Showing posts with label ceo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ceo. Show all posts

Monday, June 27, 2011

Comment on Skype CEO, not investors, made the key cuts by Skype Insider

To those who say that Skype employees should have sought legal advice - a few comments in response - Skype employees have a stock option agreement and a stock option plan. The stock option plan, in turn, contains a “blink and you missed it” reference to a third document, a Partnership Agreement in the Cayman Islands, the jurisdiction where the stock options are actually held. That means to obtain competent legal advice, a typical employee would need to retain lawyers in both their home state and in the Caymans. Then they would need to retain a lawyer in New York because Skype chose New York state law to apply to many provisions (nb: strangely, Skype has no employees in New York and claims, for regulatory purposes, not to even “do business” there). Q - Do we really expect this kind of massive “lawyering up” from new employees? - These were not negotiated agreements. Employees were induced to join Skype with promises of stock options, and then, after leaving their other jobs behind, were instructed to sign these convoluted agreements - Take it or leave it. - It is very revealing that Skype, unlike every other tech company, chose not to furnish its rank and file employees with a “Q&A;” overview or summary of key provisions of its stock option plan. They knew they were engaged in a deception and decided to keep it dark. - No amount of lawyering should be able to take away the common-sense and "legal" definition of vested. From Black's law dictionary "vested " means "having become a completed, consummated right for present or future enjoyment, not contingent, unconditional, absolute." - Finally Skype/Silver Lake have not successfully cheated anyone out of their vested options yet. This won't be over for a long time....

Comment on Skype CEO, not investors, made the key cuts by Skype Insider


Backlink: http://gigaom.com/2011/06/20/skype-ceo-not-investors-made-the-key-cuts/#comment-634029

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

EXCLUSIVE: Interview With Apple's First CEO Michael Scott (AAPL)


Michael ScottWhen Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak founded Apple in 1976, they couldn't be trusted to run the company.

So, Mike Markkula, Apple's first backer, and the man that guided the company early on, brought in a CEO to do the droll, adult things needed to keep a company running.

His choice for CEO was Michael Scott, who had previously worked with him at Fairchild.

In the course of our reporting about the first ten Apple employees, we managed to get Scott on the phone. Below is a transcript of our conversation.

Business Insider: You were employee number seven when you came into Apple, right?

Michael Scott: No, because I assigned the employee numbers. I was employee number seven, because I wanted number seven. I was actually employee number five at that time. So I was 007, of course, as a joke.

BI: What was it like when you came into the company? You were recruited by Mike Markkula, Apple's first investor, right?

MS: Markkula and I go way back. We both started in 1967-68, I think. We started the same day at Fairchild. He wanted the nickname "Mike," so I got the nickname "Scotty." Coincidentally, we also have the same birthday, except he's a year and a day older. We worked together at Fairchild for five years, he went on to Intel and I went on to National Semiconductor. We always stayed in touch because we had lunch on our birthday. So he called me, I guess in 1976, and said that he'd met these two guys that wanted to do a home computer. He could handle the marketing, but he wanted me to handle the details. So I met with him and the two Steves and read the business plan, which was quite wrong because it said TI was going to be our major competitor. And for some reason, they never got into the PC business.

BI: What were your impressions on meeting the two Steves?

MS: I never got to see the garage, I just saw it at Markkula's place up on a hill. Jobs did the talking, and Woz was the quiet one, although more lately Woz has found his voice more. In the early days, we were all so busy, that it was well partitioned over who did what. Woz was doing circuit board itself, Jobs was handling rest of Apple II, Markkula was working on marketing, and I was working on getting us into the manufacturing and all the rest of the business parts.

The story that's untold is that Rod Holt was brought in as product engineer and there were several flaws in Apple II that were never publicized. One thing Holt has to his credit is that he created the switching power supply that allowed us to do a very lightweight computer compared to everybody else's that used transformers. We used high-speed switching vs. the classical transformer, so we were able to get the weight down. But within their first Apple II, when we tried running it warm like you would in Florida or someplace like that, it stopped working. So that was a secret at the time. How do you get it to work all the time? We kept that a trade secret. That was Holt that found that out. If you stuck in a scope probe to try and figure out what was wrong, it started working again, which was very frustrating, and we were against a time schedule to get into production and we had to freeze the circuit board.

So the other problem we had was where the case itself, which used structural foam, because we couldn't afford the lead time to do hard tooling. We had a lot of trouble with the case when we molded it, it would warp and wouldn't hold its shape.

That's one of the things I still remember. In the spring of 1977, Jobs had this Falcon pickup truck, which I don't think is made anymore. So we'd run off to the molding shop to see what was needed in order to get us cases fast enough.

You're only taking the first ten employees, so by June of 1977, we were at 10. In May, at the first computer fair, we were at 7. So by August of that year we had positive cash flow and were on our way.

Michael ScottBI: From May to August you went to positive cash flow?

MS: Yeah, we paid of all our loans and at that time, made the decision to… that was the time to choose when to end our first physical year. We made our first $50,000 in profit and paid taxes on that, so you're able to go forward estimating the amount of taxes you are willing to pay is equal to your previous year, so we were able to save a year in taxes forward as we continued to grow. That year ending was for tax planning, and not for anything else.

BI: When you were running around with everyone in those early days, was Steve Jobs then as assertive as he is today? It's funny hearing about you guys doing these manufacturing things and now there are these legends of him tearing down an iPod the night before it releases because it doesn't make the proper clicking sound. Was he as particular then as he is said to be now, or in the early days was he learning and acting differently?

MS: No, he was maybe more particular. The Apple II case came, it had a beige and a green, so for all the standard colors of beige available in the world, of which there are thousands, none was exactly proper for him. So we actually had to create "Apple beige" and get that registered.

I stayed out of it but for weeks, maybe almost six weeks, the original Apple II case, Jobs wanted a rounded edge on it so it didn't have a hard feel. They spent weeks and weeks arguing exactly how rounded it would be. So that attention to detail is what Steve is known for, but it also is his weakness because he pays attention to the detail of the product, but not to the people.

To me, the biggest thing in growing a company is you need to grow the people, so it's like being a farmer, you need to grow your staff and everybody else too as much as you can to enable the company to grow, just as much as you need to sell the product.

BI: Can you explain that? So was that your job to make sure you brought in all the right people and he wasn't very attuned to that?

MS: I don't know how much he's changed being a manager, but he would not, for instance… he was never allowed to have much of a staff while he was there because he would not supervise them. He wouldn't make sure they got their reviews on time or that they got their raises, or that they got the health they need.

You have to take care of the people as well as the product. As they say he yells at people, at times you have to yell, but at times you have to be supportive too, and I would say that that's still what makes Steve, Steve. The thing that everyone still misses is that there always was and still is a lot more to Apple than just two Steves. But thank God I think our early decision to let the two Steve's do the publicity, I'm happy for that.

BI: When you came in, you were the CEO, correct? Were you immediately appointed CEO?

MS: Yes, so I got to do the part numbering system. I got to do all the stuff nobody else wanted to do. I opened the bank account, and did the employee numbers.

BI: What is the significance of the employee numbers, since you were saying that you took seven because you wanted it.

MS: We had to have a payroll, and in order to minimize how much work we had to do, I had to sign up with Bank of America's payroll system, and those days you didn't have a choice. You had to assign employee numbers.

That was a dispute you get into -- who gets number 1? One of the first things was that of course, each Steve wanted number 1. I know I didn't give it to Jobs because I thought that would be too much. I don't remember if it was Woz or Marrkula that got number 1, but it didn't go to Jobs because I had enough problems anyway.

This is literally almost 20 hours per day for everybody. We couldn't add people fast enough to match the growth of the business. It was always a struggle to run from one fire to the next, no matter who you were there.

BI: In terms of these other people that have gone unsung, is Sherry Livingston -- did you hire her from National? Was she the first secretary?

She was our right hand. When she started there were only five or six of us. She was receptionist, phone operator, secretary to everybody. She was our right hand to fill in for everything. When I hired Gary Martin for accounting, he came in and I had a cardboard box under my desk. I said "here are all the receipts and checks we've been writing. Get them organized." There just wasn't time to get that done.

BI: Was it hard to recruit people in those days when you were first starting out? Because I would imagine that startup culture then was not what it is today.

MS: There wasn't enough time to really pay attention to getting people in and getting them indoctrinated into the culture, because we had no culture to begin with. The Apple culture came later. We'd already stopped Apple I production so there was no cash coming in. We had to get the Apple II out and get the cash coming in or we wouldn't have been in business. So Markkula put up a quarter million dollars and that's the cash we used to get started.

BI: What was the culture that developed at the company in the early days?

MS: Well, I guess the biggest part of the culture was that Holt made our coffee in the morning. He made the coffee to suit him, and it was so strong that it would keep us all up forever. That was subsequently a big fight that we had.

Ann Bowers…. who was…. I forgot the guys name, but she was the wife of one of the founders of Intel, she was our first VP of Personnel. This was a couple of years later. She was on this kick saying that we should not supply caffeine to the employees because it was unhealthy. And I just said, "No," because we weren't a committee and we didn't need a vote on it.

I would say that the challenge was, who was more stubborn, Steve or me, and I think I won.

The other argument at the meetings was would Steve take his dirty feet and sandals off the table, because he sat at one end of the conference table, and Markkula sat at the other end chain smoking. So we had to have special filters in the attic in the ceiling to keep the room filter. I had the smokers on one side and the people with dirty feet on the other.

[Laughter from us.]

It was not funny then. Everybody has their pet peeves.

BI: Were you hesitant to go, and it seems like you came into a big role, were you prepared to be doing what you'd be doing, or were you overwhelmed?

MS: I looked at it as an opportunity. I'd been a product line manager at National Semiconductor so I had a profit line group and had under me a marketing and finance guy, and a manufacturing area there. And I had turned down Charlie Sporck who had turned down the president of National at the time. He offered me the job of Plant Manager in Hong Kong. But I thought that would get me too far away from technology and I didn't want to move, so when Markkula asked if I wanted to start a new company, I looked at it as a chance to say everything I learned at National and Fairchild and didn't like, could I now put together a way to manage a company and learn from that.

The biggest thing I applied at Apple was in the manufacturing and in most of the way we organized stuff was that we never let anything be bolted down. The way semiconductor plants worked you had to plan way ahead.

At Apple, we designed everything to roll around on carts so we could change it as we needed to. And the other thing was that there were all kinds of accounting rules that I didn't allow at Apple. I still remember at National they had allocation for variation in the price of gold, and I was still having to pay for that when the gold price varied. And to me, that didn't make any sense. That's the way the bureaucracies get set up.

BI: When you left, was it just too much dealing with Jobs and getting into confrontations with him that drove you away ultimately?

MS: No. I always had a deal that it was two Steves and Mike, if I didn't have all of their support, I wasn't going to stay. We grow to 1500 people and laid off 50 to clean out the dead wood. That caused a lot of hassle, and to me, I didn't need that anymore. I took us public and then got out.

ssBI: Did you ever have regrets from leaving?

MS: Well, I had another life. I went and built rockets after that. We got a rocket launched out of the water, and since then, I've done other stuff. I can say I've traveled everywhere I want to go. There are a few places in the world. I almost went to the north pole on a Russian nuclear icebreaker, but I've learned to ask questions and decided not to go on that. I found somebody that had been, and they described it as being on the inside of a 55 gallon drum with somebody beating on it with a sledgehammer 24 hours a day as you're breaking ice to go to the north pole for a nature trip. So I've done a lot of things and still am, and I'm working on stuff that's probably before your time right now.

I'm working on a tri-coder. It's from the first Star Trek. It's a handheld gadget where you hold it out and it tells you what something was. So I'm working on the libraries that would let you take something the size of a cell phone and if you're walking out the trail, aim it at a rock, and it'll tell you whether it's a sapphire, and emerald, etc. So the technology is there now. What's not there is the library routine that tells you what things are.

BI: How are you working on that? Is it a company? Do you have a team?

MS: Research at the University of Arizona, and theoretical research going on at the University in Leon, France. I've also sponsored stuff at Cal Tech, so some of it is done remote. Also I have my own laboratory at home with some fairly fancy equipment because I can. I broke down and I now have some PCs around, unfortunately, but mostly I still use Apples.

BI: What have you thought of watching the company go through the various stages of its life to where it is today? What's your take on when it became, by market cap, more valuable than Microsoft?

MS: I met Gates back in 1977. In one way we can say he screwed up way back then by making Apple very successful. We were able to buy Microsoft Basic from him for a fixed price, $25,000, convert it to run on the Apple, then give it away.

That's one of the ways Apple was really successful up front, because we had the operating system, but no application package ran on the Apple up front that would make it useful. So essentially having a spreadsheet and having Microsoft Basic on the Apple was a couple of the hooks that made us able to grow.

That's what Wigginton's main job was, rewriting Basic to get it to run on the first Apple II. The first Apple II typical configuration had 16K of memory. We had a 4K version and the biggest it went was only 48K, and I'm sitting here with terabytes about me in my own little office.

elephant Michael ScottBI: In 1997, when Jobs returned, could you have pictured it being where it is today?

MS: As long as you're learning something new and taking chances until you're old and foggy and retired. I think the Apple success still is in the role we chose in that we'd build a tool, not a toy, and that we would control both the hardware and the software aspects of it. That's still why, on all the different products, you see the success.

They've delivered the combined, well-integrated package of the hardware and the software. Fortunately, when IBM decided to get into the PC market they chop-shopped out the hardware to several different groups so you had a mess of hardware, and they've been trying to cobble the software on it ever since.

And you still see that in the phones and the iPad or the computers. You have to control both, or you end up with a mess. Android is a good example now, as Google's learning, if you don't have a level of discipline, you end up ruining the product.

That's still the way it works, it's still in the culture, you want to do things right, not just "good enough." The alternative business model is like Microsoft, where something's "good enough" to ship, instead of wanting it "just right." It's always been Apple's goal to ship something we were proud of and something people would be proud to own, and I think that's still true from thirty years ago.

BI: Are you still in touch with a lot of the early employees?

MS: Well, I'm having lunch with Sherry next week, and we're both feeling old now, because she just became a grandmother, and I talk to Dan Kottke via email every now and then Wigginton and I have planned to get together, but haven't for a while. So, some of us are still in touch, and some of us are so busy you can't get through to them anymore.

BI: When you were first starting out, did you guys quickly realize that you were on to something special?

MS: We thought we had a good product, and the idea was that you could do something different. They were selling bricks back then. I started back on IBM computers. Stuff has changed a lot. Even back then, what was a PC or computers back at that time were still big clunky things. I guess the best example was that we had a contest very early on at Apple where we awarded an extra Apple for the unusual use of the machine. The winner, and what we never realized then, and what we don't think is still true now, is you don't realize how many different ways it can impact you.

The first use was the person that swore by it, a new father who had a new son that the colic, and took the original Apple II, did his own software, hooked up a washing machine motor, the tilt mechanism from a pinball machine, a microphone to the crib. So when the kid was getting restless, the machine would come on and rock the bed. He actually had statistics to show how much more sleep he and his wife were getting because the kid would partly wake up, then go back to sleep. And that won first prize for a different use of the Apple, and I think that's still true today. People are still finding uses. You put it out in one area, and then it gets out into a lot of others.

BI: What did Jim Martindale do? What was his role?

I may've gotten him mixed up with somebody else, but I'm pretty sure he was our first foreman/production guy. The production room, which was originally only 700 square feet, and mostly was just doing final tests and debugs, and I think Kottke worked for him for a while, and if I remember right that was the beginning of our production operation. They've always been kind of funny at Apple, because we've always tried to chop shop out a lot of it. On the Apple II, 95% of the cost was just materials, not the labor, so that was quite a bit different than the historical way of doing things.

BI: That's because you guys were customizing?

MS: No, the cost of the microprocessor and the cost of the memory was such a high percentage of the value of the product. The other thing we ended up doing was, historically, when we went into the business for retail. The retailers at the time all wanted a 50% markup and we couldn't afford that much margin and meet the price points we wanted. So the original Apple II price point was $1195, and it still is.

Over thirty years, but you're getting a lot more for your money. One of the big original arguments on the Apple was that we really wanted it to be under a thousand dollars. We wanted it to be $995, but we just could not do it cheap enough to get to that price point, so that was one of the other big internal arguments at the time, was how to price the machine.

BI: t's funny to think about because Apple is known for being profitable and going after margins, it's funny to think that even back then, the company still wanted to try and protect that good margin.

MS: The catch is that it's not only for Apple. The whole rest of the chain has to make money too. So you have to have distributors and retail stores and everybody has to make a markup. You have to ask if they're truly adding value for what the markup is. Then there's the tradeoff there too. You could say Apple could've grown faster at some point in time if it didn't keep the price up as high. But if you set the prices too high, you establish a price umbrella that lets competition get into the business. I noticed that with the iPad, Apple is no longer making that mistake.

wozniak jobsBI: Anything else you want to share?

MS: Just the legacy. You can't fight the mythology. Once it takes off on the internet, there's no changing it.

BI: What kind of mythology?

MS: It doesn't matter. The story itself becomes more exciting than what the truth was, so you have to just stay with what sounds good.

BI: You mean about Apple being built, or it in truth being a lot of work?

MS: A lot of Apple is still somewhat mythology, and somewhat history, and you can't go back and change what it's perceived to be. What it's perceived to be is what the reality is now. What the daily grind was.

BI: You're saying that it's perceived as a bunch of guys…

MS: There's a lot more hard work and sweat involved in getting stuff done than anyone could imagine.

BI: I think that's true probably in any startup where you only have ten people, you have to grind out 20-hour days once you get it going.

MS: For four or five years, Apple doubled in size every three months. It's hard for it to double that fast now, but it's still doing pretty good.

BI: Doubled in size every three months, do you mean in headcount?

MS: And in square footage. My last year there, we were adding a quarter million square feet every three months to our total facilities. And even on headcount, yes you start. Between our fourth and fifth year, you go from 500 to 1500 employees. Most of the time when we were growing, we had to bring in temp workers because we couldn't hire them fast enough, so we'd bring in temporary workers, then we'd pay the headhunter fees to convert them over to Apple employees. You do what you have to do. That's to me, for a small business growing now, they succeed because they have no choice. You need to stay in business. Once you get big enough, there's a cushion and a lot more room for inefficiency. Just look at the government.

BI: What was it like early on with Steve Jobs. Was he just overlooking product and seeing details? What was his role in that first year or two?

MS: A little side story that he and I would fight over. If we were negotiating price for parts, we could negotiate a price with a vendor and at the last minute, Steve would come in and bang on the table and demand to get one more penny off. And of course they would give him one more penny off. Then he'd crow "well I see you didn't do as good a job as you could've getting the price down."

And I'm saying, "Yeah but that one more penny might've cost us a bit more ill will for times when parts are in short supply."

BI: Did those things ever come back to hurt you guys?

MS: While I was there, it never did come back to hurt us, but there's always a judgment call, and it's always because nothing's ever as black and white as you would like to think it is.

BI: Was there tension with you being brought in as, what we call now, "adult supervision." Did you get the sense that he wanted to be in charge of the company and resented you or anything?

MS: Steve just wants to be Steve. Steve's never shy about telling you what he wants and where he stands. He's very straightforward to deal with. Unlike other people that don't tell you what they mean. If you're a politician versus a businessman, that attitude can have its ups and downs.

Related: The First 10 Apple Employees: Where Are They Now?

For the latest tech news, visit SAI: Silicon Alley Insider. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:







EXCLUSIVE: Interview With Apple's First CEO Michael Scott (AAPL)


Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/YsYZ8c_8yE4/apples-first-ceo-michael-scott-2011-5

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

LinkedIn Infographic: Top CEO Names Across the Globe

Professional social network LinkedIn has done a deep data dive on the top CEO names, and most popular names by industry and country. LinkedIn contrasted CEOs with the average LinkedIn professional to find the top names that are over-represented among CEOs.

LinkedIn Infographic: Top CEO Names Across the Globe


Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DTWB/~3/DmMCiAGxQKg/

Friday, April 22, 2011

Comment on Verizon CEO Says Next iPhone Will Be a “Global Device” by HD Boy

Verizon’s statement does not contain the words "next iPhone." Rather, it says, "...when a new device from Aple is launched, whenever that may be..." You've manufactured what may well be a false, sensationalistic headline by injecting the word "next" into a story when he really seemed to be inferring "future." Shame in you Gig... ShMe

Comment on Verizon CEO Says Next iPhone Will Be a “Global Device” by HD Boy


Backlink: http://gigaom.com/apple/verizon-ceo-says-next-iphone-will-be-a-global-device/#comment-618916

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Google Should Run The Android App Store More Like Apple's, Says MLB.com CEO (GOOG, AAPL)

bob-bowman-mlbam-startup-2010

Major League Baseball, like most big app publishers, has started making mobile apps for Google Android over the last couple of years, as Android-based smartphones have become very popular.

But the app selling experience -- especially for MLB and other premium publishers -- is still much better at Apple's iOS App Store than Google's Android Market.

We talked to MLB.com CEO Bob Bowman this week about the differences in the markets, as Google has had to do some major cleanup of malicious apps in the Android App Store.

The biggest problem, he says: Google needs to do a better job curating its app store. (Perhaps even the way Apple forces publishers to get their apps approved before they're available for purchase.)

Besides the risk of malware, there's also an issue where phony apps get put up for sale in the market using the same name as MLB's official app -- "At Bat" -- and people inadvertently buy them and then wonder why they don't work.

Google is swift in its response, Bowman says, and takes the impostor apps down quickly. But that wouldn't be a problem if Google put apps through an approval process in the first place.

(This is one area in particular where Google seems to pride itself for being "open." But open, perhaps, isn't better in this situation.)

There's also a bigger piracy problem on Android, Bowman says -- probably twice as bad as on Apple's iOS, he estimates. People hack the MLB app, which costs $15, and then distribute it for free in back channels. This is much easier to do on Android than for the iPhone, as you have to hack your iPhone to side-load pirated apps, and most people don't bother to do that. Most Android phones can easily install pirated apps.

Perhaps a big-picture problem is that Google -- a company that generates almost all of its revenue from advertising -- is biased toward free, ad-supported apps, and doesn't care as much about selling premium content, like MLB's pricey app. Since most Android apps are free, there's less need for a curtain, Bowman hypothesizes, because publishers aren't missing out on sales.

Meanwhile, Android owners seem less interested in paying for apps than iPhone owners -- perhaps in some part because of the way Google runs its store. Bowman estimates app sales are 5-to-1 in favor of Apple over Google, despite the fact that there are more Android subscribers in the U.S. than iPhone subscribers.

(Though, to be fair, Apple has the iPod touch and iPad tablet, which Google doesn't. But we've heard similar stories from other premium publishers, where iOS sales still outnumber Android sales 10-to-1.)

Bottom line: Bowman wants Google to work a little harder to make the Android Market a better place for premium, paid apps.

"I think some sort of curation process would make a lot more content publishers put content that's valuable on the device," he says.

Related: iPad 2 Extends Apple's Lead: Apple Will Dominate The Tablet Market For Years

Join the conversation about this story »






Google Should Run The Android App Store More Like Apple's, Says MLB.com CEO (GOOG, AAPL)


Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/nrMmCmfadS0/android-apple-bowman-2011-3

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

EXCLUSIVE Q&A; WITH LIVINGSOCIAL CEO: His Secret Plan For Building The Next Huge eCommerce Company (AMZN)

Tim O'ShaughnessyLivingSocial is the second biggest daily deal company out there, on pace to book $500 million in revenue this year, and yet, it feels like it's flying under the radar.

Granted, LivingSocial's profile got a shot in the arm when it sold 1.16 million $20 Amazon gift cards for $10 a piece in January, but compared to Groupon, we don't think LivingSocial is a household name yet.

It doesn't seem to bother LivingSocial CEO Tim O'Shaugnessy.

We spoke with him last week to see what his company is up to. Below is our full transcript.

Some key points:

  • O'Shaugnessy doesn't think of LivingSocial as a daily deal company, he views it as a local ecommerce play. To that end, he's diversifying LivingSocial's offerings. It has vacation deals, deals around events for the day, and real-time offers.
  • LivingSocial Escapes, which started in November, is already on a $100 million revenue run rate. That's an impressive ramp, as it means it already accounts for 20% of the company's business.
  • Coincidentally, this is how it can compete with Groupon. It's trying to attact a number of verticals in the local eCommerce space.
  • LivingSocial is hiring 150 employees per month!

And, here's the full thing:

Business Insider: How did LivingSocial start?

Tim O'Shaugnessy, CEO LivingSocial: The company first started when the Facebook platform opened up and third party developers could build on it. That was the summer of 2007. We had a concept of "you might be able to acquire users faster and cheaper than you ever could in the history of the web. Can we build engaging applications around these different commerce verticals and figure out how to help people engage around these commerce verticals in a transactional way?" That was what we initially started with and we built a bunch of really successful Facebook applications. Nearly a hundred million users added our Facebook applications over time and we, over time, transitioned into this business.

BI: Why did you shift away from Facebook?

TO: I think you look at what's working, how well things are working, how much you can scale. We actually had a pretty solid, viable business that was pretty advertising-based, but it was the ability to go from a million dollars a month to $10 million a month and from $10 million a month to $100 million a month. I think we were playing around in some of the same philosophical areas that we do today, but we kept trying to find the things that could go from one a month to 10 a month to 100 a month. That's what drove us to keep exploring and testing out different models.

BI: When you decided to tested out different models, how did it work? From a Facebook application to an email? What was the next step?

TO: We had a pretty consistent theme of commerce interest areas in what we've done. And how we sort of transitioned from an advertising to an e-commerce-based model was we acquired a company in early 2009 that had a local sales force on the ground in a couple different markets. Boston, New York, and DC. And they had a model where Bacardi would go and say, "Hey, I want a thousand people to try Bacardi and Coke in New York in the next 30 days. We'll pay for the cost of the drink and we'll give you $20 for every person you can track that goes and does this." So our sales team would go and sign up bars and restaurants and say, "Hey, do you want new customers to come in? If you do, all you need to do is accept this sheet of paper that people will print out, keep track of them, and at the end of every month we'll cut you a check for every person that bought a drink, and you get more if they brought someone else with them, if they ordered food, if they ordered a second drink, you get all that upside." And we would target our audience base.

We had tens of millions that used our Facebook applications and we had people that had told us what their favorite restaurants were that lived in New York and we would say, "Hey, do you want a free drink? If you do, you can pick from any of these bars or restaurants. Just send this to your phone or print out this sheet of paper and you can walk in."

So we actually had that business model where we were promoting things online and people would literally go and walk through the door of a local business. We got into the model. That was our first version of doing offline-to-online commerce. We've obviously kind of continued to evolve since that point in time.

BI: How many subscribers does LivingSocial have today?

TO: We're over 20 million. We added about 6 million new subscribers in January, so it's growing fast.

BI: What's driving it?

TO: There are several things that are key components. First and foremost, I think that it's the quality of the product and the offers that we have. If you get the right things, people inherently want to share. We see that our organic lift that comes off of sharing has been pretty substantial.

I think a second piece is that our brand has reached some degree of a tipping point. There's a lot of folks that know us. When people sign up, our conversions are really strong. Any kind of paid advertising we're doing, we see our clickthrough rates going up. The brand has really been strengthening. We've been expanding pretty aggressively internationally, so there's been a good amount of growth there.

BI: What were you doing before you started this company?

TO: I was thinking about, "Boy, how can I actually start a company?" I ran the product group at a company called Revolution Health, which is where I met my cofounders. There are four of us and we made up a lot of the core product development team at Revolution Health.

BI: That's Steve Case's thing?

TO: Steve has something called Revolution LLC, which is an investment vehicle of which there are a whole host of companies underneath it. Revolution Health was one of them. ZipCar is another one.

BI: Does he work closely with you? He's an investor, correct?

TO: Yes, he's an investor through Revolution. I'm certainly not going to put words in Steve's mouth, but I think he has frequently said that he likes being involved in a number of ways, whether it's financially or actively involved in boards or that type of thing in businesses that can be disruptive. I think he views what we're doing as being disruptive in the local commerce space.

He's certainly engaged. We had a national sales conference a couple months ago and he came and talked to pretty much the entire company. He certainly has lots of perspective on growth and he took a company public and took over a $100 million market cap valuation, so he's seen a lot of things from that perspective. He's definitely engaged in more technical items, for example, coming in to speak to the company.

BI: What are the chances that LivingSocial will go public in the next two to three years?

TO: It's hard to comment on that. I think that right now we're pretty heads down. One of the things that's super-exciting about LivingSocial is that over the last couple of years I've seen between two and four plays that we could run and if one or two of them hit, the company could become ten times bigger. One of the most amazing things is that we feel like we still have that. We feel like there are still several things that could work to make the company a lot bigger than it is right now. Because of that we are still focused on hyper-growth mode and so not really viewing public markets in any sort of serious way.

BI: What are some of the things you see that you can do to make the company larger?

TO: Can't give away all the future strategy, but I think you can see some of the initiatives that we've been working on have been very successful. The daily deals business has been growing substantially but we tend to view the business we're in as local commerce instead of daily deals. And so we have a couple different business lines that are growing very rapidly right now.

The daily deals business continues to have very strong growth in the US. We've been taking a lot of market share and it continues to grow internationally as well.

We also have LivingSocial Escapes, which was a business that we launched three months ago in the staycation/nearcation world. That's something that's been growing leaps and bounds. It's already approaching a nine-figure run rate. It's really a very impressively-run business by that team. It's pretty amazing that they launched in November and they've gone from zero to a nearly $100 million run rate and will probably pass through that in three months. That's a pretty impressive thing. That team is really executing very well. The amazing thing is that many people still aren't even familiar with LivingSocial. So if we can continue to grow that brand and that product, there's a lot of growth ahead of it.

We have another business line called LivingSocial Adventures, which are events that are operated by us. We have people in various cities that are working with merchants in very different ways. We did something recently in New York that was called 'Snowtubin' and Tastin'.'" We actually pick you up in Midtown and we put you on a bus and then we take you to a ski resort. There's a slope completely reserved for us for tubing. Then we take you to a microbrewery for a tour and tasting. Then we bring you back to the city. We're working with three different merchants for that - the bus company, the ski resort, and the microbrewery. There's actually a LivingSocial employee that is on that to make sure you have a great time and that business is growing.

BI: How have things changed since you took that Amazon investment? I imagine it raised your profile.

TO: We've grown leaps and bounds, is the easiest way to put it. We were already on a phenomenal trajectory and that's continued. I think what you've seen over the past few months is really a continuation of our existing trajectory. I think there are definitely some visibility items that that was very helpful with. Now that we're a couple months into that relationship, you know, you do something in December, you don't immediately feel the impact of it. The rest of 2011 will really be where the benefits of that will show. I think that visibility has certainly been raised but the true impacts haven't even been seen yet.

BI: What is the competitive advantage you have over Groupon or any of the other companies out there?

TO: I don't know how other companies view themselves, but we view ourselves as wanting to win the local commerce space. That means providing great things to do at great value. Whether that means escapes or daily deals or adventures, those are the epitome of that. We're not a daily deals business, we're a local commerce business. That is becoming more evident as the story unfolds. Because of that we're really optimized around local. We've got feet on the street in every market we're in. We're building up those really strong merchant relationships and we can work with them in every vertical. I think you put our perspective and our business line and our assets and I think it's a pretty interesting story.

BI: How many people are you hiring on a monthly basis?

TO: Square feet per person is going down at an alarming rate. We're hiring around 150 per month.

BI: How does a company do that? How do you bring on these people and maintain a culture and find people?

TO: Hiring great people and maintaining the culture is one of the things we've focused on. We couldn't do what we've done unless we had great people operating. And we won't be able to do that in the future without great people. There's probably a whole other story around this piece, but we put a very high emphasis around a couple items - making sure that we keep the equality of our hiring very high. The adage "A players hire A players and B players hire C players," we feel very strongly in that. So making sure that that can occur.

And doing some very unconventional things to make sure that that is something that can happen. For example, somebody in our product team may interview someone on our HR team, and that's because we know there's a cultural interview that almost has to occur. Second is taking a little bit of an engineering approach to hiring - in order to do this, how many candidates do we need? How many resumes do we need? How many phone screenings do we need? And really building a system to be able to support that. Last is, with so much growth I think we realize that our culture is very strong. I think we have stated core values and just kind of making sure that everybody knows those.

When you're adding a few hundred people every couple months, you kind of realize that these people are getting taught by the people who have only been here three months, and three months later they're going to be taught by the people who have been hired now. So being very forward with "this is what the company stands for, this is what our core beliefs are," and trying to do things throughout the organization to make sure that people understand that and live that is that third thing we've really focused on a lot.

BI: Can you comment on international expansion? You said you're doing a lot of that. How does that work? Is there a cultural difference?

TO: We think the international space is going to be very receptive to the model and you can see some of that already. I think the core items in which this business works transfer across culture very well. The implementation will vary by culture quite a bit, but people like saving money and people like finding out new things to do. And that is a pretty cross-cultural phenomenon. We're in 11 countries right now. That's growing quite fast. We'll likely be in a significant multiple of that by the end of the year. Some of that is acquisition - we recently acquired a company called Let's Bonus, which is based in Spain and has a presence in Europe and South America. But we've also gone organically and expanded on our own and our UK team was an entirely organic endeavor. It depends on the country and what we think we can do there.

BI: Have you disclosed any revenue figures or sales numbers public, or are there any that you would like to disclose to me? This can be background or off the record.

TO: Publicly we've said that we'll do $500 million in revenue in 2011.

BI: Are you guys profitable? Does that even matter to you?

TO: We're not really disclosing that.

BI: I was just curious about how that worked. A company like you probably wants to dump as much as you can on the fire to keep it growing.

TO: We're operating the business in a very smart way. We clearly have the balance sheet to be able to do that?

BI: What's next for LivingSocial?

TO: We're actually launching a new product next week called LivingSocial Instant, which is a realtime local deal offering for consumers and merchants. You guys are near Union Square?

BI: Yes.

TO: So you're gonna go grab lunch after this. There's probably 30 places you could go within a couple blocks to grab a sandwich or whatever to be in and out in a couple minutes. All 30 of those places probably want your business. Some of them are a little full, some are probably empty, but they all want your business and have no way to communicate with you about that.

We're building a very large mobile presence. Millions of users either have our Android or iPhone app. You'll be able to essentially pull up the app and see realtime offers that might only be up for two hours for the merchant to - you look and see Chipotle is offering "pay $5 and you can get any burrito you want." You can actually buy right there on your phone and then the merchant will have a hardware device in their store where it shows up that you've bought this instantaneously. You can walk right up and you've made that purchase already.

BI: Is that you installing the hardware or is it put right into their registers?

TO: It's a hardware system that we'll be giving to them.

BI: That's going to be rolling out this week?

TO: We're piloting it in DC and yeah, that rolls out this week. It's gonna be pretty cool. If you look at it from a consumer perspective, merchants can basically tell you how much they want your business, and if you look at it from a merchant perspective, if they're having a slow lunch rush and it's 12:30, they have an immediate way to juice that. Or if between 2 and 5 PM is always slow for them, they can always have some sort of offer to incentivize you to come in. It's creating a really efficient marketplace.

BI: It sounds like you guys are trying to build a broader base of verticals to attack within your model.

TO: This is probably a good way to tie everything together. We very much view ourselves in the local commerce business. We're all about providing great things to do at great value to our customers. And we think there are a lot of ways to do that. We have a great daily deal product and business line, but we're not a daily deal business, we're a local commerce business.

Join the conversation about this story »




EXCLUSIVE Q&A; WITH LIVINGSOCIAL CEO: His Secret Plan For Building The Next Huge eCommerce Company (AMZN)


Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/sUX26YooIMk/livingsocial-interview-2011-2