Maybe, but there’s a market out there for CEOs who are willing to take the blame for some unpopular decisions and then walk away. There’s also something to be said that “-50%” might actually be an improvement over where it was before she was hired, and the bad decisions weren’t hers.
But that’s the thing. She isn’t taking the L on this. That’s my point. She seems to just be chillin’, doing fuck all. Everyone knows it’s Musk running it.
This isn’t a case where he needed to bring in a fall guy CEO for a difficult business choice. This is a case where he brought in a new CEO to literally save the corporation, and she’s doing nothing and nobody is blaming her. It’s surreal.
Much of what she was brought on to do (negotiating with advertisers I guess) isn’t really public facing, so from that respect it’s not that surprising that she appears to be doing nothing. I also think she’s not taking the L yet, if things get even worse Musk may blame her as an excuse to walk things back (“I was following her advice” or whatever).
She’s not just chilling, she made a press release saying Twitter just had its most successful day (I think by user engagement, I don’t remember the metric she mentioned) right when Threads was blowing up. If she wasn’t straight up lying, she was looking at some reeeeallly well-massaged data.
…of course, there’s a market for CEOs who do that, too, but I admit, I was a little shocked. I thought she was supposed to be the Responsible Adult ™ here.
BTW, fuck him and MS so bad for ruining a tech company I could really make no complaint about.
Especially if you think that Nokia didn’t only make good phones, they also were the major force behind Qt toolkit. And that was in Qt3 times, when Qt was unarguably cool.
Nobody is talking about it, but does that advertising exec that Musk hired for CEO take a massive hit to her career for any of this?
It seems surreal to have a ghost CEO who isn’t responsible for anything such a large company does. But that’s exactly what’s happening here.
Maybe, but there’s a market out there for CEOs who are willing to take the blame for some unpopular decisions and then walk away. There’s also something to be said that “-50%” might actually be an improvement over where it was before she was hired, and the bad decisions weren’t hers.
But that’s the thing. She isn’t taking the L on this. That’s my point. She seems to just be chillin’, doing fuck all. Everyone knows it’s Musk running it.
This isn’t a case where he needed to bring in a fall guy CEO for a difficult business choice. This is a case where he brought in a new CEO to literally save the corporation, and she’s doing nothing and nobody is blaming her. It’s surreal.
Much of what she was brought on to do (negotiating with advertisers I guess) isn’t really public facing, so from that respect it’s not that surprising that she appears to be doing nothing. I also think she’s not taking the L yet, if things get even worse Musk may blame her as an excuse to walk things back (“I was following her advice” or whatever).
Fair enough, I suppose we’ll see soon enough. And it may or may not be extremely cathartic. :D
She’s not just chilling, she made a press release saying Twitter just had its most successful day (I think by user engagement, I don’t remember the metric she mentioned) right when Threads was blowing up. If she wasn’t straight up lying, she was looking at some reeeeallly well-massaged data.
…of course, there’s a market for CEOs who do that, too, but I admit, I was a little shocked. I thought she was supposed to be the Responsible Adult ™ here.
the “pain sponge” storyline from Succession
I’m thinking Stephen Elop.
BTW, fuck him and MS so bad for ruining a tech company I could really make no complaint about.
Especially if you think that Nokia didn’t only make good phones, they also were the major force behind Qt toolkit. And that was in Qt3 times, when Qt was unarguably cool.