Pardon my cynicism, but what strategic value does Kaepernick bring to Medium? On its surface, this looks like Medium broadcasting their social-moral stance by tapping a guy who aligns with theirs. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but it's hard not to become cynical about companies making these kinds of moves in order to virtue-signal to who they think their customer is.

I mean, they specifically say they are partnering with him and his publishing company to write stories on Medium about race and civil rights.

Outside of that, they call out how his voice/actions led discussions on racial justice and how the world is just now catching up to him. I believe they are calling this out because they believe these discussions will be continuing, and they want to be the place for the discussions to happen. Also, Colin led those initial discussions years ago and took a lot of heat for it. History is now proving that he was in the right, and his critics were wrong. If you want your platform to host content about race/civil rights, Colin seems like a great person to have on your side.

what strategic value is it customary for board members to bring?

Often times board members are strategic in the sense that they bring either domain expertise in the area of the business or they have connections inside the industry in which the company operates. Not always, but often...

how would you characterize the industry in which Medium operates?

how would you characterize Colin’s domain expertise?

what sorts of connections do you imagine Colin might have?

according to what you’ve communicated, whether you see the value may depend precisely on your answers to the above, and fundamentally: the beliefs and assumptions that underlie your answers.

For it to be virtue-signal would Kaepernick either have to not really do much or the board/c-team be dismissive of his ideas/strategies?

I think companies are taking a hard look right now at if what they say they stand for is being represented by their leadership teams. My guess would be EV saw a big gap there and tried to make improvements on representation. It's hard for me to see how this could make Medium worse, and if we trust Kaepernick to make sound decisions for himself and his well being, what is there to be cynical about? Any African American being chosen for a leadership role right now have to deal with a large percentage of people questioning whether they deserve or are qualified for the position.

Agree. I'm glad Goodell wants him back in the NFL and he may get another shot at a career he was unjustly denied. I don't quite understand what this brings in for Medium.

But I also really don't know anything about Kapaernick outside of the controversy. Is he a reader?

Boggles my mind how that company is still going after making itself one of the worst reading experiences online with the barrage of sign up forms and nag banners when you try to read anything on it.

Right, it's so ridiculous to the point of being laughable almost. Imgur took the same route. It started off as a super simple image hosting service because every other one was full of all sorts of annoying garbage, and now Imgur's Google description is "imgur: The magic of the Internet // Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination." and has more annoying garbage than almost every other image host out there.

Is there some kind of term for this phenomenon? Web apps like Medium and Imgur created with the sole intention of giving you a no-bullshit, clean, straightforward, minimalistic UI and presentation mutating into horrifying abominations that then go out of their way to fill everything with as much bullshit as humanly possible. Are they just typical cases of starting out idealistic, getting investment due to rapid growth despite no solid path to profitability, later frantically realizing it's totally financially unsustainable, and then doing a complete 180 to satisfy investors / not have to shutter the company?

> Are they just typical cases of starting out idealistic, getting investment due to rapid growth despite no solid path to profitability, later frantically realizing it's totally financially unsustainable, and then doing a complete 180 to satisfy investors / not have to shutter the company?

Yes.

Startups tend to live longer when founded by billionaires.

Can someone explain Medium to me? I find it makes for a minimalistic, pleasant user experience (later degraded by banners, paywalls), but apart from that? Editing options are borderline non-existent. The comments section, usability-wise, is a bad joke. What's its killer feature or core idea? Why is it everywhere?

> What's its killer feature or core idea?

You're looking at their latest killer feature, the founder hanging out with Colin Kaepernick.

Your question answers itself

I thought so after posting it :)

It's an example of how what matters to people in the HN crowd is not necessarily what matters to the target audience of things that crowd is aware of. Most people also don't care about banner ads, auto-playing videos, and a long list of very legitimate annoyances. I don't know how people read with so many widgets bouncing around the modern web. They really do seem to not notice or don't seem bothered.

or (most likely IMO) they've never seen the web without them. Browse the web with ad blocking on and then go back to the "normal" experience; try watching network TV after a significant break; it is pretty much unbearable - did you know they inject ads into the middle of youtube videos, or make you watch them before you see the content you wanted? ;)

Read the article. He’s doing writing, interviewing and publishing for Medium in addition to his board seat. His board seat will allow him to make sure his publishing partnership isn’t compromised by strategic changes at the executive level.

Is this meant to be a reply to another comment?

Also, where does it say anything about protecting his publishing partnership from executive changes?

I replied at the top level because so many people didn’t read the article.

A board member normally has influence over the direction of the company. They did not need to spell it out.

Pretty big logical leap there. I don’t think it’s justified to conclude that his board seat is to allow him to protect his publishing partnership. If they wanted to do that, they could have just made the contract ironclad.

Also, one board seat out of five doesn’t enable him to protect the partnership. Log-roll, maybe, but again this is drawing some pretty conclusions IMO.

Yes, you’re correct about the limitations of the power of one board member on a board of five.

As for the rest, it might help you to think of a board relationship as providing several benefits to both the board member and the company. We’ve only discussed one. In addition to his partnership work, he’ll conduct normal board member duties.

Sure, we’ve only discussed one aspect because it’s the only one that you chose to describe (and IMO, invent).

It’s unremarkably common for organizations and the key individuals to use a board seat to ensure an enduring partnership. I don’t know what to suggest to you except to look at board seats of other companies to better understand the reasons for assignments. You’ll typically find them assigned for financial, expertise, and partnership reasons.

I find your tone patronizing and substance lacking. I have never seen a board seat granted in order to allow the board member to protect a partnership. To induce the board member to create a partnership? That makes more sense. But it isn’t what you claimed. You made a specific and unsubstantiated claim that it was to allow him to protect his partnership in the event of executive change.

Not sure why you keep digging in on this position. You strongly implied that the article said something that it absolutely did not. Good day!

Take care. :) I’ve enjoyed talking with you as well.

so his purpose on the board is to ensure his own job security? seems strange

Yes, in a sense. It is not overly unusual for a key media persona to join a small publishers’ board.

Is this a small publisher? It has over 100 million readers and was founded by a billionaire.

Perhaps not. I just meant not the majors (Pearson, Hachette, etc.)

Who else is on Medium’s board?

EDIT: per Crunchbase, it’s Ev, Ben Horowitz, Josh Elman, and Judith Estrin.

I find it somewhat ironic that the article is not on Medium. It's listed there as well [1], but the stories I've seen shared are published elsewhere.

[1]: https://blog.medium.com/colin-kaepernick-to-join-medium-boar...

how is that ironic?

oh boy here we go

This could be very useful. Will he be writing? It could give us a chance for him to lead.

I’m not sure he needs a chance to lead. While certainly interesting that he’s joining the leadership for Medium. Seems like he’s been leading for years.

Per TFA: Kaepernick will be writing stories...

It's important to separate Kaepernick's politics from his behavior. If he believes that black people face discrimination and unfair challenges in America, he's probably right about that and certainly should speak up. But he is such a poor spokesman for that, or for anything, that one has to wonder about the judgment of the Medium board for inviting him to join.

Why do you think he's a poor spokesman for this?

Because he has a history of very poor decisions regarding his public statements. For example, I think that someone supporting civil liberties shouldn't be wearing Fidel Castro T-shirts. His opposition to the Betsy Ross flag, and using his leverage with Nike to cancel a shoe themed with it, was asinine.

There are actual, serious and thoughtful civil liberties activists in America, including those who are working to overcome the challenges faced by black Americans. They don't get nearly as much attention as Colin Kaepernick because they can't throw three touchdowns and rush for 100 yards in the same game.