna vip = smurfberries = cow clicker?)"

~~~
gfodor
I disagree. Your analogy doesn't work. If you took DOOM, re-created the
graphics in slightly different colors and styles because you didn't want to
get sued for copyright infringement, but implemented the exact game mechanics,
the story, controls, and all of the major concepts of the game, and called it
FLOOM, you'd be crossing the line in a way you are not by simply creating a
search engine.

This is basically Zynga's methodology for creating products that they've
clearly used a number of times with clear evidence. I don't think they see
themselves in the business of designing games since they leave that to the
companies they steal them from.

I think it's a false dilemma to say that we shouldn't criticize Zynga for this
because it comes at the cost of being able to criticize them for other
reasons. For some, this is just as an important reason (if not more important)
than the ones you listed.

------
yalogin
Did we not see another report recently that employees at square are also
worked to death? So is it even worse at Zynga or is it because its going
public?

------
unreal37
As much as I don't like Zynga and probably would not enjoy working there (too
intense all day every day), it is actually nice to read an article that seems
balanced. People do work there, and people do like it. It's different than
most companies, and it's not for everyone .

I am intrigued by the merit-based systems they are experimenting with.

~~~
raganwald

      It is actually nice to read an article that seems balanced
    

See: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3284741>

------
ricardobeat
Rovio is an 8-year-old company, not a start-up...

------
pbreit
tl;dr: Some people, mostly competitors and ex-employees, think that the coarse
characteristics that directly led to Zynga's outrageous success _might_ lead
to problems in the future.

------
swah
What do they code there, mostly? Flash?

------
speby
Can't wait!

------
codeonfire
Every job is going to suck if you're an engineer for hire. There is no
mythical good place to work, and if there were, someone like these guys would
be working overtime to make it suck for you. If you're an engineer you need to
be working on selling your own products and services and working within the
framework of being a business owner. Once you accept a permanent salaried
position, no more negotiation is possible and you will have to weigh each new
set of terms dictated to you with the cost of quitting. Setting up a business
allows you to renegotiate with clients and you will never have to take the
career hit of quitting a salaried position again.

~~~
enneff
I'm a counter example. I've run my own successful businesses in the past, but
now I'm an Engineer at Google and I often worry that my life is just too good
to be true. I look forward to Monday morning, and have to stop myself from
working on weekends and the evenings. It's too much fun! Honestly, being paid
good money to work in a supportive environment with great people is hard to
beat.

~~~
codeonfire
So google has been canning several projects lately. How will you feel when
your project gets canned and your work thrown away? How would you feel about a
25% pay cut or being forced to move to a different state, or free food being
cut? What if you're put under a micromanager who forces you to work weekends
and nights to cover his/her ineptitude? Do you think GOOG shareholders would
not rather keep the money that you cost? Shareholders and management will
eventually alter the deal you are currently getting in their favor. If you
generate value, other people want that value and it will suck at some point in
the future if you continue on as rank and file.

~~~
enneff
The prospect that Google could one day be a bad place to work does not
invalidate my claim that it is currently a great place to work. The premise of
your original post was that the only way to have a good working life is to
work for yourself. I don't think that this is always the case.

To be honest, the doomsdays scenario you outline is ridiculous to me. It's so
far removed from the current culture at Google. I think I'd be long gone by
the time such things were taking place.

It's also worth noting that the majority of Google shareholders are Google
employees (including me), and that the managers in Engineering at Google are
all engineers. You should also investigate the conditions of Google's IPO -
the shareholders don't have a lot of influence at Google.

Of course, these things can all change. But like I said, it's great the way it
is now and I'm having a blast. If it changes, I've got plenty of cash and
experience under my belt to get started on something else. There is no
downside here.

(Addendum: If they cancelled my project (Go) I'd just quit and work on the
code from somewhere else. That's the benefit of working on a project where all
your contributions are BSD-licensed. ;-)

~~~
codeonfire
>The premise of your original post was that the only way to have a good
working life is to work for yourself.

The premise of my original post is exactly what I wrote, "Every job is going
to suck if you're an engineer for hire." I didn't say every job sucks now,
just that the natural tendency is for forces to work against any good working
life for rank and file engineers who stay in the same job.

Things are going good for you right now? Great, you're an outlier working at
Google. The vast majority of working engineers more than probably face
declining benefits, compensation, and working conditions in the future
_without changing jobs_. For example, most companies don't offer cost of
living salary adjustments even though company revenues would presumably
increase by a similar amount. My point is simply that such job changes are
costly in time, money, and effort and can be avoided by working for oneself
and that it is a good and desirable goal that engineers should pursue.

~~~
enneff
> My point is simply that such job changes are costly in time, money, and
> effort

And that's where I disagree. When I said there's no downside, I meant it.
Changing jobs has been only an enriching experience for me. As long as you're
savvy with your finances, it's no sweat to find another job. On the other
hand, if I ran a business that started to tank, I think that would be far more
stressful (thankfully mine never did).

I agree that running your own business should be a desirable goal, but I think
you can make a great living working as an employee. It depends a lot on your
interests. Both approaches have their benefits and pitfalls.

