Why Facebook is Killing Great Products
In February, young entrepreneur Mike Matas, a founder of Push Pop Press, gave a demonstration of a new kind of interactive digital book that floored the audience at TED. New York Times tech guru David Pogue called the book, created with Al Gore, "one of the most elegant, fluid, impressive apps you've ever seen."
Yesterday, the product died, killed off by the company's new owner, Facebook. FB purchased Push Pop Press not to get into the publishing business, but rather to use the technology. But what Mark Zuckerberg really wanted, I suspect, was Matas, one of the pioneering minds behind Apple's gesture technology, and his talented team.
Facebook has been on a product killing spree of late: Drop.io, Hot Potato, Beluga, and FriendFeed, to name a few. Zuckerberg makes no bones about his intent: "Facebook has not once bought a company for the company itself. We buy companies to get excellent people," Zuckerberg said last fall.
The fact is, many high tech companies are on the same path, acquiring hot companies to get either the technology, the people, or both. The most notorious example: Cisco's purchase, then shuttering, of Flip.
All these moves make perfect business sense. Or do they?
Zuckerberg believes that one great programmer is worth 100 average programmers. Tech capitalist Marc Andreessen has put the ratio at 1,000-to-one. So of course you start writing checks with lots of zeroes to attract these people and their teams. And then you kill off their spawn because their old business is not your focus.
But is top talent really that valuable? Can you build a company or product on the backs of high-flying individual performers, a team of Michael Jordans? This question over the value of superstars has ignited a spirited debate over on hbr.org, where Bill Taylor argues that great people are overrated.
"Have we become so culturally invested in the allure of the Free Agent, the lone wolf, the techno-rebel with a cause, that we are prepared to shower millions of dollars (maybe tens of millions) on a small number of superstars rather than a well-assembled team that may not dazzle with individual brilliance, but overwhelms with collective capability?"
Taylor's answer is clearly no. My answer is yes. When you hire great people you are also gaining an incredible multiplier effect. Back to Michael Jordan. He was the greatest single talent in the history of basketball, but he dialed back when necessary to lift the games of the more mediocre talent surrounding him.
The key to making this work is hiring the right superstars, the ones who want to contribute to the overall organization and not those who prefer to be locked in a room with a keyboard and a refrigerator full of Jolt Cola.
What do you think? Is one extremely talented worker worth 100 or 1,000 average ones?
Related Reading
- The Puzzling Case of Why Basketball Greats Also Make Great Coaches
- Managing Up, Down, Superstars, Bozos -- and Alphas
- Women Stars Outperform Men in New Jobs