Back in February of this year, I did predict that Verizon would be a likely top two or final candidate for the acquisition of that tired old dinosaur Yahoo!, and I also stated that even an apparently paltry offer of $5B would have to be taken seriously. No surprise at all to this boy, therefore, that Verizon has indeed acquired the core operations of Yahoo! for a mere $4.8B; for contrast, people, don't forget that this behemoth was once valued at over $200B, and several years ago Yahoo! rebuffed a $45B offer from Microsoft!
Seeing an Internet pioneer and giant stumbling and falling amidst a rapidly evolving and increasingly competitive ecosystem has not been easy to watch, but in business it is the law of the jungle, and I for one am glad to see the weary, beaten-down beast lying on its side struggling to even breathe while being poked and prodded by passing predators, finally being put out of its misery. It was the only and right thing to do. It had come such a long way from two Stanford PhDs dreaming big in the early days of the earth-changing "world wide web", but ended up as a geriatric has-been, out of fashion, out of touch, and out of time.
Naturally, the spotlight shines brighter than ever on Google employee #20, and where she goes from here. I think it's a pretty safe bet that she's history, even if rather typically, she is announcing that she's going nowhere and will stay on to finalise the transaction, if nothing more. I am not sure that's a good idea at all, but she has been stubbornly refusing to face reality at Yahoo! for yonks now, so what's six more months?! And the estimates of her ultimate payday ($12M odd at the bottom end, $55M at the mid-zone, and over $120M at the top end) all ensure she will rake it in even after her performance was rated to be sub-par, over and over and over.
Honestly, the best thing that Tim Armstrong (ex-AOL, and also a former Googler) could do for her, is to talk to the board and arrange her golden parachute, pronto. She failed, let's be frank, and having her around as the beast is now carved open and ripped apart into multiple reusable limbs, is just prolonging that failure and is not going to feel like a fresh start (or fresh anything) for those that are being kept around. Let it go, and let her go, Verizon!
I actually think she is guilty of hubris at this point, point-blank refusing to walk away from what the entire industry views as an abject failure for a CEO, seemingly hoping that she can somehow rewrite her story in the remaining few months of electronic access to the building, such that she can maybe come out of it looking rosier. Even if the transition from a Yahoo! into a Verizon goes wonderfully, what kind of CV booster is that likely to be? She has got to let go, now; going off on "gardening leave" would be way smarter!
Not unsurprisingly, but rather uncommonly, Ms. Mayer has done some moaning of late about her current predicament, going as far as to accuse the media of gender bias in a recent Financial Times interview that followed the sale of Yahoo!'s core business. It's somewhat ironic in that just a year ago in another interview she stated clearly that gender was not an issue for her as a tech-geek CEO. Perhaps she means that the (sexist) media enjoy seeing women fail, even if that same media did help build her up?!
Just like in Hollywood, you can't have it both ways. If one uses (perhaps even shamelessly) the paparazzi and TMZs of the world to grab attention for oneself as an unknown wannabe, then when one makes it to the big time, one cannot possibly hope that the privacy-invading predators are not going to be following one, 24/7, right? Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that jazz.
Now, I have no intention of turning the Yahoo debacle into one of gender bias (Ms. Mayer did that!) and I think it is highly inaccurate to do so. While I agree that life for a female CEO in tech or business cannot be easy, the individual who makes it should normally have seen it all and dealt with it all, if they got there for the right reasons based on both solid experience and stellar performance. So why moan only when it hasn't gone your way, even if being feminine was not an issue in earlier dealings with the media?
Ms. Mayer's provocative pose/photo that adorned the cover of Vogue in 2013 is anything but the typical shot of any male CEO, so she wanted to be seen as different, right?! The shot certainly has more to do with fashion and style (and femininity) than it does tech or business or Yahoo! And why would the CEO of a Yahoo! ever be asked to be on the cover of a Vogue (as opposed to Businessweek or FT)), unless she was known as the epitome of high fashion? Hardly the case for Ms. Mayer, at all.
If I think of two recent and very prominent in-the-news female CEOs of our time, it would be Mayer and Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos. While I am not truly in a position to ascertain whether the media apparently enjoy their slide to ignominy because of their gender, I think it's the case that the media elevated them above their male counterparts, in many, many ways., in the first place. That's fair enough, as there are so few female CEOs in the tech world, or even business in general. A mere few percent of Fortune 500 companies are led by women, in fact.
So I think it kind of balances out: the media may gush more over prominent female CEOs when they first make it, but unless one rejected the attention and glossy fashion magazine covers on offer, one shouldn't moan about "gender-charged reporting" (Mayer quote) on their writing of one's failure. Schadenfreude has been around for a while, and I don't think it is gender-specific; rather, it's human-specific!
Mayer and Holmes were darlings of both the media and their boards, alike, and each CEO should have been ousted a long time ago. I honestly feel that a male CEO would have been removed sooner, in each case, especially as they are both still sitting CEOs who have everyone except their boards asking for their heads. In the end, it was the boards who remained starstruck even in the face of evaporating value and imploding scandals, respectively. They are responsible ultimately, and it is to them that shareholders should look to for fault.
Marissa Mayer's failure to turn around Yahoo! had nothing to do with her being a woman. Just as her being a woman had nothing to do with her being hired by Yahoo!. She failed because she never should have been hired in the first place. Being Google employee #20 and a talented product engineer/manager does not a CEO make, particularly of a (struggling) giant such as the behemoth that now was Yahoo! She transparently refused to face reality, repeatedly, and the board correspondingly refused to face her/their reality, repeatedly. It was a most unhealthy combination and outcome.
It's far from clear if anyone could have turned it around, but failing at doing so at Yahoo! has tarnished her reputation, and should serve as a warning sign to those considering taking the helm at dying public companies. It must be very tempting being offered the top slot at some huge corporation (primarily due to one's star power rather than previous relevant experience) but if one says yes to an impossible task in return for a bucketload of cash, then one can be left with just that, a bucketload of cash, at the end, when one fails.
But to each their own; maybe a bucketload of money is enough to make up for being blamed for tanking a legendary company, and the clinging tarnished reputation and subsequent career crater are just the ultimate means to an end? Mayer sails off richer than ever, as the Yahoo! brand is evaporated into the vapour trails of Internet history.
[PS - For those that are wondering, the blue upside-down dress in the photo above is a Michael Kors number!] :)
Now, I have no intention of turning the Yahoo debacle into one of gender bias (Ms. Mayer did that!) and I think it is highly inaccurate to do so. While I agree that life for a female CEO in tech or business cannot be easy, the individual who makes it should normally have seen it all and dealt with it all, if they got there for the right reasons based on both solid experience and stellar performance. So why moan only when it hasn't gone your way, even if being feminine was not an issue in earlier dealings with the media?
Ms. Mayer's provocative pose/photo that adorned the cover of Vogue in 2013 is anything but the typical shot of any male CEO, so she wanted to be seen as different, right?! The shot certainly has more to do with fashion and style (and femininity) than it does tech or business or Yahoo! And why would the CEO of a Yahoo! ever be asked to be on the cover of a Vogue (as opposed to Businessweek or FT)), unless she was known as the epitome of high fashion? Hardly the case for Ms. Mayer, at all.
If I think of two recent and very prominent in-the-news female CEOs of our time, it would be Mayer and Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos. While I am not truly in a position to ascertain whether the media apparently enjoy their slide to ignominy because of their gender, I think it's the case that the media elevated them above their male counterparts, in many, many ways., in the first place. That's fair enough, as there are so few female CEOs in the tech world, or even business in general. A mere few percent of Fortune 500 companies are led by women, in fact.
So I think it kind of balances out: the media may gush more over prominent female CEOs when they first make it, but unless one rejected the attention and glossy fashion magazine covers on offer, one shouldn't moan about "gender-charged reporting" (Mayer quote) on their writing of one's failure. Schadenfreude has been around for a while, and I don't think it is gender-specific; rather, it's human-specific!
Mayer and Holmes were darlings of both the media and their boards, alike, and each CEO should have been ousted a long time ago. I honestly feel that a male CEO would have been removed sooner, in each case, especially as they are both still sitting CEOs who have everyone except their boards asking for their heads. In the end, it was the boards who remained starstruck even in the face of evaporating value and imploding scandals, respectively. They are responsible ultimately, and it is to them that shareholders should look to for fault.
Marissa Mayer's failure to turn around Yahoo! had nothing to do with her being a woman. Just as her being a woman had nothing to do with her being hired by Yahoo!. She failed because she never should have been hired in the first place. Being Google employee #20 and a talented product engineer/manager does not a CEO make, particularly of a (struggling) giant such as the behemoth that now was Yahoo! She transparently refused to face reality, repeatedly, and the board correspondingly refused to face her/their reality, repeatedly. It was a most unhealthy combination and outcome.
It's far from clear if anyone could have turned it around, but failing at doing so at Yahoo! has tarnished her reputation, and should serve as a warning sign to those considering taking the helm at dying public companies. It must be very tempting being offered the top slot at some huge corporation (primarily due to one's star power rather than previous relevant experience) but if one says yes to an impossible task in return for a bucketload of cash, then one can be left with just that, a bucketload of cash, at the end, when one fails.
But to each their own; maybe a bucketload of money is enough to make up for being blamed for tanking a legendary company, and the clinging tarnished reputation and subsequent career crater are just the ultimate means to an end? Mayer sails off richer than ever, as the Yahoo! brand is evaporated into the vapour trails of Internet history.
[PS - For those that are wondering, the blue upside-down dress in the photo above is a Michael Kors number!] :)
No comments:
Post a Comment