Newest Content
Latest NYC Coverage
NY Web Tech Directory
Most Popular Content
Freshly Baked Jobs
Press Releases
New Interviews
Recent comments
- Re: Photo Sharing Site Photwo Goes Up For Auction
1 hour 30 min ago - Re: Photo Sharing Site Photwo Goes Up For Auction
2 hours 55 min ago - Re: Photo Sharing Site Photwo Goes Up For Auction
3 hours 39 min ago - Re: CenterNetworks Asks: How Many Web 2.0 Services Have Gone Mai
5 hours 59 min ago - Re: CenterNetworks Asks: How Many Web 2.0 Services Have Gone Mai
9 hours 59 min ago
Does Your Company Have Geek Cred?
It used to be that in the tech entrepreneurial culture, geeks were not prized, particularly in leadership. They were the folks that made the product, but they could not drive your business. You needed an MBA. Or a sales guy. The geeks were little more than the factory.
And I think, among many VCs, that is still the thinking. The strategy is to push the technical founder out of the way and make room for the *real* business people. But an interesting thing is happening in the marketplace. The customers are thinking different. If you look at the companies that are succeeding in the marketplace, the one thing that most of them have is geek cred. They are generally led by a tech focused leader, or the organizational DNA of the company is inherently technical.
This is because the Internet is an incredible truth filter. No slick-haired glad hander, or glossy marketing plan is going to convince a customer that a product that isn’t good really is. Because the geeks will figure it out. Geeks have power now. Email travels everywhere. Blogs are public and easily accessible. Regardless of where they are in an organization, truthful, perspectives can be heard. And so there is less friction preventing the good stuff from emerging. On the other hand, bad stuff is more often than not, smashed instantly. In other words, it is no longer possible to hide bulls**t with a coating of sugar.
If you look at the major Internet properties/companies today, we can draw an almost direct correlation between geek cred, and whether they are on their way up or down. While this is not an absolute because obviously companies can have good runs without any real technology, it is interesting to explore the correlation between geek cred and current success. Below is a review of some of the major companies geek cred factors, on a 1 - 10 scale. Yes there are a few zeros. This is not a mistake.
Have Geek Cred
Amazon / geek cred: 9
Amazon was always considered smart because they made collaborative filtering work, though their geek cred has skyrocketed in the last year as a result of Amazon Web Services (EC2,S3,etc.)
Google / geek cred: 10
Duh.
FaceBook / geek cred: 7
Facebook is led by a programmer. For this reason Facebook’s DNA is inherently programmerish. Releasing the Facebook API solidified that positioning, and exposed it to thousands of programmers. Also, Facebook is putting cool technology out into the open source. We geeks love that.
Apple / geek cred: 10
This is obvious, but Apple is the only real thought leader in consumer devices and computers. Now that their OS is Unix based, Apple has even more geek cred.
HP / geek cred: 8
HP has a geek culture that goes back to its founding, and its history as a maker of testing instruments and RPN calculators. Today, they are in the PC industry, and while they are certainly not thought leaders in that category (because there are none other than Apple), their leadership in imaging, ink chemistry, and the like, along with their heavily geekified storied past give them lifetime geek cred emeritus status.
Adobe / geek cred: 10
Geschke and Warnock were the ultimate geeks. They solved some of the hardest problems available to solve. Adobe calls their programmers "computer scientists." Adobe rocks, and all geeks know it, even if photoshop's UI does sucks.
Don’t Have Geek Cred
Yahoo / geek cred: 5
Yahoo never really had much geek cred. They were, after all, initially a human curated web directory, not a software company. They did come out of Stanford which gave them a shot but they never really could pull it off. Hiring Semel as CEO did horrible things to their geek karma. He was the ultimate anti-geek, and so, while he shored them up in the intermediate term, in the long term, having no geek cred may be fatal. The specific embodiment of this problem is their total inability to create competitive search technology.
eBay / geek cred: 2
Meg Whitman is a management consultant, not a geek. They have no significant tech in the company beyond operations expertise (the ability to scale). They have lots of sales expertise. But no hard core tech, and a horrible user experience. And now Meg is leaving and they are probably going to bring in the number two. Another non geek management consultant. The ultimate reflection of their non-geekiness is their purchase of Skype. They thought it was cool, but really had no idea what they were buying. No good geek would have done it.They look dumb.
MySpace / geek cred: 0
No tech at all. Their systems are based on Microsoft servers because Microsoft helped them. That drops you to zero immediately because no other major players are based on Microsoft. But even if they hadn't based everything on MS, MySpace is *painfully* geek free. You never see any MySpace employees on the tech lists I hang out in. I wonder whether any programmers work there :) The company has grown under Rupert Murdoch, but as a long term play, they will suffer the fate of AOL. Still, it was a brilliant cash flow generating purchase for Rupe.
Dell / geek cred: 2
Michael Dell doesn’t believe in tech. He is essentially anti-tech. This worked for a good long while, but now, not not developing *anything* is starting to look like a problem.
Motorola / geek cred: 4
They had great geek cred as a chip maker, and as a phone hardware maker. But they spun off chips, and phones have become about software as the hardware and manufacturing becomes a commodity. They have *no* geek cred in software. As a result they are in danger of shrinking to irrelevancy. The rats are leaving the sinking ship.
Palm / geek cred: 3
When Jeff Hawkins left, this was the end of Palm. It was a long time coming but it is here now. They have demonstrated no ability to do anything technical beyond milking the initial Palm Pilot innovation bone dry. Jon Rubinstein of iPod fame is the new chairman. I fear its too little too late. Like a liver transplant for a 110 year old man. The new rev of Palm’s OS is slated for 09. RIP.
IAC/ geek cred: 0
Barry Diller is brilliant, but not as the leader of a technology company. Barry, and the market, misperceived the Internet as being primarily about media. It isn’t. It is about access, which is about technology. Barry has failed because he thought IAC was going to be a media company. Not. They will continue to generate cash flow but there is no substantial growth there, even as 5 separate companies, as is the plan. He will ride out their incredibly lame tech like Palm, and the companies will all eventually become irrelevant as tech savvy competitors eat their lunch.
AOL / geek cred: 0
AOL never had any geek cred, even when they should have in the very beginning. This was a failure in leadership, because they were in a position to have great geek cred. Their failure became apparent to all geeks when they made it clear they didn’t believe in the Internet. Instead, Steve Case viewed them entirely as a media company. This killed them. Though, for AOL shareholders, the merger with Time Warner was brilliant financial engineering for those that got out in time.
Losing it But Not Lost
Microsoft / geek cred: 6
Microsoft is, perhaps, a unique situation. They have lots of great technology and are incredibly smart. But they are losing their geek cred. Talent is leaving. And they are flat footed in response to the Internet. They will not die any time soon, but it seems they really don’t get the Internet. And Bill Gates’ lionizing of Ray Ozzie I don’t get. Notes? Ugh. Groove. Double Ugh? They do have long term geek cred, but they may not be able to capture any Internet mojo.
Nokia / geek cred: 6
Nokia has the same problem as Motorola, they are just slightly better positioned. Nokia has hardware cred, but no software geek cred. Their handset hardware has been highly valued for many years. But hardware is becoming a commodity. They partnered with and invested in Symbian to gain some software cred. But this failed as Symbian is viewed with disdain by most of the software development community. Now software is key and they are looking down the Apple gun barrel. Though the analysts haven’t picked up on this yet, because Nokia is kicking Motorola's teeth in. But Nokia’s time will come. They cannot become a software company. The die is cast.
This article was authored by Hank Williams who is a New York-based entrepreneur who recently launched a new blog: Why Does Everything Suck? exploring the tech marketplace from 10,000 feet.











I think the real question is, do your customers care about 'geek cred'?
If the answer is yes, then you need it. If it's no, then so what?
So let me get this straight: hypothetically, if a company "succeeds" because consumers have an affinity for its geek cred, are these companies not just as guilty of coating bulls**t with sugar?
Personally, I think equating geek cred with success is naive. Outside of the small world of hardcore technology geeks who think Slashdot, Engadget, Ars Technica and TechCrunch are the greatest things since sliced bread, consumers are not deciding what products and services to used based on the "geek cred" of the companies that offer them.
Let's look at this list here:
1. Despite all the hype, MySpace still has more registered users, traffic and revenue than Facebook. Facebook's ability to monetize at a rate that justifies its recent valuation is questionable at best.
2. Amazon's success is driven by sales, not by Amazon Web Services. When institutional and retail investors look at Amazon's stock, I think it's safe to say that they're evaluating revenue growth and profitability more than they're evaluating how cool EC2 is.
3. Apple is a thought leader with substantial geek cred. That didn't stop investors from hammering the stock based upon a financial outlook they didn't like.
4. Google's stock is down significantly since the beginning of the year and while the company's aura may have played a role in buoying its inflated stock price the past several years, its impressive revenue growth is fueled by advertiser spending, not on all its geeky initiatives. Without that advertiser spending, it would have nothing of interest to investors.
5. Does anybody believe that the average consumer is sold on buying an HP printer or digital camera because they recognize HP's geeky history? Of course not. People buy based on perceived quality, selection and price.
6. Adobe makes products people want and need. People aren't buying Adobe products simply because Adobe "rocks."
7. Claiming that Yahoo's lack of geek cred is going to do the company in has to be one of the most amusing comments I've read recently. Yahoo's problems have a lot more to do with mismanagement than lack of geek expertise.
8. Meg Whitman led eBay to where it is today - a company with a $40 billion market cap. It's the leading auction platform on the Internet and one of the most recognized consumer Internet brands. The Skype acquisition may have been dumb, but overall, I the people behind eBay are laughing all the way to the bank.
9. Michael Dell was a leading innovator of direct-to-consumer sales and just-in-time manufacturing in the PC industry. It made him a billionaire. Dell's recent problems are more the result of increased competition and commoditization than they are of consumers getting mad that he's supposedly "anti-tech" (according to Hank).
10. Palm's decline is related to lack of technology innovation, but that's primarily due to a failure to execute and a failure to adapt to the competition.
11. IAC owns some of the Internet's most recognized brands. In 2006, it turned a profit of $192 million on revenues of $6.2 billion. Apparently Diller, however, never received the news tech-savvy competitors are eating his lunch. And yes, the Internet is about media. The mainstream consumers that are using services like MySpace and YouTube are doing so because of the entertainment value, not because they now have some sort of ideological "access."
12. Most mergers fail. AOL-Time Warner was no exception. But AOL's decline was not due to a lack of geek cred. Again, increased competition, especially as broadband became more affordable, made it almost impossible for AOL to maintain its grip on the ISP market.
13. Almost 264 million handsets shipped in the second quarter of 2007. In that quarter, Nokia continued its consolidation of the market and has the greatest marketshare of any handset manufacturer. Motorola saw decreased marketshare. I'm sure Hank will tell us that when consumers around the world went to pick out their handset, they asked "Who's geekier?"
14. Microsoft is a massive, mature business and the company acts like one. An intelligent person would not expect that a company the size of Microsoft to dominate all new markets (like the Internet), retain all the employees it's made wealthy beyond belief and attract young job seekers who prefer stock options over salary. And despite being less innovative than Apple, it still dominates the markets they compete in.
Bottom line:
1. Geek cred only matters to geeks. Mainstream consumers, who still make up the vast majority of the population, don't care. Mainstream investors are influenced by the almighty dollar, not who's geekier.
2. All massively successful companies inevitably hit a growth plateau and it becomes hip to root for the underdogs who come along hoping to take them out. If anyone hasn't noticed, this is even starting to happen to Google. It's just the natural order of things.
Drama,
Look at the list one more time.
How many of the companies on the list that are tech driven (geek cred) and perceived as doing well? How about in reverse? Correlation? Accident?
Wow. Dead on comment.
The internet and tech innovation is all about media, Wall Street analyst hitting their numbers, and page views.
We can't dump on it like a truck. It's a series of tubes.
Suit.
Wow. Dead on comment from #2.
The internet and technological innovation is all about media, Wall Street analyst hitting their numbers, and page views.
We can't dump on it like a truck. It's a series of tubes.
Suit.
No offense Hank, but if you really believe that the companies *you* perceive as being the most highly perceived by the market are being perceived that way because *you* perceive them as having the most geek cred, I think you're being incredibly naive. Right off the bat, the entire argument is foolish because there is no quantitative measurement for "geek cred." Everything you've posted here is opinion. One could probably argue very well that Microsoft, for instance, is substantively actually more technologically innovative than Google is.
But let's play this game anyway. Take the publicly-traded companies on your list, excluding AOL (which is a division of a much larger Time Warner). 4 of the 5 companies with the highest annual *profits* (for the last fiscal year reported) are on your "Don’t Have Geek Cred" and "Losing it But Not Lost" lists. 2 are on the "Don’t Have Geek Cred" list and 2 are on the "Losing it But Not Lost" list. In terms of the two social networks, as I pointed out earlier, MySpace (with no geek cred), still has far greater traffic and revenue than Facebook (with tons of geek cred).
Maybe all that matters in the small world of technology geeks is this notion of being perceived as doing well. In the real world, however, money talks and bullshit walks. And when you look at who is earning the most money, your theory seems to fall flat. Business and success are much more complicated than "geek cred."
Now, now drama. Dont be so, err... dramatic.
Indeed opinions are subjective. Yours, mine, all of them. On that we can agree. Nevertheless analysts seem to fashion opinions about companies and their trajectories all the time, subjective though they may be. These perspectives take far more into account that revenue. The companies (and divisions) that I have labeled as not having geek cred, are all generally accepted to be err... having trouble. The ones with it are generally accepted to be doing well. If we can't agree on this then there really isn't much more to discuss.
By the way, in case you missed it, geek cred, is a metaphor for actually having some technical mojo. Being able to deliver complex products that are technically respected. Thats *why* they have geek cred. If you don't think that's important, well we will just have to agree to disagree. Seems pretty basic to me.
"geek cred" is just a codeword for "cult appeal." and being associated with a cult is generally bad. the most successful (and profitable) companies strive for broad appeal as the numbers show.
Certainly Jeff left back when he founded Handspring. But they acquired Handspring and Jeff is back there. Seriously, you should check your facts!
After I reading half-way through this article I scrolled back to the top to check the post date (expecting to see something like 1997). You are astonishingly out of touch.