I'm baffled by Tim Armstrong's rise to the top. I think he got there by virtue of having founded Patch, which never did anything before getting (nearly) shut down .... he seems to constantly piss everyone off, while accomplishing nothing, and yet ... CEO of a major brand?! (Other unpleasant CEOs - I can point to what they've accomplished.)
What am I missing? Does he have some other claim to fame and fortune that is not documented? Or is AOL making a technology or market share comeback that I'm unaware of?
Armstrong joined AOL as CEO in 2009 from Google where he was President of Google's Americas operation. AOL were replacing their former CEO Randy Falco following a number of spectacular business blunders.
He's not proven particularly popular. On the other hand, AOL is alive and profitable, which wasn't a sure thing five years ago.
What am I missing? Does he have some other claim to fame and fortune that is not documented? Or is AOL making a technology or market share comeback that I'm unaware of?