

5 CEOs That Need To Get Fired - kwamenum86
http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/11/ceos-who-got-to.html

======
kwamenum86
Zuckerberg should be commended for his talent and vision but if you have do
take out a loan to keep your company afloat because you don't have enough
revenue (as was widely reported) and you are STILL not worried about having a
business model something is wrong. He recites his "we are not worried about
revenue for at least a few years, we just want to grow" line religiously but
it seriously sounds like entrepreneurial advice crica 2006. Get with the
program!

~~~
river_styx
This is the modus operandi for basically every web 2.0 company. I think never
before in history has there been such a large number of businesses springing
up and carrying on blithely with no idea how they're going to make money.

~~~
alaskamiller
Is there something inherently wrong with this?

~~~
river_styx
I don't see anything inherently _wrong_ , really. It's just strange that,
given the point of starting a business is to make money, there would be so
many businesses out there running along seemingly without much concern as to
revenue. If your aim is to build a large user base and flip, that's fine, but
keep in mind that it's an unsustainable business model. It's basically a
crapshoot.

~~~
alaskamiller
Again, what is strange about that? There's hundreds of variations to end a
chess game as there are hundreds of variations to make a business work. If
you're already determined to be an entrepreneur you wouldn't be a stranger to
crapshoots and experimentation.

~~~
river_styx
I'm not saying that one person taking on an extreme high risk endeavor is
strange. Happens all the time. What's strange is that such a huge cluster of
people are doing it.

The anomaly is the multiplicity of the occurrence, not the occurrence itself.

~~~
alaskamiller
It should be applauded. Free market. Good things bubble up and stay alive.
Their personal choice in allocating their labor. Good for everyone. Blah blah.
All that jazz. <3

------
iamdave
_investors usually move to replace founders with more experienced executives._

I don't like that at all. Captains sink with their ships, it's the most time
tested adage of being a leader. The notion that investors pull out the
founders and replace them with Executives I think showcases a problem with how
we analyze human relations in business: people are expendable and don't matter
as long as they can keep the gears turning that pad wallets.

I understand the point of business: make money. But when did it become
fashionable to give up the ability to command your crew just because a petty
officer comes along and says "get lost" just because he's paying the bills?
Pay the bills or not, I stand by my opinion: a captain should sink with his
ship.

Got a shitty founder, _teach_ him how to be a better founder and in the end
you'll all benefit. Or are we all just too greedy to give a damn?

~~~
thomasmallen
If I go the startup route, I'll do it without investors. Start small. Then
earn a little, grow a little, and make smart business decisions. Repeat. I'd
much rather be on a solid foundation in ten years than on top of the world in
two and back on the streets in another.

------
alizaki
Right on the money, except for Dell. The company is putting money into key
trend and technology. Case in point: the netbook and the 19 hour battery life
laptops.

------
jfornear
I figure my thoughts are just as randomly justified/qualified as Wired's:

If Facebook replaced Zuckerberg, I bet users wouldn't be opposed to paying a
monthly subscription.

I agree that the Blockbuster CEO needs out. I think he has even been quoted
mocking Netflix as non threatening.

I don't know what I feel about Jerry Yang. I feel like Yahoo's situation has
to be more complicated than coverage conveys.

~~~
oakmac
"I bet users wouldn't be opposed to paying a monthly subscription."

If Facebook started charging a monthly fee to be a member it would die a swift
death. What Facebook should do is start charging for additional services
beyond a basic profile. For example: basic profile is limited to 20
photos/month, $2/month gets you unlimited.

~~~
kirse
Last time I gave some serious thought to FB's revenue problem this is what I
came up with.

They'd have to find a way to sneak in a few initial tiny costs that don't
abruptly cut off users who don't pay (i.e. limiting # of photos etc...). Once
you get enough people with their credit card info in there, make it easy as
heck (one-click) to upgrade to "Premium" or something and push the Premium
site hard.

Microsoft does this with their Xbox Live service. It's so ridiculously easy to
spend money on that service once they get your CC# for something tiny. All you
have to do is press the X button (or something) to buy just about anything.

------
Sam_Odio
It's interesting that the article seems to be using a reddit backend. Notice
the url of the vote links: <http://reddit.wired.com/ceos/..>.

It's nice to see reddit integrated into Conde Nast's other properties. I
wonder what else they have in store for the technology.

------
saint
i have failed to understand the criteria for the list, while i can understand
yangs failure, i do not think that facebook has come to an end yet as it is
rather new model nobody understands.

