They thought millennials wanted "shorter" based on the success of tiktok/instagram/etc. But their content was too long to be short. And the "golden age of TV" we are in basically proves that people don't really want shorter in scripted content. If anything, we want deeper stories. Novellas have never outsold novels. Movies were an outlier for a while, based on the fact it was so hard to produce content, but even movies are now becoming trilogy's+. Youtube is hugely successful because it satisfies niche content, the length is irrelevant.
They thought it should be "mobile", but by limiting it to mobile they meant that you could only watch part of the time. Netflix is perfectly fine on mobile.
The switching back and forth thing feels like a novelty like 1 time then you just do whatever you want and stick with that. Its also hard for creators as you don't know how people will use it, so you have to make it "worse in landscape" and "worse in portrait" so people can watch on either method.
I absolutely LOVE people taking big risks on ideas. This was just a bad idea from the start. I wish they would have blown $1.8B on some shoot the moon healthcare idea or something.
A more interesting, much smaller risk would've been something like a sketch comedy show where every clip is under a minute (Tiktok style). Yeah a ton of amateurs are already doing stuff like that, but - hire them!
Totally right, imo. I might be old and out of touch, but to me 10 minutes is way too long for content on mobile, and short enough to be kind of annoying on anything else. I'd rather watch a 25 or 30 minute show if I want something short on TV.
'How do you do fellow kids?'
Whitman was the 'Business Person'.
That said, the content format is really quite different, and it's hard to predict how '5 minute bits' would work, and they spent possibly way too much money on it, it would have been better to 'start small', to find the format that works, and then spend a fortune - which is probably something that Meg should have understood given her background in the Valley.
My argument against this point is simple: few of those were original content conceived by Katzenberg/DreamWorks/Disney. They were existing stories (most already successful as books). The only things I can see in his filmography that are possibly original and hugely successful are Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Kung Fu Panda, and Madagascar, Road to El Dorado, and _maybe_ Chicken Run.
Interesting.
She's not so good at taking something that is new or failing and making it good. She definitely made eBay much bigger than it would have been without her, but it was already successful and growing when she joined. She ran HPE into the ground because it was already failing.
She didn't succeed with Quibi because she doesn't know about how to find market fit.
Bit of a leap to conclude that right just based on eBay?
eBay would've had astronomical growth under a dog as CEO. As you mentioned:
> She definitely made eBay much bigger than it would have been without her, but it was already successful and growing when she joined.
And that's her one success story. She's had plenty of other opportunities to demonstrate management competency. I think there's a cognitive fallacy where we assume someone is good because they were there and we lived through things with them.
But as others have said, just look at her wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman
I think we should challenge ourselves when defending people just because they were there and they didn't fail.
I don't care how brilliant she was at delegating to managers across categories, etc., the world needs space for better leaders than e.g. those who support Prop 8 (were anti-gay marriage) etc. Like if you don't have empathy there, then it's unlikely you're going to be a better manager than, again, my dog.
A manager needs to be a leader. Perhaps she can delegate and she has an MBA from HBS and she's well-connected in Silicon Valley (I remember her connections to Scott Cook at Intuit, etc. - so much bad shit happened under their watch though, poaching, etc.).
But I don't think any of her behavior (unless you have concrete examples) makes her "brilliant" or a "good manager" - unless the standards are pretty out-of-date. We really should not be defending people who don't evolve (and who are financially very taken care of and have every opportunity to earn trust again, but don't).
UPDATE. I see some examples now in the other comments. Personally I'm not convinced. But that's just me.
But I'm saying she does at least have some wins on her track record to justify hiring her.
I mean the good news is it seems like management has gotten better across the board (nobody talked about empathy even ten years ago). So that’s good.
Someone in our company slack posted this re: Katzenberg too: https://collider.com/jeffrey-katzenberg-disney-renaissance-i...
It’s just interesting how our former leaders might be seen in new light (but yeah not to take away from the solid wins they did have and I think it’s awesome she remembered people’s names and details - the average CEO in the generation before would’ve been hard pressed to do that). Perhaps it’s good that the bar gets higher and higher.
And yeah, I don't think any of us want that. It's fascinating though how we (not the OP, but perhaps myself and others) so easily jump on the criticism bandwagon for Marissa Mayer, Ellen Pao or now Meg Whitman. I don't think we do that for male CEOs as much.
Anyway, just noting it for those reading this later. Poor choice in wording in the above (I actually love my dog a lot - but the wording probably comes off as insensitive). Which was not the intention, but a good learning moment for me.
> ...much bad shit happened under their watch though, poaching, etc.
If empathy is important to you, please consider not using the term "poaching". Employees are not animals that belong to an employer based on an imaginary hereditary right. They have the choice (and often exercise it) of employment at a new place based on the relative attractiveness of both opportunities.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013-feb-26-la-me-pc...
I don't think EBay was destined by the gods for greatness. There was zero barrier to entry and they weren't the first. They weren't even the first coming from General Magic where Omidyar had worked. I'm inclined to give her credit for EBay but evidently nothing else.
If you can only do well in a company that already has a bright future ahead of it (with or without you), are you a good CEO?
Is finding and maintaining P/M fit not the primary role of a CEO?
The good CEOs I've worked under, had a clear vision for the company and were good at selling that vision both to investors (private and public/stock market) and to the rank and file during monthly or quarterly all-hands. Did she do that?
But she was good at setting a vision, expressing that vision, and making sure it was being followed and getting her direct reports to move things in the direction she wanted.
As far as brilliant, I'm referring to raw intelligence. You could tell her new information and she would instantly digest it and apply that to new areas. Also, if you were in a meeting with her once, she'd remember you and what you talked about. If you mentioned that you had kids for example, the next time she saw you months later she'd ask how your kids are, for example.
Meanwhile, every history of Amazon points out how their third-party seller project stole eBay's opportunity by focusing on customers first and building a unified product hierarchy.
eBay managed to hold on by being the first 2-sided marketplace to gain traction, enjoying a huge moat much like CraigsList. Over time, it squandered the opportunity.
Meg may know how to keep a company in operation, but she's never shown she can lead a product from scratch. That's just a giant risk to take with $billions of funding at stake.
1. https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2011/07/ebay-patents-10-cli...
As far as brilliant, I'm referring to raw intelligence. You could tell her new information and she would instantly digest it and apply that to new areas. Also, if you were in a meeting with her once, she'd remember you and what you talked about. If you mentioned that you had kids for example, the next time she saw you months later she'd ask how your kids are, for example.
So, effectively, Meg's presence made no different. Doesn't sound like a good or effective CEO.
"Yeah, but she has experience"
I think the thing that confuses people is that the true domain for some companies isn't what the end consumer sees. I worked for a car website for a while, and very few of the executives were really car people. But they were all incredible experts on how dealerships worked, and that was actually what our business was, not how cars work.
But for an up and coming company, everybody in the top ranks should be involved and knowledgable of subject at hand
What does this even mean?
I realize that a company CEO doesn't need to be a subject matter expert, but when you're building a platform focused on millennials (mobile-first), it would help to have someone that can identify with the target audience.
edit: And co-founder Katzenberg has his "emails printed out (and vertically folded, for some reason) by assistant" [2]
[1] https://theweek.com/speedreads/923863/quibi-ceo-admits-not-r...
[2] https://www.vulture.com/2020/07/is-anyone-watching-quibi.htm...