I tried to read this, really I did, but the lack of capitalization makes me want to die a swift death. You're writing to the Harvard Business School. Man up and use the shift key already.
The lack of a blank line (or any vertical space) between paragraphs is what makes it particularly unreadable for me. It looks like the source does separate the paragraphs, so seems like a bad choice of CSS.
An ethics lecture from a man whose company sells spyware (Zwinky toolbar) and highly profitable add-ons to games under the pretext of charity (Farmville "donations" to Haiti)?
EDIT: oh, and whose company essentially ripped off the idea of Farmville from someone else. Forgot about that one.
This was written a year before Zynga was formed. I still think he's hypocritical, but let's be clear about the context.
>> sells spyware (Zwinky toolbar)
I have no idea where you got this idea from. Zynga does not make Zwinky, Mindspark Interactive Network does.
>> highly profitable add-ons to games under the pretext of charity (Farmville "donations" to Haiti)?
A 50% charity split isn't shabby. Sure, Zynga should have given 100%, but there are higher profile initiatives with MUCH lower splits. Product (red) is a great example where buying a $150 iPod nets a whopping $10 for The Global Fund.
> Product (red) is a great example where buying a $150 iPod nets a whopping $10 for The Global Fund.
You really can not compare the two. The BOM and cost of production on an iPod is probably $120. The incremental cost of a Farmville credit is thousands of a cent.
> But they need distribution, and they got that through Pincus
Point conceded, I didn't know about that.
> You really can not compare the two.
A fair comparison isn't far out of reach - Shazam (red) only donates 20% of its iPhone app sales. My point isn't about these specific deals, it's that charity-share deals aren't uncommon and a 50% share is above industry standard.
And for what it's worth, Zynga did spike their contributions to 100% after the earthquake hit. Through the sales of items in Farmville, they raised over $1.5M for earthquake relief, more than most NGOs, private companies, and countries.
Thanks for the source on Zynga's connection to Zwinky. I knew there was some sort of connection, but my face got horribly red when I realized "wait, he's right--Zynga didn't make Zwinky."
Ah, somehow I missed the date the article was written. Apologies to Mr. Pincus for making it seem like he was an a priori hypocrite.
Still, I find it a little ironic that he would later say things like, "I did every horrible thing in the book to get the revenues" -- paraphrasing since I don't recall the exact quote.
As far as the charity split is concerned, I agree 50% isn't bad in most cases. However, I imagine margins are essentially zip for Zynga in this case, whereas most charities that take a cut of donations do have high operating costs.
And isn't he the one who said, "I don't fucking want innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers."
Not that innovative companies are inherently ethical, but I'd say using your market clout to squash competitors while blatantly stealing from them is at least ethically questionable.
Copying is not stealing, at best it's IP infringement. For further clarity consider Thomas Jefferson: "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
But it does nothing to, as Jefferson would certainly point out, improve the human condition, to simply copy what someone else did and crush that someone else with your market dominance.
This is just plain evil.
Demonstrating, BTW, his own point - he too became an hypocrite that's capable of doing anything immoral in order to make more money, much like the HBS alumni he was criticizing.
But he copies and improves, so much that the end product is barely comparable to the original. It's like saying a Ferrari is a descendant of the black T-Ford. Sure, but it proves nothing.
I can't argue with Zynga's products being improved versions of their competitors' - I have never used (and have consistently blocked) them. I was questioning the "I don't fucking want innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers" thing, which is plain ugly.
What we're missing from that quote is context. Also, it appears to have worked for Mr. Pincus and not for his competitors, obviously he did something a little different.
I never understood the pursuit of ethics by all business schools. I mean business schools select and reward people with questionable ethical practices. They should at least stop putting up all this hypocrisy at least. I mean Harvard considered Jeff Skilling as the best student ever until he came out as a complete sham.
At least everyone in oil industry and academia has guts to speak out against climate change and to deny it. in similar fashion i expect HBS and others to show how unethical behavior is good for human kind. A la The Selfish Gene or something.
This type of mentality is the reason that I stopped halfway between my HBS 2+2 application when I was able to apply. MBA culture is that of stagnant, tepid growth with a fortune 500 company. I was attracted to business from a social sciences background because I could see that some companies positively impact the world- but not the kind a high-level MBA sets you up to fit in with.
It may be a little one, or a big one but "Behind every empire there is a crime".
I would like to know examples of companies that are significantly successful today where the founders did not do anything unethical at some point to fuel growth.
how about examples of failed companies where the founders did not do anything unethical at some point to get ahead? Or hell, examples of individuals who did not do something unethical at some point to get ahead?
I'm not saying this makes it okay or anything... but all of us are guilty, at one point or another, of doing something unethical. we are all human. Really, I think this is one of those things the Christians got right. we will all screw it up. (I'm not sure I agree with the way the Christians go about seeking atonement, but I agree that atonement is a very human need, and that this idea that we should be able to forgive ourselves for past misdeeds while still working hard to do the right thing next time is a good one.)
So, really, I don't think your question is particularly fair... yeah, we've all done things that we shouldn't have... but I think it's a mistake to always credit our successes to our misdeeds; in fact, I've found the opposite to usually be the case. Maybe it's just my skillset, but nearly every time I've attempted to act in a deceitful or unethical way, it came back to bite me but good. - really, this is the origin of my own "keep as few secrets as possible" policy. Openness just seems to work better, at least when you have my skillset.
just a typical MBA - ramping up to comfortable number of millions by "I did every horrible thing in the book just to get revenues" and changing business model to preaching after that.
I especially like that "donations" business. Some years ago, a recent immigrant, i was surprised by how actively everybody would be harvesting donations ... until i learned that it is only (100-x)% that makes it to the charities, where "x" can be whatever donation harvester deems "expenses"
You're reading it backwards. This blog post reads like an email reply to an email blast from the new dean to all alumni. The >'s are the quoted message.
