You don't get to Snapchat's scale with a "garbage" app. Yes, the UI is... nontraditional, but I've heard it argued this is on purpose and finding out about its hidden features becomes like a game.
Like Google Plus reduced the need to use Facebook.
Instagram's efforts seem to accommodate (and be championed by) so-called "influencers," people who make funny videos or pose half naked to attract large numbers of followers, and then cash in by promoting herbal teas, waist trainers, clothing brands, apps, etc.
That's the community Instagram is cultivating, and since there are large audiences following this stuff, apparently it's a good business strategy. Still, Snapchat is targeting a different audience by not courting influencers. We may end up with two platforms with similar features but with different demographics.
When I read this article, I could replace the name of "Evan Spiegel" with almost any other Silicon Valley executive and get the same result:
> While other Snap employees and executives sit next to each other in an open floor plan, Spiegel’s office towers over the building's old lobby at the top of a flight of stairs. The door to the office is locked and protected by a special keypad."
In every company I've been in that uses open offices, the executives get closed door offices.
> To the group’s surprise, the meeting was in the security room, where Snap's security guards are stationed, according to one person familiar with the matter.
Isn't this a matter of safety? I remember this historical story at one large company I worked at: after a layoff, the employee returned to his manager's office with a gun. Thankfully, the situation was defused.
> Beyond vague statements like “building the world’s best camera” and making “communication more real and authentic,” there’s little-to-no communication inside Snap about what’s in the pipeline.
Just about every company...
> “There were times when we would do PowerPoint presentations, and you literally would spend 50% of the time formatting it,” one of the former executives Business Insider spoke to recounted. “What shade of yellow, that sort of thing.”
Just like any big company!
I have nothing for or against Snapchat. It reads like a poorly crafted hit piece against the CEO.
At most companies I've worked for, the CEO didn't even really have a desk because they never used it anyways. They're always in meetings or out of office, so they had a regular old desk assigned to them, but it was usually empty. (and they were all open plan)
Seems every company handles this different. When I had an internship at Polk Audio I was warned not to go near the executive offices nor to make eye contact with Matt Polk. Initially I thought people were joking but when I walked near the executive offices one time I thought the secretary was going to have a seizure.
(Note this was before they sold the company; I'd imagine it's different now with a different executive team)
My current employer (Life360) and former employer (Flywheel) both had the CEO and all other executives working at desks in the open floorplans.
I think that there comes a size of company where that gets impractical, and Snap is probably at least that size. But it's by no means crazy for execs to work in the open floorplan.
According to a LinkedIn query, admittedly a coarse metric for current headcount, Snapchat has 1290 current employees (includes founders, etc as well) [1]. Crunchbase says 101–250. They seem to have somewhat intentionally disappeared off of AngelList with just 3 employees listed.
Edit: LinkedIn is not too far off from what's mentioned in the article:
> The top-secret Snap Labs group overseeing the Spectacles is such a priority that the group earlier this year set a goal of hiring 200 people in just sixty days, according to the staffer who left. The hiring plan was especially aggressive for a company whose total headcount is just above 1,000 employees.
> In every company I've been in that uses open offices, the executives get closed door offices.
Same here though it's interesting that it's in a separate space that is above the rest of the space at Snap. But they're probably just using whatever space was there.
> Just about every company...
Are you sure? Every company I've been apart of, even large companies, I usually know some of what's coming down the pipe. I usually know enough details about future developments to know that, when I make a decision development wise, I can be sure it'll continue to work when products X, Y and Z ship. Though to be fair after a certain size it's just not feasible to know of all upcoming products.
I'm curious if there are any statistics available regarding employees in tech companies and their knowledge of upcoming products.
For the most part it does seem similar to many tech startups, especially in California. I think the point the author was trying to make about the CEO's office was that Spiegel's is at the top of its own stairway, literally looking down on the lobby and towering over everyone else. On the other hand their offices are scattered among many buildings around town, so it's probably not as menacing as the description makes it sound.
Really? The piece seemed to have a fairly balanced mix of praise and criticism. "Hit pieces" don't usually praise the vision of the person they're profiling.
I didn't get the sense it was a hit piece really, just seemed informative to me. The only employees who are going to give interviews I guess have a negative slant though and that shines through.
> In every company I've been in that uses open offices, the executives get closed door offices.
That's a relic of the past! Silicon Valley has almost entirely embraced the HP culture where even the CEOs are in cubicles or open desks just like everyone else.
Though it is true that some conference rooms seem perpetually unbookable...
(This was true of Hewlett and Packard as well -- they had cubicles like everyone else, but they also had dedicated "meeting rooms" which are still preserved today, not the HP really survives...).
BTW I agree with your assessment: "reads like a poorly crafted hit piece against the CEO."
That's true, and he's very frequently seen on the Menlo Park campus.
But on the other hand, I worked from FB's NYC office for two years, and Zuckerberg did not visit the office even one single time during that period. Or at least, if he did visit, it certainly wasn't publicized, nor was it something that employees could attend.
And that's despite the NYC office being the company's 3rd-largest (by headcount), and despite Zuck making a few publicized appearances at other third-party events in NYC. (Also his sister lives here, and his parents are just north of the city...)
Personally I found it demoralizing, but I know others who didn't really care.
Zuckerberg has a conference room that is indefinitely reserved for his use. So ostensibly he has a desk like everyone else, but practically speaking he has a private office that he spends all his time in.
If you walk through campus it's the room with the "don't take pictures of the animals" sign on it.
In at least one startup I worked for, the founder sat in the same open office as everyone else (except the sales team that had a sound-insulated room). The company was about 50 people, though, about an order of magnitude smaller than Snapchat.
Business Insider is a pretty trashy "news" website, and to me most everything the article says could apply to modern Silicon Valley culture in general—Snap[chat] just happens to be in LA instead. In fact, I see a lot of HBO's "Silicon Valley" in Snap.
I'm not trying to defend Snap, but these are criticisms that are broadly applicable to many tech companies. The stupid open offices. Executives isolated from ordinary people and reality, on retreats that sound like a "Silicon Valley" punchline. Pretending your company is making the world a better place when you're mostly just building yet another lucrative advertising platform.
Yeah, I got a chuckle out of the author being offended that Snap wouldn't confirm the Spectacles project when Business Insider asked, and then it was announced officially by the Wall Street Journal later that same day.
Sounds like a good strategy to not confirm leaks by a notorious content mill when you have an official announcement prepared by one of the most respected news organizations in the country.
There's a lot to be said about a charismatic, detail-oriented, and conventionally attractive leader who maintains an air of celebrity, mystery, and untouchability about themselves. Spiegel projects the image of someone who's 'made it', which compares favorably with the sort of founder who displays those traits but hasn't yet executed, or the sort of person who executed but lacks that aspirational relatability.
To me, this didn't seem like a hit piece -- one person's hit is another's hype, and I think Snap understands the power of hype (-> excitement).
For a while now, their Android product has been atrocious, while iOS is thriving. For a platform that famously shunned Windows Mobile as uncool, is this intentional, or just a byproduct of their haphazard management and either lack of skill or dreadful luck?
I feel Facebook's relentless copying of Snapchat will cause them to pivot more and more into being a media-like company. In this article today, I learned they were already staffed in a way to enable such a transition.
However, this article is absent about how this company culture affects morale of the staff, and we are left to speculate.
I just got an iPhone for the first time after many years of Android. I was sick of the Android versions of most popular apps being much worse/buggier than their iOS counterpart. It's not just Snap.
From what i understand, (I could be VERY VERY wrong), Evan idols Steve Jobs (and exclusively uses Apple products). Hence, the iOS app gets insanely well tested and developed while the android app is created because of it's market share (just having an iOS app would not allow Snap to get to where they are today).
All that said, Android (even today) has that uncool vibe to it (generally it's considered a cheaper alternative to a better platform -iOS) and that has not helped either.
FYI all the above are NOT my personal opinions but generalizations based on what I've heard talking to people that are not into tech. (I use a 6P as my daily phone)
Does anyone else find it odd how many articles point out that the CEOs all want to be Steve Jobs.
Snapchat, Theranos, etc.
I understand that Steve Jobs was very successful and changed the world and all that, but his biography also implied he was a pretty big asshole and very arrogant.
Jobs' success justified his controlling jerk persona. These guys generally have huge egos and wish they could get away with being assholes too like Steve did. His personality is what they aspire to, not his success.
it's especially annoying when your company is selling expensive products to professionals, and then you get a new batch of executives who want to sell watered down cheap versions of the product to consumers who don't need it. they have some vision that you've only really succeeded once you are selling to the masses.
>"Evan Spiegel, the 26-year-old cofounder and CEO, moves across the company’s network of Venice Beach outposts in a black Range Rover, flanked by his security detail."
Security detail? Why would he need or want this?
This piece is pretty horrifying. Is it possible that this is just a hatchet job designed to hurt Snapchats image as an employer?
>His net worth exists only on paper until theres a liquidity event.
Point is he's high profile and has a lot to lose.
If I were on track for being a billionaire many times over, I'd probably be a little paranoid too.
Besides, for all we know he could have received specific threats and his security arrangement is completely justified. Granted, secrecy and paranoia often do go hand-in-hand.
>Employees can flash their badges to get a free meal at local restaurants, ...
The main takeaway I gleaned from this article is: if you ever find yourself homeless in the Venice Beach area, just fashion a fake Snap employee badge and dress to look the part. Why use a SNAP card when you can use a Snap badge!
If circumstance has it you're chit-chatting with real employees in line at a restaurant, just tell them the reason they've never seen you at any of the offices is that you're working on a super secret project at an undisclosed neighborhood location.
Maybe it's how I dress, look, or the conversation we're having, but several times I've been on Abbot Kinney and the barista (or whatever) working the register has asked "Oh, just put this on the Snapchat account?"
(I've never said "yes." Maybe if I did they would then proceed to ask for an ID, but I doubt it.)
I'll take what might be a contrarian perspective to say that I don't necessarily think this is bad. Apple has always been very secretive internally pre-launch of a major new product too. Seems like it's worked out okay. There are tradeoffs of course but top-down information opaqueness seems to be the norm more than the exception at companies this big.
> Compared to the "dogfooding" tradition in many tech companies, where employees try out their products before releasing them to the public, most Snap employees don’t know when a new product is coming — regardless if it would affect their team’s long-term metrics or goals. When the company launched Lenses, its famous filters that morph people’s faces, most employees learned about it for the first time on the company blog post announcing it to the world.
> This strategy has been somewhat effective at quelling leaks, but has also alienated people from knowing the direction the company is going in.
obviously a biased piece to make snap and spiegel look bad. the product is great, even if it's garbage on android.
but it's really no secret that spiegel is arrogant and it shows. He pressured his rich parents to buy him nice cars in high school to fit in better, his leaked college emails, kicked out the founder who came up with the snapchat idea, etc.
I went to a hackathon in college when he was like 22 or 23, showed up wearing a suit and gave a speech with JFK quotes like some 20 year F500 executive would. comes off as a tryhard but his strategies are obviously working really well so who cares. keep at it, love the product.
58 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadI still think they're one slip up away from disappearing, but I've got to give them credit for building the way they did.
I've heard that argued too. I wonder if that's true or if it was an accidental, but apparently fortuitous, side effect of having a confusing UI.
But apparently part of the issue with the Android app is excessive lag, which can't be explained away as a UI decision.
Instagram's efforts seem to accommodate (and be championed by) so-called "influencers," people who make funny videos or pose half naked to attract large numbers of followers, and then cash in by promoting herbal teas, waist trainers, clothing brands, apps, etc.
That's the community Instagram is cultivating, and since there are large audiences following this stuff, apparently it's a good business strategy. Still, Snapchat is targeting a different audience by not courting influencers. We may end up with two platforms with similar features but with different demographics.
> While other Snap employees and executives sit next to each other in an open floor plan, Spiegel’s office towers over the building's old lobby at the top of a flight of stairs. The door to the office is locked and protected by a special keypad."
In every company I've been in that uses open offices, the executives get closed door offices.
> To the group’s surprise, the meeting was in the security room, where Snap's security guards are stationed, according to one person familiar with the matter.
Isn't this a matter of safety? I remember this historical story at one large company I worked at: after a layoff, the employee returned to his manager's office with a gun. Thankfully, the situation was defused.
> Beyond vague statements like “building the world’s best camera” and making “communication more real and authentic,” there’s little-to-no communication inside Snap about what’s in the pipeline.
Just about every company...
> “There were times when we would do PowerPoint presentations, and you literally would spend 50% of the time formatting it,” one of the former executives Business Insider spoke to recounted. “What shade of yellow, that sort of thing.”
Just like any big company!
I have nothing for or against Snapchat. It reads like a poorly crafted hit piece against the CEO.
But I agree with your assessment.
(Note this was before they sold the company; I'd imagine it's different now with a different executive team)
I think that there comes a size of company where that gets impractical, and Snap is probably at least that size. But it's by no means crazy for execs to work in the open floorplan.
Edit: LinkedIn is not too far off from what's mentioned in the article:
> The top-secret Snap Labs group overseeing the Spectacles is such a priority that the group earlier this year set a goal of hiring 200 people in just sixty days, according to the staffer who left. The hiring plan was especially aggressive for a company whose total headcount is just above 1,000 employees.
[1]: https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?f_CC=3186630&trk=rr_conne...
Same here though it's interesting that it's in a separate space that is above the rest of the space at Snap. But they're probably just using whatever space was there.
> Just about every company...
Are you sure? Every company I've been apart of, even large companies, I usually know some of what's coming down the pipe. I usually know enough details about future developments to know that, when I make a decision development wise, I can be sure it'll continue to work when products X, Y and Z ship. Though to be fair after a certain size it's just not feasible to know of all upcoming products.
I'm curious if there are any statistics available regarding employees in tech companies and their knowledge of upcoming products.
That's a relic of the past! Silicon Valley has almost entirely embraced the HP culture where even the CEOs are in cubicles or open desks just like everyone else.
Though it is true that some conference rooms seem perpetually unbookable...
(This was true of Hewlett and Packard as well -- they had cubicles like everyone else, but they also had dedicated "meeting rooms" which are still preserved today, not the HP really survives...).
BTW I agree with your assessment: "reads like a poorly crafted hit piece against the CEO."
Seems like nobody connects the dots that developers need a distraction free place to work as well.
No. Mark Zuckerberg does not have a "office towers over the building's old lobby at the top of the flight of stairs". At least not in 2015.[1]
[1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-virtual-tour-...
But on the other hand, I worked from FB's NYC office for two years, and Zuckerberg did not visit the office even one single time during that period. Or at least, if he did visit, it certainly wasn't publicized, nor was it something that employees could attend.
And that's despite the NYC office being the company's 3rd-largest (by headcount), and despite Zuck making a few publicized appearances at other third-party events in NYC. (Also his sister lives here, and his parents are just north of the city...)
Personally I found it demoralizing, but I know others who didn't really care.
If you walk through campus it's the room with the "don't take pictures of the animals" sign on it.
I'm not trying to defend Snap, but these are criticisms that are broadly applicable to many tech companies. The stupid open offices. Executives isolated from ordinary people and reality, on retreats that sound like a "Silicon Valley" punchline. Pretending your company is making the world a better place when you're mostly just building yet another lucrative advertising platform.
Sounds like a good strategy to not confirm leaks by a notorious content mill when you have an official announcement prepared by one of the most respected news organizations in the country.
To me, this didn't seem like a hit piece -- one person's hit is another's hype, and I think Snap understands the power of hype (-> excitement).
For a while now, their Android product has been atrocious, while iOS is thriving. For a platform that famously shunned Windows Mobile as uncool, is this intentional, or just a byproduct of their haphazard management and either lack of skill or dreadful luck?
I feel Facebook's relentless copying of Snapchat will cause them to pivot more and more into being a media-like company. In this article today, I learned they were already staffed in a way to enable such a transition.
However, this article is absent about how this company culture affects morale of the staff, and we are left to speculate.
All that said, Android (even today) has that uncool vibe to it (generally it's considered a cheaper alternative to a better platform -iOS) and that has not helped either.
FYI all the above are NOT my personal opinions but generalizations based on what I've heard talking to people that are not into tech. (I use a 6P as my daily phone)
Snapchat, Theranos, etc.
I understand that Steve Jobs was very successful and changed the world and all that, but his biography also implied he was a pretty big asshole and very arrogant.
Security detail? Why would he need or want this?
This piece is pretty horrifying. Is it possible that this is just a hatchet job designed to hurt Snapchats image as an employer?
Given his worth it's not hard to justify. The world has plenty of criminals and mentally unstable people.
Interestingly, the satellite office model that the article decries strikes me as a huge boon in physical security for both him and his employees.
That said, if I were a Snap employee I'd probably have a field day with the jokes anyways.
"The Emperor's coming here? We shall double our efforts!"
His net worth exists only on paper until theres a liquidity event.
I've spent time in both Unicorns and hedge funds and none of the founders have had body guards, at least not at the office.
Point is he's high profile and has a lot to lose.
If I were on track for being a billionaire many times over, I'd probably be a little paranoid too.
Besides, for all we know he could have received specific threats and his security arrangement is completely justified. Granted, secrecy and paranoia often do go hand-in-hand.
The main takeaway I gleaned from this article is: if you ever find yourself homeless in the Venice Beach area, just fashion a fake Snap employee badge and dress to look the part. Why use a SNAP card when you can use a Snap badge!
If circumstance has it you're chit-chatting with real employees in line at a restaurant, just tell them the reason they've never seen you at any of the offices is that you're working on a super secret project at an undisclosed neighborhood location.
Maybe it's how I dress, look, or the conversation we're having, but several times I've been on Abbot Kinney and the barista (or whatever) working the register has asked "Oh, just put this on the Snapchat account?"
(I've never said "yes." Maybe if I did they would then proceed to ask for an ID, but I doubt it.)
> Compared to the "dogfooding" tradition in many tech companies, where employees try out their products before releasing them to the public, most Snap employees don’t know when a new product is coming — regardless if it would affect their team’s long-term metrics or goals. When the company launched Lenses, its famous filters that morph people’s faces, most employees learned about it for the first time on the company blog post announcing it to the world.
> This strategy has been somewhat effective at quelling leaks, but has also alienated people from knowing the direction the company is going in.
but it's really no secret that spiegel is arrogant and it shows. He pressured his rich parents to buy him nice cars in high school to fit in better, his leaked college emails, kicked out the founder who came up with the snapchat idea, etc.
I went to a hackathon in college when he was like 22 or 23, showed up wearing a suit and gave a speech with JFK quotes like some 20 year F500 executive would. comes off as a tryhard but his strategies are obviously working really well so who cares. keep at it, love the product.