Marissa Mayer, the Yahoo CEO who flushed the company down the toilet will end up with around $219 million after being sold to Verizon today (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]


[–]iamcoolstephen1234 78 points79 points  (15 children)

Many CEOs who walk away from a dying company do so with a huge severance (Jeff Smisek being one of them, and several others). Her being a woman had less to do with it than the contract Yahoo made when they signed her on. She did a mediocre job as CEO, namely expanding their product line into more native video content and advertising, but also laying off about 30% of their employees (which may have been the right call and is not necessarily a bad thing)(this article is from 2015, so a bit outdated, but still reflects her performance pretty well). It may be true that the company did not advance financially by a significant margin, but the stock price doubled in that time, and it is often times more complicated than that.

A quote at the end of the article might reflect your thoughts well: “At first glance, it appears that Ms. Mayer has almost tripled the stock price in her three year tenure,” concludes Peck. “However, our analysis suggests the value of the core business has actually declined, by as much as 50% (or $1.5 billion), to the extent that the core business is now almost free.”

[–]1Soarinc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The stock price rose because Yahoo owned a 10% stake in a chinese startup company (alibaba) which made like $5 billion profit of passive earnings.

[–]bp000 2 points2 points [recovered]

Of course Yahoo's stock price trippled. A dog could have been the CEO during the past 8 years and the stock price probably would have gone up even more.

Remember in 2008, that whole financial crisis? What do you think happened that magically made stock prices of ALL companies go up? Was it the fact that the Fed magically threw trillions of dollars and papered over the US economy?

[–]iamcoolstephen1234 1 point2 points  (2 children)

She has been CEO since 2012. The market bottomed in 2009/10 and Yahoo bottomed around the same time. I have not looked deeply at the management and I won't, but Yahoo's performance has outpaced the market by a significant margin (the S&P 500 grew from about $1,300 to about $2,100 from 2012 to 2016, so call it 60% in round numbers, and Yahoo grew from about $15 to around 50, then back down and is now about $38, so call it 150%). If the pace of the stock was faster than the overall market, it would not be appropriate to blame the rise 100% on an increase in overall capital. You could argue that all tech companies grew like crazy and Yahoo was just there at the right time, maybe. Their income was up and down, but they had a number of purchases, sales, and other non-recurring expenses that distort those numbers. I understand that stock prices often reflect the sentiment of investors and not necessarily real performance, but investors are or were clearly pleased enough with the direction of the business to put their money into Yahoo stock. Even if their core business declines, if other revenue streams improve their results, they will continue to make money as a company. This may change in the future, as they continue to change. Many successful companies adapted to new opportunities. Nintendo used to make board games. IBM made scales and punch cards. Nokia sold paper and rubber products.

It seems a bit ridiculous to say that a dog could have been CEO. Maybe a smart dog. Like Dogbert or someone.

On a side note, tripled* threw*

[–]bp000 1 points1 points [recovered]

Well when you have an influx of capital from artificially low interest rates, commercial investors tend to flock towards technology companies in order to ride the price wave as more capital gets thrown at lets say a yahoo or a Linkedin than a Wal-mart even-though it is pretty clear Wal-mart adds more value to society. That is why technology companies P/E ratios are usually more extreme. Then of course when the bust occurs and all that capital wears off these companies go bankrupt. See 1999. Shockingly no one is buying all of their toys from E-toys anymore :), but boy could they raise capital.

In addition the major change in IR was in 2008; which, doesn't affect the economy right away.... it's called monetary lag.

[–]iamcoolstephen1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Commercial investors flock to higher-growth companies, which happen to be tech, as a large part of their portfolios. There is a good reason, as tech has had a high return compared with other industry for the past 20-odd years (it is not always the top, but is regularly a major performer). Tech has created a lot of income and that translates to a lot of value. In Yahoo's case, they are not the biggest search engine like they were 15 or so years ago - that is obviously Google now. What separates them from Google is their content. Regardless of whether you prefer it or not does not matter - they still attract visitors, and thus, ad revenue. High growth companies can also lose a lot of money, but that is part of why investors diversify. Larger, mature companies in mature markets will have steady returns, but lower (also lower risk). The best strategy is to include both in your stock mix - and cloud-based companies are a strong industry to include. You could argue that their strategy might arbitrarily pick bad tech stocks simply because they are tech, which is a bad idea, but commercial investors usually have more of a head on their shoulders (I might be giving them too much credit). There is something to say about a firm that has been a strong player since the beginning of the internet revolution (with a "first mover" advantage) like Yahoo, in that they have a steady income, already have an established business and brand, and already have the knowledge and technical capital to be able to compete in their industry. They still make money. It doesn't matter if you personally don't like to use them.

E-Toys went bankrupt because they had a substandard business model. They invested too much in marketing and not enough in the actual company. They couldn't compete on price. They didn't offer promos like Toys R Us did (free shipping, etc.). You also couldn't take your kid to the store and let them pick out a toy, so the internet business model may have been improper for an online presence. They were riding too high on the hopes of internet. There are plenty of websites and internet companies that actually had value and lived though the dot com burst because they had effective planning (Amazon, Ebay, etc.). Fun fact - they were acquired some time later by KB Toys, then they went bankrupt in the 2008 meltdown and the domain was acquired by Toys R Us in 09. If you go to their website right now, it redirects to Toys R Us.

People are welcome to keep debating with me. I am not particularly advocating for Yahoo. I am not trying to say it is the same caliber as Google. I am just trying to argue that its shortcomings are not as bad as people make them out to be.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

I don't understand why this happens, they caused their companies decline, they should get fucked over for it not rewarded. Is it a contract breach that they're letting them go or something?

[–]enfier 12 points12 points [recovered]

If you were a good CEO, how much would they have to pay you to run a company that's headed down the tubes? It's not good for your career and it's shit for morale because your basic job is going to be cutting jobs, selling off what you can and trying to prepare what's left of your core value to be attractive to the highest bidder. When you are done making enemies, the news and board of directors will put all the blame on you and fire you publicly.

Failing companies need good CEOs, perhaps more than companies that are doing well. The board of directors also needs to seem like they've done something by hiring a well recognized CEO. Then when the company inevitably goes down, the fingers don't get pointed at them. CEOs walking into this situation know that they are being asked to fall on a sword and so they ask for a lot of money.

In the grand scheme of things, $220M over 4 years is peanuts compared to the value of a $4.8B company.

I'm not defending Marissa Mayer, I'm just explaining why CEOs of failing companies get paid well.

[–]chasethecake 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Really what they're getting paid for is lost reputation.

[–]choikwa 2 points3 points  (1 child)

maybe this practice needs to end.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure does, but not with CEOs: with the president and elected government officials. When a new guy comes up every 4/8 years & blames everything on the last guy, nobody asks who's actually running the country for the past 20+ yrs

[–]1Soarinc -1 points0 points  (2 children)

The board of directors also needs to seem like they've done something by hiring a well recognized CEO.

You probably won't be invited soon onto any boards of directors. They care nothing about what the financial news media thinks of them, lol.

[–]enfier 1 point2 points  (1 child)

They care what the shareholders think

[–]1Soarinc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Correct (primarily the voting proxy shareholders) but it's really all about hitting numerical targets and building long-term value of the company (or dividend).

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Her payout is likely due to a bunch of unvested or deferred stick awards coming immediately due upon a sale. Not a lawyer, but I do have the sense that it would be extremely litigious to can the ceo right before a merger. There isn't a benefit at this point.

[–]omeow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Marissa Mayer for president 2020

[–]UnberZed 269 points270 points  (24 children)

Yeah she may have had a pussy but lots of CEOs with cocks (and huge fucking balls) have tanked companies and walked away with millions.

[–][deleted] 82 points83 points  (9 children)

I was thinking same thing. Executive pay, especially stock compensation, has been very high for some time.

Marissa was lucky and in the right place at right time (someone had to be) and parlayed that #20 spot at google into a career she has proven she can't handle.

Still, she didnt fuck it up and she has my grudging respect for getting herself rich.

[–]choikwa 11 points12 points  (5 children)

Are the bars so low for CEO that they couldn't fail even if they tried to? Is this considered success?

[–]garlicextract[🍰] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Uh, no fucking shit? Were you alive 8 years ago?

[–]2comment 18 points19 points  (3 children)

Over 50 years ago, you had many corporations chaired by people who worked their way up in some capacity. In some tech or industrial corps, they helped found the company, or started as some lowend manager with a degree in STEM...

Today, the Board of Directors are usually CEOs or VPs from other firms, with MBA degrees that basically mastered financial trickery, or from Banks. They are prone to "scratch my back, I scratch yours" because those who they are overseeing might be overseeing them in their own firm. And if not, one of their friends in a round robin arrangement.

So there rose have a class of people, where as long as the firm can be sucked dry, they will suck it dry.

I don't agree with his politics, but Noam Chomsky in Requiem for the American Dream (on Netflix) has a good deal to say on this and more.

[–]choikwa 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I feel sick thinking about this.

[–]p00pey 2 points3 points  (1 child)

THe system is rigged brother. From corporations, to politics, to damn near everything else, the game is for the rich to get richer, off the backs of the common man. Plain and simple...

[–]1Soarinc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Try and convince society to give up capitalism for a "new economic reality" and most will think the new system will be even worse than the current system.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]1mojo_juju 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did a bj have anything to do with it? srs

[–]absoluteskeptic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And had a baby while doing it all. Yay, feminism!

[–]BleedingAssWound 48 points49 points  (5 children)

Her hire was a hail mary because the company was already in dire straits. As far as her compensation, that's not a woman thing, you're right, that's a CEO thing. After the financial crisis all the male CEO of the big Wall Street investment banks got huge bonuses for almost destroying the economy. Nobody was saying it was because they were men.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Actually "nobody" focused on the gender because it was way a bigger scandal than any gender related issue. To acknowledge what was done and how would basically be an admission the societal image that gets into the media is a lie and as a species we are basically a pack of wolves AND a sheep stock. If you aren't farming humans, you are being farmed.

[–]1mojo_juju 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you aren't farming humans, you are being farmed.

Machiavelli couldn't have said it better himself.

Use or get used.

[–]BleedingAssWound 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I completely agree with you. The Marissa Mayer thing was posted in Red Pill though. Which kind of by definition means that in THIS case, at least the OP is implying it has something to do with gender.

If anything, women are underrepresented in the community of CEOs of failed companies getting fat checks when they leave.

[–]phx-au 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah people forget the CEO answers to the board. We have a huge amount of hate for the CEO brought in to run Telstra in Australia.

He was given the strategic goal of something totally fucking stupid, and practically unachievable. (Marketshare or profit or something). He then achieved that goal by running the companies reputation and quality into the ground.

Would not surprise me if a similar thing happened with Yahoo. The number of times they've turned down offers at a decent valuation kinda demonstrates how delusional they are about the value of the brand.

Stupid decisions like buying Tumblr make more sense if the play is "Make Yahoo relevant again, and damn the expense".

[–]rumovoice 14 points15 points  (4 children)

If the last CEO of Nokia was a woman TRP would have tons of articles about how it failed due to CEO's gender. Reminds me of this. Still I've yet to see a successful woman CEO.

[–]Mudpielol 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Lisa Su from AMD might be it. Remains to be seen. She's doing alright so far.

[–]p00pey 2 points3 points  (0 children)

butbutbut...what are we all going to yell AWALT at like rabid monkeys?!?

[–]forcevacum 28 points29 points  (2 children)

Deciding that people at her company no longer should be able to work from home.

I'm not defending her but this was a push to shed extra staff.

[–]zephyrprime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, an easy way to downsize without having raising unenployment insurance premiums for the company.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 196 points197 points  (58 children)

This reply will sound as defending her. Part of it is defending her...

  1. There's no guarantee that a non feminist woman or a man in place of Mayer would do better. Yahoo's position was bad for a number of years before she was hired.

  2. She was HIRED, therefore it's reasonable to assume that it wasn't b/c "we need feminist woman to appease the market". She was most likely hired b/c of her experience (she had plenty).

  3. It's very hard to get to the bottom of why a company fails, especially a company as big as Yahoo. Hindsight is 20/20.

...part of it is "reexamine your thinking redpill, b/c you will cling to any single fact you can to bash women, even if it's a singular event and not something that is a statistical fact".

[–]putin_vor 74 points75 points  (24 children)

I can tell you why Yahoo has been failing. They stopped innovating. Yahoo.com is something out of the 90's. Yahoo mail sucks. I can't think of a single exciting product Yahoo announced in recent years, while both Google and Microsoft have tons.

[–]steve70638 18 points19 points  (3 children)

Exactly. If they only copied the best features of Google (gmail for example), went into the cloud copying Amazon, offered some free cloud aps like others (buy zoho and give it away!) they could have at least been a close second. But nothing happened and they just lost search share bit by bit.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

They dont do search, backend was done by Bing and now by Google I think.

[–]AzN1337c0d3r 2 points3 points  (1 child)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but that is some years ago, before Mayer.

[–]princepeanutbutter 6 points7 points  (2 children)

In terms of their product, I can specifically point three I stopped using after Mayer became CEO - Yahoo Sports, Yahoo News, and Yahoo Mail. Whether or not she was responsible, I'm not sure, but the functionality of these became horrible after she was hired. Especially Yahoo Sports, which had an awful awful resdesign.

[–]Apexk9 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I used to love yahoo sports and even did my fantasy hockey on there.

The redesign was fucking retarded and I never went there again.

[–]Spidertech500 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I switched from Yahoo 10 years ago when they tried to make me pay for a pro account to use Outlook. F*** that

[–]apachemd 0 points1 point  (13 children)

Errrr... Microsoft? Balmer was an abject failure, a total disaster.

[–]CaptainIncredible 10 points11 points  (7 children)

Well, he kept the company profitable, but he was a money guy NOT an innovator. He couldn't seem to innovate on the tech side. He either torpedoed innovative stuff from within (cough cough courier cough) or he made fun of and dismissed innovation when he saw it (iPhone).

He royally fucked up on that iPhone thing. At the time iPhone was released, Windows Mobile 6.5 was fairly dominant in the 'smart phone' space and available on all carriers.

Out of the box the UI/UX fucking sucked in a typical "designed by a committee of MS software engineers" sort of way. BUT with some tweaks the UX could be just as good if not better than the iPhone at the time.

There was a product called SPB Mobile shell that replaced the shitty Palm Pilot ripoff UI and with something really slick, akin to a decent Android UI of today.

Balmer totally fucked up. He saw the iphone and made fun of it. Literally you can still find on YouTube him in an interview laughing about the iPhone, saying "no one is going to buy it at that price."

Instead he should have called in his minions in a meeting and demanded that WinMo be fixed. He should have bought SPB Mobile shell, made it the default in WinMo6.6, made a couple of tweaks to Outlook and some other apps, and pushed the fuck out of it on all carriers. iOS was stuck on AT&T, WinMo6.6 could have been the 'almost as good, but its everywhere and cheaper.' iOS would have been like the "new MacOS" with a niche market share, and WinMo6.6 would have been like the "new Windows 95" (kinda shittier but available in more places and cheaper.) Sure, WinMo was a little shitty, but it was easy to develop apps with Visual Basic.

Instead Balmer fucked around for 2 years with Windows Phone 7. By the time it was released, it was too little, too late. Android had become the new Windows (not quite as good, but cheaper and everywhere).

After knocking Palm Pilot off its throne, MS went from being a dominant player in the mobile space to the piss poor market share it has today. Thanks Steve! How are the Lakers doing?

[–]1grubek 4 points5 points  (6 children)

To be fair, this is not a Ballmer thing exclusively but a general MS thing in almost the last two decades.

MS has not produced a product that has dominated the market since the desktop, and that is almost two decades ago. They are basically following and falling behind harder every time.

MS dominated with MS-Dos because of IBM fail of vision for the consumer market. Then they succesfully developed Windows into a dominant product and build an ecosystem of dominant applications around it. In a big part because of inertia MS still dominates on desktop, despite the competition being at a similar technologycal level, and will probably keep doing it in the forseable future.

But then in the 90's this weird thing called internet was developed. MS and specifically Gates dismissed it initially, to then try to create their own private network, which failed miserably. Instead the more free and caotic Internet produced companies that would come from nothing to dominate like Google or Facebook. MS has been trying and spending millions to dominate some area of the online bussiness with a resounding failure.

At the same time, MS had managed to get a pie of the server market, mostly thanks to their desktop success. But then it has lost ground to linux, which dominates the server market by a big margin. MS is still second and has and important share, but not even close, even forced to slash prices down to keep tje position.

Then the next big revolution in consumer electronics has been mobile, which, as you have explained, MS has failed to see and has again been late and spent lots of money to produce a failure.

Except for a second tier position in servers, MS lives in the desktop, something that won two decades ago, and has failed in every new big development. They are lucky that the desktop seems to be stable and not dying as some announced because otherwise they'd be in big trouble.

[–]enfier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Azure, Exchange, Office, Office 365, Sharepoint, Skype, Hyper-V, File Sharing?

Microsoft dominates in a lot of enterprise applications beyond desktop and server OS.

[–]CaptainIncredible 1 point2 points  (0 children)

MS does ok in the internet space. IIS with ASP.NET isn't quite dominant, but it certainly is popular.

The "new" Microsoft under Nadella is doing a lot better. Azure seems to be doing quite well and it espouses platform independence. The Surface line of laptop/tablet are remarkable devices and sales are doing well. MS has the best dev tools available. Their recent purchases of Xamarin and Unity shows they are thinking multiplatform.

Also, I'd argue that MS is well positioned for the next-gen of AR devices with HoloLens. I had an opportunity to test one the other day - pretty good stuff.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Azure is pretty good in fairness.

[–]1grubek 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Ive heard good things of it, but it is expensive for a lot of use cases. I doubt it will come to dominate.

[–]kinklianekoff 2 points3 points  (1 child)

MS has innovated their approach to product synergies. The change is in allowing mixing and matching microsoft products with competitors. This is absolutely needed in the future(and really already). I think Microsoft will thrive in the corporate market. Another big player that is often forgotten is Oracle. They are gonna crash hard if clueless corporate customers wisen up.

[–]1grubek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, typical MS strategy was to make their products incompatible with the competition to force customer into its ecosystem and not allow them to use the competition. So the fact that they are now going for interoperability, while a good thing, shows their weakness.

IBM also pivoted into tech consulting when their server market became obsolete. They survived but it is a much more competitive and less profitable market.

[–]putin_vor 1 point2 points  (3 children)

But he didn't drive the company into the ground. MS kept producing, making good products, catering to the developers too.

And it's Ballmer, btw.

[–]apachemd 0 points1 point  (2 children)


Correlation does not equal causation. MSFT has ridden the wave of its hegemonic network effect advantage for over a decade now. They made money b/c of that, NOT b/c of Ballmer but rather despite Ballmer. Any other even semi-competent CEO would have used MSFT's huge industry advantages to actually innovate and create something new and good. Instead Ballmer screwed up the company's flagship product (anybody remember Windows Vista?)! And then he missed search... then mobile... then social networking. This guy was not asleep at the wheel, he was drunk driving at 120 mph! Billions upon billions of shareholder value lost. What a shame. Nepotism has a very real cost.

[–]putin_vor -1 points0 points  (1 child)

And I don't give a shit about any of these problems. They still produced many interesting products, some successful, some less so. And their stock is going up.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo 7 points8 points  (1 child)

reexamine your thinking redpill, b/c you will cling to any single fact you can to bash women, even if it's a singular event and not something that is a statistical fact

I agree wholeheartedly. Redpill is supposed to be objective and rational and based on facts, as opposed to many other ideologies, like feminism, that are based on feelings. When an ideology is based on a feeling (like most ideologies are), they ignore any fact that contradicts that feeling and glom onto any fact that enforces that feeling. Feminism has stopped being about facts long ago, and it is now a feeling, and that feeling is "women good, men bad." Redpill needs to take care to not become the opposite of that - "men good, women bad."

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"men good, women bad."

That's unfortunately a knee jerk reaction part of this community has.

This "yahoo/marisa mayer" thread is an example.

Is she responsible for not making Yahoo great again? Yes, she was the CEO, she takes the blame in the end.

Is she responsible for ALL of the Yahoo decline? No. She joined in 2012. Yahoo was slowly fading since 2001/2

Did she fail to "fix" Yahoo b/c she is a woman and/or feminist. No. Most of her decisions had ZERO to do with her being a woman and or/feminist.

It's like saying some football player is responsible for his entire team performance, including the historical one.

Redpill is supposed to be objective and rational and based on facts

Cannot stress that enough.

[–][deleted] 15 points15 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 7 points8 points  (3 children)

"She got hired so she was qualified" biggest load of shit ever. This bitch had no business sense or valid experience


Yeah, they hired her b/c she's pretty. Don't be absurd. At that kind of game and money, nobody who plays it will allow for something like that to happen.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Never sat on a board, have you?

Please do not act like these people are inherently experienced and intelligent because of the seats they occupy. Thanks to two bubbles, a lot of these chairs are occupied by people that were either lucky or had the right friends. There is no such thing working your way to the top in this industry--but you can fuck your way there still.

[–]juliusstreicher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can't say how MM got her job, but, it's entirely possible that they hired her to avoid a sex discrimination lawsuit. When you see how Microsoft got fucked for 25billion on some shit charges in the 90s, Yahoo may have thought it a bargain at any price.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo 2 points3 points  (9 children)

she dated a head dude at Google which got her into the top ranks at google, which eventually got her the job at Yahoo

how does dating a dude at Google get you a job at Yahoo? They are competitors. That makes no sense.

[–]thisdyyd 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Ehm.. why not? Why wouldn't they hire competitors staff?

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I didn't say they wouldn't hire the staff from competitors, but how does banging Google's CEO give you a leg up at Yahoo?

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Banging the CEO got her a leg up at Google. It gave her status.

This is just you making shit up. And if people at Yahoo knew that she was banging the CEO at Google, then they would know that she didn't get her position on merit.

To be honest, this sub oftentimes sounds like a bunch of losers whining about people that are more successful than them. why does anybody even care that these bitch ruined Yahoo? Do any of you own Yahoo stock? If women are as terrible as people here make them out to be, why are they succeeding and you're on the internet whining about them?

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo 1 point2 points  (3 children)

this has nothing to do with the sidebar or RP ideology. This is just whining losers.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (3 children)

nah! Yahoo's stock rose by more than 100% during her tenure as the CEO.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (1 child)

.... That's because of Yahoo's stake in Alibaba, which had the largest tech IPO ever, and the purchase wasn't initiated by Marissa Meyer. It was initiated by Jerry Yang who was removed from his CEO position of Yahoo.

[–]1FunAndFreedom 2 points3 points  (0 children)


People talk out their ass when it comes to finance. No disrespect to thescalpmaster, but he needs to be called out on it. Generally when a pretty woman is being hired to a high level like a CEO it's a distraction play.

[–]circlhat -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thank you, so many blue pillers in here today trying to defend her. Yes the previous ceo refused to sale yahoo to Microsoft which is consider a huge mistake, but hiring her is silicon valley's newest pet project

[–]karpathian 1 point2 points  (1 child)

But it did start tanking faster once she was in power.

[–]Apexk9 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yahoo failed because it diversified to much.

Go on yahoo.com now go on Google.com you can see plain as day.

It's like they tried to cover everything hit every niche hoping it help. Google focused on one thing and then slowly released their own shit based on needs in the market.

Gmail. Cloud. Link with android. Crome.

[–]circlhat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yahoo was always a web portal, that is what made it famous ,

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's very hard to get to the bottom of why a company fails,

Paying cash for three massive acquisitions that you eventually write down as virtually worthless is a pretty typical reason a company fails. Yahoo was in trouble, but they we're mortal--yet.

She was most likely hired b/c of her experience (she had plenty).

Her "experience" was sucking a GOOG founder's cock. That she was hired mystifies most experienced valley executives, including myself.

[–]FourNominalCents 0 points1 point  (2 children)

  1. Because reddit is autocorrecting my list to start at 1.

  2. She was hired for publicity. She was Google's "woman in tech," and there was plenty of noise on the net about it. Yahoo was passe, and nobody was talking about it. A match made in heaven. It wasn't to please idealists; it was to make publicity to get traffic to raise valuation.

  3. Yahoo has been dying forever. Everyone knew that going into this. Any CEO of a dying tech company worth his salt would have taken advantage of that spike in valuation and sold at the first decent offer. Mayer didn't.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Are you speaking from experience?

[–]FourNominalCents 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know I saw three or four media pieces about Mayer while she was still at Google, and I certainly didn't go looking for them. The rest is just logic. Should I need experience to understand that "get press" and "sell high" are good business practices?

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 23 points24 points  (2 children)

The fact that she was a shitty CEO (yah, Alibaba...which Yahoo had taken its position in before she arrived...) is less of a harbinger of bad news (other than for YHOO stockholders) than this:

Former Yahoo employee accuses company of gender bias – against men

Take men and women with the same scores, mark the women up, mark the men down, fire the men, hire women to replace them. El sucko if you happen to have a penis instead of a vagina.

All the more reason to work for yourself. Then you can avoid yet another of Mayer's shitty decisions. "Hey, the company is in trouble! Lets piss everyone off!"

[–]landsoul 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A very biased article for a topic about gender bias. The comment section whole article strongly emphasizes the women in question being the victim.

-"The irony of a company that is overwhelmingly male being targeted for gender discrimination against men"

-"Gender bias against men." Translation: lack of gender bias against women"

Yes, unbelievable that men are being discriminated against in a company that created one of the biggest media outlets for feminism. Completely mind boggling.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everything your saying may be true, but Warren buffett couldn't have saved yahoo. Yahoo would have died no matter who was put in charge. They were going up against arguably the most powerful corporation on the planet. It may not even be arguable, is there a company that exists with more power and influence than Google?

I'm with the red pill thinking, I am, but this post reeks of desperation. There isn't a man on the planet that could make yahoo beat Google. It's a dying david versus a ubiquitous Goliath, and we know that fairy tales don't actually happen. Goliath will always win.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

As a lot of other people have said, this is just how it works when you get to the top. It's called a golden parachute. The rich take care of their own. If anything, this was a very alpha move of her. She lead notable company and gave her grandchildren "fuck you" money.

Good for her.

[–]true_detective_sf 80 points80 points [recovered]

She managed to become powerful at Google by banging Larry Page, developed a bit of a cult of personality in tech around her looks, and parlayed that into a CEO job at Yahoo. She was despised within Google and eventually demoted from working on the core search product to Local.

She ran Google Local (Google Places) before she went to Yahoo. It was such a terrible product that I was certain she would fail once she went to Yahoo. I don't know enough about what happened at Yahoo to say whether she failed (it would have taken a miracle to turn that company around), but it is certain that some of her moves were disasters (Tumblr, primarily).

I also think it is outrageous to take a $100 mil plus paycheck to be CEO of a company, then immediately miss time for being pregnant / having a kid, although this was the Yahoo board's fault if she was pregnant when she interviewed.

Also, she is playing the victim: http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-criticizes-gender-biased-media-2016-7

edit: Ending the WFH era was a great move, though.

[–]styles__P 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Her dating Larry Page actually hurt her career. Before getting involved with him she was rising quickly in the company. After they dated and broke up that was it for her, her ascension stopped and she eventually got demoted. I feel that was some spitefulness from Larry's part. Also I don't think anyone could have saved Yahoo. Sorry to rain on your Marissa-hating parade but you are painting her in a worse light than she actually deserves.

[–]Lsegundo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

She missed meetings repeatedly. She was paid hundreds of millions of dollars for poor performance that would have gotten a bus boy or cashier fired many times over.

This has more to do with the special treatment given to the useless shit bags at the "C" level than to her being a woman.

How Marissa Mayer Fell Asleep and Kept Ad Executives Waiting For Hours

There are other news articles about her being hours late to critical meetings with other CEOs of very large companies. She did a really lousy job.

[–]garlicextract[🍰] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

source about her banging Page? I don't doubt it might be true, but I'd like to see more info

[–]kayakmark 4 points5 points  (0 children)


Casually mentioned them dating for a few months

[–]HungLikeA_Moose 6 points7 points  (5 children)

Bullshit posts like this one with bullshit top comments like yours are the reason TRP is Considered to be a mysoginistic sect.

Where are y'all when a male ceo drives a company into the ground? Because that happens all the time. You're guilty of the exact same double standard you usually like to accuse women of having.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (10 children)

I don't say you are wrong but please consider that she is in fact still a top tier computer scientist and she is smart as fuck.

[–]DodgedAFew 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Link to her latest scientific paper / github repo, please?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

A stanford degree in CS is not enough ?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

You clearly know nothing about IT if you think a CS degree actually means you know anything about IT.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Oh shit thanks for pointing that out, I thought that my 10 years of programming experience matter.

[–]bhaknu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

WTF? You should know better than anyone that a degree is child's play in programming.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your experience matters. Your degree is just an entry ticket.

[–]Francis009 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know how to use a paint brush, sandpaper, saw and hammer, but can I make a great table and chairs with it? no.

[–]val-amart -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

lol no, degrees in cs mean nothing

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

If you say so, it must be true ...

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

More than the payout, this was what slapped me in the face about her comments yesterday.

"We all see the things that only plague women leaders, like articles that focus on their appearance..."

Said the woman who posed for this photoshoot.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'd have to disagree.

Yahoo was worth hundreds of billions before the late nineties crash and was being mismanaged long, long before she came along. She left a very sweet deal at Google to make the switch.

Her $200 million is child's play compared to the tens of billions co-founder Jerry Yang vaporized by refusing Microsoft's offer.

[–]allnamesfckintaken 3 points4 points  (0 children)

elon musk started x.com and only made about 250 million on the sale of paypal.

[–]HeadlockBrock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For those that weren't there:

  • YHOO board was trying to rekindle a $45B deal with MSFT that they rejected two years earlier, but MSFT had since dropped their valuation.

  • MSFT/others would not consider YHOO without Yang. Yang wouldn't serve, although he did finish closing the Alibaba deal

  • Female CEOs, VP nominees etc were hugely in vogue with the media

  • Mayer was famously NOT a feminist like Sandberg, which is why she got the job

  • Mayer got excitement and a stock boost, but the plan didn't work. None of the suitors upped their bids.

This is really a story of a board full of media idiots coming up with a hare-brained PR scheme to flip a losing asset instead of focusing on product.

[–]Endorsed ContributorWoujo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All in all the company she was running ends up as a pile of shit and she walks away with over 200 million dollars. The things I would do to be an attractive woman in the tech industry today.

I don't like these kinds of posts because we have absolutely 0 evidence that she only became successful because she is an "attractive woman." The modern American corporate structure disconnects ownership from responsibility and creates goofy incentives for board members, which oftentimes lead to terrible outcomes. Also, a write up like this is like a tabloid article that ignores the positive things a person did.

To me, it just sounds like whining and hating.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 8 points9 points  (8 children)

One complaint I see often on Reddit and elsewhere is that CEO's get huge bonuses when they are fired. What all the internet critics don't realize is that the CEO negotiated these bonuses way back when they were first hired, as part of their contract. Because experienced CEO's are in high demand they can negotiate for big payouts upon termination whether they did a good job or not.

People mistakenly see "this CEO was paid millions for tanking the company" but the reality is "this CEO signed a contract years ago saying that if they were ever fired for any reason they'd be paid millions, and today they were fired."

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Would it not make more sense to give them generous share options or equity ? If they are any good they could make a lot more. If they are shit it hurts them.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Plenty of companies do just that.

[–]Lsegundo 1 point2 points  (3 children)

My problem with it is its all upside. For the insane level of compensation CEOs get they should have skin in the game. Instead of being paid a huge bonus after tanking the company they should be forced to give some of their compensation back and have negative pay.

This is what every small business owner faces. The rules are different for the 1% though. When the banks fucked up the gov stepped in and gave them money so they could still pay themselves million doallar bonuses for nearly destroying the economy.

[–]true_detective_sf 1 points1 points [recovered]

It's a free market. Businesses should be able to hire CEOs under any terms they like. The stock owners of Yahoo were comfortable with this contract; you really want the government telling people what kind of compensation packages they can give their employees?

[–]Lsegundo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

1) the government already dictates what kind of compensation packages business give employees. You have heard of minimum wage and benefits for full time employees? Whether you agree or disagree with these laws is not my point.

2) Did the stock owners vote on her being CEO or did the often incestuous board of directors give her a ridiculous deal?

I am sick and fucking tired of the people at the top having their own rules. I pointed out elsewhere in the comments that her piss poor performance would have gotten a dishwasher or walmart greeter fired multiple times. She repeatedly was extremely late to critical meetings. Her BS blew important deals for yahoo. She probably thinks of herself as a magical princess who can do no wrong and shits vanilla ice cream.

Where do I signup for a job where I can be a fuckup and get paid $40 million per year?

[–]writewhereileftoff 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's almost as if they are rewarded for doing a shit job.

[–]tabber87 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It generally costs less for a company to cut its losses and provide a shit CEO with a golden parachute then to open themselves up to years of wrongful termination litigation. This isn't a female thing. I'm surprised you've never heard of this phenomenon.

[–]DataEast1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's not really a woman thing. Plenty of males do it too. Look at Mitt Romney, he was almost President.

[–]victor_knight 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Are the people who hired her the same ones that had the brilliant idea of an all-female Ghostbusters? Wow. What a costly way to shoot yourself in the foot trying to prove there is absolutely no difference between men and women.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 8 points9 points  (0 children)

So in other words she is smarter then most men. She made sure her ass was covered.

[–]LordThunderbolt 9 points10 points  (5 children)

That's got nothing to do with her gender though. Our economy got fucked in the ass by male Wall Street CEOs. What's your point?

It's important in your quest to become more aware and masculine that you don't become a genuine misogynist.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is good for the company isn't always the best for the CEO/President. The book the dictator's handbook explains the theory behind it. Wall Street example you gave, what is good for your pocketbook isn't always the best for the company or the country. The wall street ceos made bank destroying 150+ year old companies and the economy.


[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]LordThunderbolt 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Because Jews are different than men. Very intelligent writing there, guy.

[–]RedEyesBlueShades 4 points5 points  (0 children)

She is an abysmal manager, with an ability to burn cash second to none.

But to be honest and objective to her, it's neither the first nor the last CEO of a big company that is performing really poorly to get out some big payout. CEO pay is very rarely tied to the company performance. Or better, it is very tied to performance when things go well, but it's "Hey, the CEO is just getting market rates" when the shit hits the fan.

Maybe she shouldn't have been hired, but I doubt her board, which certainly consisted of very experienced men thought "I have an idea... let's grind the company to the ground and hire an incompetent woman!" And they probably couldn't foresee, nor did they know, that she's a cash burning banshee. Sometimes shit really does just happen.

[–]Nergaal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Few of Mayer's purchases made any tangible difference at Yahoo."

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be fair, Yahoo was declining before she even joined.

[–]Merica911 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But you have to give her credit, yahoo was a dieing company and for it being sold for almost 5 billion is impressive

[–]blasted_biscuits 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I remember a few years ago Yahoo had a Christmas party and spent millions. Marissa sat in a throne to take professional pictures with employees. The whole thing screamed entitlement. AWALT.

[–]prodigy2throw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You clearly just read one article on the topic and wrote a rant on it. All things considered, Mayer was put in charge of a sinking ship and while she was a feminist in name, she was nowhere near the craziness of other women in corporate America (Sheryl Samberg).

You gotta chill with the hate and do you.

[–]onebigwaffle 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Yahoo Stock price when she was hired was around $16.

Its currently at $38.28, had a 14 year high at $51.75 during her time as CEO.

Stock price is not the perfect indicator of a company (although I'd argue its a pretty good indicator) but you believe she is a bad CEO purely because she is a feminist.

[–]karpathian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's cause men doing equally as well as women got fired for having penises, the stock wss good because alibaba wass a great choice made by a man and she was against it at first being a shitty ceo and all.

[–]beginner_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Read the thread. Yahoo shares rose because of their investment into alibaba years ago.

In 2005, Yahoo invested $1 billion in one of China's hottest technology startups, Alibaba. That bet paid off so spectacularly that by last year Yahoo’s Alibaba shares accounted for the large majority of the company’s value.

[–]David949 0 points1 point  (3 children)

It just occurred to me that I would be a better CEO to yahoo then Marissa and I would have done it for a Steve jobs $1 salary. Plus stock options of course

I have no qualifications to be ceo but that's not the point.

[–]tio1w 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It just occurred to me that I would be a better CEO to yahoo then Marissa

A CEO that decides at random probably would be a better CEO than her.

[–]beginner_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No, because that CEO would take longer to reach the end-goal of selling yahoo and making a profit from it. If it was her sole plan or if she was just used because incompetent is another question. But it was obvious that her actions are intentionally making Yahoo worse.

[–]tio1w 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK. Better for the company, worse for CEO payoff.

[–]plenkton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So many misconceptions, thus we should remember:

  1. Stock price is not directly related to a company's capital, moreso its profitability- when a company is bankrupted, its capital does not disappear- it's reallocated.
  2. Marissa Mayer's severance, like all other severance for CEO, is paid for their experience and their government connections- don't be bad for high pay unless it's earned for government connections.
  3. Just like the company could have done better, it's also possible that it may have been worse with any other CEO- while it lost value under Mayer's watch, it may have lost more value under any other CEO's watch.

[–]beginner_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well we had discussions here about her too and it was mostly agreed upon that she was sent to Yahoo so Yahoo goes down the toilet so an unknown 3rd party can buy it. If it was her plan or if she was used by someone and is clueless of her incompetency we don't now ( I bet the later).

I however doubt that Verizon was the intended buyer. Can anyone shed light on this? Maybe they share some board members?

[–]Luckyluke23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i don't know what Tumblr is, so one day I was having a conversation about the new ghostbuster film with my sister telling her how bad it is.

she said and I quote. " but Tumblr said the movie was good" I knew what tumbler was in that EXACT moment.

[–]greatslyfer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol she bought Tumblr, could it be any less surprising? She really couldn't restrain her feminism when considering the buy huh?

[–]aidyn10 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not at all surprised TRP did not blindly support this guy and his misguided attacks on feminism. It makes me wonder if other subs like two x would respond with the same logic and reasoning instead of an automatic lynching.

[–]Involution88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yahoo had a whole bunch of problems before she joined them. Yahoo got the saviour they wanted, not the saviour they needed.

[–]WilliamBott 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The things I would do to be an attractive woman in the tech industry today..

In her case, moderately attractive. She's not all that...and she still gets mountains of money for screwing up.

[–]Banned_For_Opinion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have a group of female BDs at my company that literally don't sell anything. But they have huge tits and they make my CEOs dick move so I guess they deserve 300k a year. Being a girl is hard...

[–]blackierobinsun2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women destroy marriages, why would yahoo let a woman be the head of a billion dollar company!?!?

[–]phate0451 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Buying dozens of tech companies that went nowhere, the most famous of them being Tumblr.

Hire a woman to do a man's work and you'll get this. Should be no surprise.

[–]Rogodin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yahoo was going down the shitter when Jerry Yang decided not to sell out (2008-2009) to Microsoft for 40billion. This was inevitable.

[–]FourNominalCents 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's interesting how nobody's mentioning that this is the second verse to "HP under Fiorina."

[–]Shitonya_Johnson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

shoulda kept letting them work from home!

[–]1v1crown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah and look at this fucker https://twitter.com/marissamayer/status/757538244028461057

Still thinks shes good at her job. Completely fucking moronic.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But would you suck larry page's dick?


[–]feminists_are_dumb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, it was already in the shitter. She just left it there.

[–]SudoAptGetMeASammich 0 points1 point  (0 children)


What is this?

[–]username_goes_where 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And she got absolutely played by the COO to the tune of $109M for 15 months worth of work.


[–]RedPillFreedom -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Hahaha, the type of Shit. You can get away with, with a Vagina.

[–]Literallyoprah 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Good thing a man would never negotiate a severance package before becoming the CEO of a digital dumpster fire

[–]Listen_up_slapnuts 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just hope the new owners take off the race baiting and click bait from the front page.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty sure she presided over a pretty good rise in stock. Anyway, this is Yahoo we're talking about. Not like there was much to salvage to begin with.

Despite all the horror stories we heard out of that campus I guess she did an acceptable job overall.

[–]ambrazura 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tumblr is not a tech company. "The official Britney Spears Tumblr"... Yahoo...

and she walks away with over 200 million dollars.

For nothing.

[–]tio1w 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, but what does this have to do with this sub?

[–]yomo86 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I despise her for playing the professional victim she did everything right. Gettinb max results with limited skills. There is no RP truth here. She did what we would a man advice to do.

[–]noBra23 -1 points-1 points [recovered]

Why would you put this in Red Pill? Yes, she is an obviously incompetent businesswoman. However, Donald Trump is seen by many Americans as a mastermind and business genius, master of branding etc. The fact is that he is miserably average businessman that made a lot of terrible decisions throughout his life. I don't see the connection between being an annoying feminist, woman and successful businesswoman. I think that the fact that she is attractive woman doesn't have anything to do (ultimately) with her position. She is just incompetent, as any other person can be that (be that man or a woman)

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

Let's be somewhat reasonable here. Mayer is an intelligent person with a hell of a resume. Do I think she deserves everything she has? No. But she does deserve to be rich and influential.

Take away gender and you've got a woman who turned down some really big money and good lifestyle jobs (top consulting firms, academic positions, coding positions at established tech giants) to take a risk working at a startup (Google). That risk paid off.

Was she a bit of an affirmative action case? Undoubtedly. Pretty early on she was taken off of direct coding and management and put in charge of less technical aspects of things. She was thrown into the spotlight mostly because she was an attractive blonde. She was demoted during her time at Google as well.

We can find men (many of them actually) who've made as many mistakes as her and walked away with more. This particular case has less to do with "being a woman in the tech industry" and more to do with being just another person with an inflated resume and a powerful position.

If you want to find women in the tech industry to direct your disgust at, please refer to Elizabeth Holmes (no introduction necessary) and Susan Wojcicki (the woman in charge of the $1 Bn disaster that was Google Video whose only good business move was letting Larry and Sergey set up in her garage).

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)


What is this?

[–]anywherebutdown 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Hilarious. She was a scam. She fucked her way to her position and used her looks to get others on her side. Backing the wrong horse here man.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The discussion below is why I respect TRP so much. Imagine a similar discussion on a feminist Reddit about a male CEO?

[–]getRedPill -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What if this was her intention in first place? Many men have been in similar situation as CEO some paving the way for selling the company to a bigger one. What you can criticize is she playing the gender discrimination card and discrimination against men

[–]UnpluggedMan -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yahoo was already in the toilet when she took over. She just flushed it the rest of the way down.

[–]apachemd -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Sigh. This was easily predictable. Another example of our overly PC country trying to play white knight and hire a woman for a man's job. Result? Billions in dollars of value lost to society. There is a reason that there isn't one single example in all of history of anything revolutionary ever being created by a woman folks. Estrogen does not a good businessperson make.

And don't buy this "no one could've saved Yahoo stuff." 100% Jobs could've, or Musk.

load more comments (3 replies)