-
kimfox Twitter erases all subtlety :P but I do think that most tech and media startups that take VC in the last 8ish years are forced, because of how that funding structure works, to adhere to a set of KPIs that force eventual unethical behavior on their employees and managers...Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -3 🙁
-
kimfox I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but I think there's a reason they never capitalize as high or burn out as bright as the ones that end up like Mic. Any company that takes VC & that measures success in user numbers faces very bad economic incentives from the VC structurePermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood +2 🙂
-
kimfox If the primary value of the company is *in users* then it's very easy to fire the people who gained the users and 'sell' those users to another company, and the West-Coast-VC structure incentives owners & investors to do soPermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +1 🙂
-
kimfox IMO this gets deep into the shit-ness of most current generation ad tech as well, this idea of selling users who can be tracked, found & marketed to even outside of a platform has birthed a generation of sketch ad/mar-tech companies to do that (see: my looong thread on Everquote)Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
Mood 0
-
kimfox And that's where it really goes to shit, because at the end of the day most VC see 'media companies' more like Everquote than like NYT - as a way to collect more detailed data about users that can then be sold, either by selling ads or by selling the company...On twitter.com
♻️ 2 Retweets
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood 0
-
kimfox Maybe this is somewhat a cultural thing on the West Coast as well, but I think it is intrinsic to how VC-funding capitalizes in companies and how the 'capitalize and consult' model of VC has failed the current generation of user-driven tech/media startups.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
Mood -2 🙁