Comments on: Mark Zuckerberg and the founder-as-CEO problem

By: Luciano Leal

Luciano Leal — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:30:34 +0000

Mark Zuckerberg pode renunciar posto de CEO do Facebook

Há um sentimento crescente de que Mark Zuckerberg, por mais talentoso que seja, está sobrecarregado como CEO de uma companhia multibilionária_”, isso foi o que disse Sam Hamadeh, diretor de pesquisa da PrivCo

http://vergg.com.br/euGustavo/mark-zuckerberg-pode-renunciar-posto-de-ceo-do-facebook/

Leiam também!

By: Zabba

Zabba — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:24:12 +0000

Personally I think the market makers are trying to drive this man out of the company he created and failing.
Some one is desperate to get their hands on this network and will drive it to $ 5 a share if it means they can get their hands on the information it contains. What would Sony or MGM do with this company?
There is a concerted effort underway by the hedge funds and merchant bankers to gain control of this company any way they can and if they cant DESTROY IT.
THEY WANT one of their own at the head to manipulate and collude with.
Let the stock price fall Zuck will buy it back and carry on regardless

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:13:14 +0000

Thanks, Oladayo.

By: nashan3d

nashan3d — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 06:27:44 +0000

I want to say that same kind of app as Shopycat for android as my final year project.only one month left to finish my app.Can you help how you suggest the gift. i appreciate any help

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:52:26 +0000

Okay i am not sure why you omitted this but here you go. Mark has done a brilliant job, think of it this way -

1. He took FB public and raised 16 B to place in the bank of the company
2. The stock price is now half of the IPO, if Mark would tapped the street for this more realistic valuation FB would only have 8 B in the bank right now.

Mark Z has grabbed 8 B more for the company coffers then anyone else could have. The only one complaining should be the smucks that got hossed by the investments houses selling them the IPO placement.

If you are argueing that the value should be 100 B under Mark Z, you are high on something and not really familar with the process of business valuation.

By: Patrick Newbery

Patrick Newbery — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:42:47 +0000

The question of MZ’s capabilities as a CEO should really be based on what the end-game is, otherwise one can take a stand on either side of the argument, as demonstrated by this article.

Is the control MZ has/the IPO pricing a result of his brilliance as a CEO, or the brilliance of his team? And if the latter, did he say what he wanted them to do, or what he wanted to do and they made it possible? Unclear, probably a mix, and we may never really know.

Is there an end-goal and is it viable? Depends on where you see the value of what Facebook has built. As an ad-business, one can make a strong argument that the future is grim. If one looks at it as a data business, Facebook is very well positioned. The challenge is that the business models that will be successful here are nascent and emergent. Facebook’s true value may not yet exist simply because it can’t yet exist.

Perhaps MZ’s effectiveness as CEO or lack thereof will play out over time, and historical milestones (e.g. IPO) are not really relevant for the assessment. It is interesting to note, however, how many companies who built large valuations on size of user base and strong claims to the future being new and different with conventional metrics for success as being irrelevant, are no longer around.

Perhaps success here has more to do with luck, the patience of the market, and unforeseen changes (macroeconomic and technical innovation) than with the skills/lack of skills of the CEOs. Americans tend to look at things through the cult of personality lens first: everything is the result of the actions of a hero or a poser.

this tends to produce less than stellar results.

By: Oladayo S. Olagunju

Oladayo S. Olagunju — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:30:49 +0000

Matt, this is truly brilliant reporting.

By: emmakille

emmakille — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 07:24:27 +0000

I think Zuckerberg is an intelligent person and I like his efforts…No one can replace him.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 01:27:46 +0000

This is all just funny to see. Mark had been portrayed as an amazing CEO overall and was running the next apple many thought just before they went public. Then they go public, and people are are stupid enough to invest in facebook when the stock was overpriced and everybody KNEW that too. No matter what the stock would have been priced at, it would have eventually kept dropping to $10-14 despite who the CEO is and no matter how well they run the company. Mark was brilliant for valuing his company at over double it’s initial value. The only ones at loss here are the stupid investors who were going crazy about owning a portion of facebook and are now underwater. They should have expected this all along. Mark really knows how to do is job, and there is nobody who can do it better for him; everyone believes that companies perform best when it’s original founder is the CEO of it. In some cases, like google, they do step out of the way, but everyone knows about the complete fail apple was a while ago when it’s CEO QUIT the job because it was performing so terribly. Zuckerberg obviously wants to bring success for his company, and if he stepped out of the way at any point in the company’s past, then facebook would have probably been gone, because MANY people could have just had the idea of it, but terrible execution of it. Zuckerberg should in-fact be blaming the PUBLIC for this to be occurring on him. Because he was perfectly fine conducting his business as the CEO of private facebook, and the reason they went public was not because Zuckerberg was obsessed with it or dying to do it, it was simply because everybody wanted to own a portion of facebook because they all wanted to receive instant wealth! There were too many shareholders of facebook accumulating, and that was why they went public. The idiots who DID invest in facebook to end their obsession had saw the results, and it wasn’t good for ANYBODY. All zuckerberg wanted was to let everyone invest in facebook, and now that he does, he is getting criticized for it to various levels. Mark is only 28 everyone…. he is the worlds richest person under the age of 30. That should be adequate for everyone to just shut up about saying he should step aside as CEO. Besides, with 57% of the voting and being the largest shareholder of the company, that is practically impossible, and mark isn’t stupid and won’t respond to all the peer pressure, because he would actually do what any normal person would want to do at this point, which is to prove everyone wrong. He can do it. The fact that facebook is still worth about 50 billion despite it’s incredible losses is AMAZING. At 50 billion, that’s worth more than several established companies that are running fine today. Imagine if any of you people were in Mark’s place. Obviously you would hate the stupid press to be writing about you daily and saying such annoying things that you cannot even have a say in. Hopefully facebook will be worth 100 billion again some time in the future. Mark is still super young, facebook is also VERY young, so it is too early to say anything. If they change business tactics and make some major adjustments, they could be what everyone wanted it to be.

By: Danox

Danox — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:29:16 +0000

IS you are wrong about the IPO in one respect, Facebook forgot one thing as a service company you must have trust, goodwill, and great service, unlike Apple, Facebook makes nothing, post IPO without those three items Facebook is a empty shell who will never come close to the IPO price. When you make nothing you must have trust, goodwill and service, a IPO leaving customers, and investors (one in the same with Facebook) gagging, leaves you in trouble.
However, i do agree, Zuckerberg as CEO is not a problem the founder as CEO is the only person who will get Facebook, out the mess they are in (ie.. Apple), the founder is always the only person who cares at a personal level, hired guns (Cheryl) do not matter, even if they are the smartest person in the room.