#TechScum
$ 250 million in four years I think I remember reading. Her email to employees didn't sound like she thinks she failed. Scum? I don't know.
No, she is very nice.
That's nice.
As the expression goes, "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."
Public corporations are inherently run by scum. It is their job to be scum. If they fail to be scum (i.e. do everything they can to screw over customers, suppliers, employees, etc. to maximize "shareholder value"), the people who fail to be scummy enough are in breach of their "fiduciary duty."
Of course, because the nature of corporations demands corpoate executives be scumbags, only those willing to be scumbags end up in those positions.
It wasn't always so. Until approximately the 1970s, corporations (and the people who ran them) mostly were thought to be entities to provide goods and services to the public, and if they could do so legally and profitably, they were allowed to remain in business. It's only since the Corporatist Kleptocrat counter-revolution that the idea corporations must be run by scum has been normalized.
I am trying to imagine a male CEO who would be asked to pose for a photograph of him in the male equivalent of a tight form-fitting skirt/blouse and 5" stilleto pumps (what would that be, a Chippendale's outfit?).
But, no, there are no double-standards for men and women in business, right? ....;-D...
It's not a double standard. It's just a biological difference that we can do nothing about.
The value of a woman to society does depend more on her youth, health and fertility than the value of a man depends on his youth, health and fertility. This is just a fact. It's like the sky being blue.
Marissa Mayer's achievements don't make her more attractive to men. A man who achieved the same thing is more attractive to women.
You can accept the biological reality or you can make futile social engineering attempts to realize your egalitarian fantasies.
@AS -- Right, since we can't get rid of all instances of sexism in society, therefore we should never comment on egregious examples where sexism rears its ugly head in totally inappropriate contexts (e.g. Yahoo CEO Mayer doing a "glamour shot" for business magazine interview).
It's the same "logic" Gun Fetishists use to argue against any incremental change in firearms laws ("criminals don't obey laws, so why have them?")
Of course, nobody says that because not all people obey laws against robbing banks, or murdering neighbors, or falsifying tax returns, therefore we should get rid of those laws.
The obvious counterargument to such claims has been around since such claims have been made. Yet, somehow, those who claim lack of Perfect Outcome justifies Zero Effort never seem to remember that.
John, do you have an explanation for this?....;-D..
Who cares what she wears?
Really. I think she is dressing for success and not trying to be Melania Trump for godsakes. What should she wear, a man's SUIT? She has climbed a ladder that most men have not mounted. (no pun)
This is what she has done so far. Look at her record, not her dress. That is sexism rearing it's very UGLY head. I see a lot of prior ACCOMPLISHMENTS and I see a lot of criticism about her recent career moves. So, she has done a lot to be successful and a lot to be criticized for --according to the POWERS that BE. If she truly hasn't done anything to brag on, which I find to be UNTRUE, her outfit doesn't matter. She may be making some bad business decisions, but she tried and failed. At least she tried. Most people cannot even come near to all that she has accomplished in her short life. So, while I do not know how badly she messed up, I do know that people who can't do what a woman has accomplished, often are the ones to bash a pretty lady in a nice dress that men cannot fit into.
In 2014, Mayer was heavily criticized for many of her management decisions in articles by The New York Times and The New Yorker.[58][59] Yahoo! stocks continued to fall by more than 30% throughout 2015, while 12 key executives left the company.[71] In December 2015, the New York-based hedge fund SpringOwl, a shareholder in Yahoo Inc., released a statement arguing that Mayer be replaced as CEO.[72] Starboard Value, an activist investing firm that owns a stake in Yahoo, likewise wrote a scathing letter regarding Mayer's performance at Yahoo.[73] By January 2016, it was further estimated that Yahoo's core business has been worth less than zero dollars for the past few quarters.[74] In February 2016, Mayer confirmed that Yahoo is considering the possibility of selling its core business.[75] In May 2016, it was revealed that Mayer would receive $55 million if she is terminated without cause within one year of Yahoo's sale.[76]
As well as sitting on the boards of directors of Walmart, Jawbone, and Yahoo! Mayer also sits on several non-profit boards such as Cooper–Hewitt, National Design Museum, New York City Ballet, San Francisco Ballet, and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.[77][78][79][80] Mayer actively invests in technology companies, including crowd-sourced design retailer Minted,[81][82] live video platform Airtime,[82] wireless power startup uBeam,[82] online DIY community/e-commerce company Brit + Co.,[82][83] mobile payments processor Square,[82] home décor site One Kings Lane,[82][84] genetic testing company Natera,[82] and nootropics and biohacking company Nootrobox.[85]
Mayer was named to Fortune magazine's annual list of America's 50 Most Powerful Women in Business in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 with ranks at 50, 44, 42, 38, 14 and 8 respectively.[86] In 2008, at age 33, she was the youngest woman ever listed. Mayer was named one of Glamour Magazine's Women of the Year in 2009.[87] She was listed in Forbes Magazine's List of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women in 2012, 2013 and 2014, with ranks of 20, 32 and 18 respectively. In September 2013, Mayer became the first CEO of a Fortune 500 company to be featured in a Vogue magazine spread.[16] In 2013, she was also named in the Time 100 and became the first woman listed as number one on Fortune magazine's annual list of the top 40 business stars under 40 years old.[88] Mayer eventually made Fortune magazine history in 2013, as the only person to feature in all three of its annual lists during the same year: Businessperson of the Year (No. 10), Most Powerful Women (at No. 8), and 40 Under 40 (No. 1) at the same time.[89] On 24 December 2015, Mayer was listed by UK-based company Richtopia at number 14 in the list of 500 Most Influential CEO's.[90] In March 2016, in contrast, Fortune named Mayer as one of the world's most disappointing leaders.[70]
Who cares what she wears?
OS - "Of course, nobody says that because not all people obey laws against robbing banks, or murdering neighbors, or falsifying tax returns, therefore we should get rid of those laws."
This is a totally false comparison. Laws exist to regulate what people DO, not what they THINK. Regulating action is an achievable goal. Regulating thought is neither achievable nor desirable.
The fact that Marissa is somewhat easy on the eye makes the story more interesting than if she were ugly. Biological fact. Magazines exist to sell themselves and they don't care about your leftist claptrap.
Stealing is intrinsically wrong. When you steal from someone you violate their individual rights. Discouraging theft is an obviously beneficial thing for any society and the failure to do so is obviously incredibly destructive. No society has ever been successful by permitting it.
Treating different things differently isn't intrinsically wrong. Gender egalitarianism has yet to prove it is beneficial. Birth rates are collapsing. A serious demographic crisis looms in all the countries that have implemented it. It's an experiment that has yet to prove it doesn't cause a complete societal collapse.
I kind of thought it might have been a Photoshop job, but maybe it is a real photo.
I'm more offended by the juvenile quality of the office. "Oh, we're so smart and are superior web developers/programmers we can have a 'fun' office." I hate that BS. I'm sure that's not her desk. Probably some low-level web developer that has to stay there 18/hrs a day, six days a week. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel sorry for them.
True.
I'm just wondering what Verizon wants with that company? I wonder if all the @yahoo addresses will become @verizon addresses. Will they shut down Flickr? Of course Instagram has pretty much killed Flickr.
I also find it "ironic" that what was basically the old phone company is now buying up internet companies. The infrastructure really does rule. Content delivery is more important than the content.
I can't wait until the current "hot" internet companies start folding. Isn't it inevitable?
@AS -- A few things had to be "done" in order for the above photograph to exist.
--The magazine editorial staff had to decide to DO such a photograph
--Ms. Mayer had to decide to DO the necessary preparation to be in such a photograph
--The readers of the magazine had to indicate via their actions (purchases and lack of complaints) that such a photo was not an insult to their intelligence.
If Ms. Mayer had appeared in Vogue, or Maxim, or some similar publication where photographing attractive women in flattering clothing/makeup/lighting/poses/etc. was the point of it, I wouldn't complain one bit.
But, if I recall correctly, the above photograph is from Forbes, or Fortune, or similar other publication, where (ostensibly) the interest of the readers is Ms. Mayer's business acumen and her management of Yahoo. Putting such a photograph into a business publication is demeaning to Ms. Mayer and, by implication, to female business executives generally. The subtextual message is "We don't care about your business proficiency, or your visionary ideas. What REALLY matters is how Hawt you are in a skin-tight dress and 5" pumps!"
That seems really really sexist to me. As I noted before, if any male CEO appeared in a Chippendale's outfit (no matter how buff he was) in a business magazine, it would be considered stupid and ridiculous. And, yes, sexism is also destructive. By reinforcing to women that their primary value is how easy on the eyes they are, many are discouraged from exploring their other talents, and society loses out just to gain another Sexual Insecurity object.
On the grand scale of Problems Facing The World, this is pretty small stuff. But it does indicate an area where improvements could be made with relatively small amounts of effort (e.g. Don't have cheescake photos of women business executives in business magazines).
@Mr. B -- There is an interesting parallel with Enron Corp.
What largely led to Enron's downfall was a rivalry between two executives: Rich Kinder and Jeff Skilling. Kinder believed in owning "content delivery" (i.e. energy industry infrastructure like pipelines, storage facilities, production wells, etc). Skilling wanted Enron to be a "content provider" (basically trading commodities and commodity derivatives). Kinder left Enron to form Kinder-Morgan, now one of the leading energy transportation companies. Skilling led Enron into one of the largest corporate bankruptcies in history.
I think a similar pattern applies to telecom/Internet. So long as we have a limited number of paths to obtain content, the pathway owners have scarcity power and can make money off of us. Content providers, on the other hand, are competing against an almost infinite universe of alternate content providers. Some will make money, but most will not, and the primary determiners will be name recognition and network externality, not anything about hard work, talent, or superior technology/service/etc.
Who's that? Another nut?
