Tony Hsieh's Email to Employees RE: Zappos' Sale to Amazon(blogs.zappos.com)
blogs.zappos.com
Tony Hsieh's Email to Employees RE: Zappos' Sale to Amazon
http://blogs.zappos.com/ceoletter
33 comments
I remember people being disappointed about Bezos's talk last year at Startup School; it felt less like a personal startup story and more like an advertisement for Amazon Web Services. If he'd given a talk more like the one in the video, I doubt anyone would have been complaining.
He taught everyone something really important: If you're in a big room full of perfect potential customers make sure you tell them to buy your product!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hxX_Q5CnaA
The link to the video.
I never realized how much of a geek Bezos is until watching this video.
Really awesome to see!
Really awesome to see!
Same here! My business partner and I recently launched an e-commerce site selling gun supplies and accessories. We're doing very well, but still text message each other when we get a new order. Still get that same thrill from the first order!
That is an excellent example of how to communicate like a person when you're speaking for a company. For the sake of Zappos' employees let's hope they manage to uphold not just the explicit promises made in this letter, but the implicit one of connection and caring that are carried by the tone.
The real measure of a letter like this is how it reads six months from now.
The real measure of a letter like this is how it reads six months from now.
Really? This sounds like a person? Honestly, it reads like The Letter Every CEO Of An Acquired Company Must Write.
[x] "Nothing will change!" [until we get around to changing it]
[x] "Your jobs are safe" [see point one]
[x] "It's about synergy, not money" (extra credit for using the phrase "high touch")
[x] "Nothing will change!" [until we get around to changing it]
[x] "Your jobs are safe" [see point one]
[x] "It's about synergy, not money" (extra credit for using the phrase "high touch")
"3) We want to align ourselves with a shareholder and partner that thinks really long term (like we do at Zappos), as well as do what’s in the best interest of our existing shareholders and investors."
I read that as there was pressure from a shareholder for the short term. Some board member was pushing for an exit.
I read that as there was pressure from a shareholder for the short term. Some board member was pushing for an exit.
My understanding is that this was the case. I've seen some articles indicating that Zappos has struggled to meet the short-term financial goals of some of the investors, while staying aligned to its long-term objectives. So somebody was wanting to distribute their capital gains to their LPs.
Reading this email or the one by Autodesk's founder (http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_22.html) sometimes leave me with questions on why most people can't take this more "like-a-person" approach in communication.
Most letters from top management that i know of are usually boring and i rarely understand the whole information (usually i ditched it far before i can get through the whole formal languages)
Most letters from top management that i know of are usually boring and i rarely understand the whole information (usually i ditched it far before i can get through the whole formal languages)
they're normally written by lawyers and advisors. To partially answer your question - you should check out the SEC guidance on this kind of thing - it's not easy telling people you're about to engage in a massive deal that impacts lots and lots of people with lots and lots of money.
Sure. I can understand that. I am no expert in legal system, but, is it illegal to send out something that is legally correct AND/OR maybe accompany by another letter that practically is more human-readable?
After all, what's the point of the letter if no one is reading it?
After all, what's the point of the letter if no one is reading it?
It's not so much a matter of "illegal" as "unwise" (and hence prevented by lawyers).
Securities law is large, well-established, and quite complex. Especially in the early stages of a merger, there are very clear legal restrictions on what you can and can't say, and very high requirements for precision in reporting.
Legal statements of this type (as you can see in the last paragraph) are meant to be very specific, and to say one thing only (and make it almost impossible to interpret it any other way). Casual conversation is designed to be pretty much correct, and leave some details unsaid/to common understanding. The clash comes in that it's hard to say something that's as precise as you need without sounding like a robot.
When you're thinking about things like this, don't think about Tony Hsieh, who seems (by all reports) to be a pretty open and upstanding guy. Think about the most fraudulent and deceptive private CEO you could imagine trying to merge his company with the most fraudulent and deceptive public company you can imagine. They're the people that these laws are designed to regulate - so that they can't say something in "casual English" which one would normally read one way, but could be read (and they would read) in a nefarious way. to disrupt he market.
Law is, in some ways, like an obscure form of math or engineering. We could say "the Fourier transform of a function is equal to the integral of the function times e^-i", which is broadly correct, but not sufficiently precise to understand what is going on and react accordingly. Instead, we specify it exactly and boringly in a domain-specific language, not unlike certain aspects of law.
Securities law is large, well-established, and quite complex. Especially in the early stages of a merger, there are very clear legal restrictions on what you can and can't say, and very high requirements for precision in reporting.
Legal statements of this type (as you can see in the last paragraph) are meant to be very specific, and to say one thing only (and make it almost impossible to interpret it any other way). Casual conversation is designed to be pretty much correct, and leave some details unsaid/to common understanding. The clash comes in that it's hard to say something that's as precise as you need without sounding like a robot.
When you're thinking about things like this, don't think about Tony Hsieh, who seems (by all reports) to be a pretty open and upstanding guy. Think about the most fraudulent and deceptive private CEO you could imagine trying to merge his company with the most fraudulent and deceptive public company you can imagine. They're the people that these laws are designed to regulate - so that they can't say something in "casual English" which one would normally read one way, but could be read (and they would read) in a nefarious way. to disrupt he market.
Law is, in some ways, like an obscure form of math or engineering. We could say "the Fourier transform of a function is equal to the integral of the function times e^-i", which is broadly correct, but not sufficiently precise to understand what is going on and react accordingly. Instead, we specify it exactly and boringly in a domain-specific language, not unlike certain aspects of law.
the term 'illegal' here is hard and complex.
Securities law is harder and more complex. :)
IANAL, but anything you do say on a deal can be used as evidence in a deal- even posts to twitter. Remember also, the deal may still not complete, depending on amazon's terms of business and if their shareholders need to vote on it.
The SEC's job is to try and protect everyone's financial interests - and to prevent people from gaming the system. Part of that is to regulate how and what people say during a transaction such as this.
But- the letter is being read, as will all the analyst reports and so on thru wall street... it's just that they speak in a different language- call it their own code. :)
Securities law is harder and more complex. :)
IANAL, but anything you do say on a deal can be used as evidence in a deal- even posts to twitter. Remember also, the deal may still not complete, depending on amazon's terms of business and if their shareholders need to vote on it.
The SEC's job is to try and protect everyone's financial interests - and to prevent people from gaming the system. Part of that is to regulate how and what people say during a transaction such as this.
But- the letter is being read, as will all the analyst reports and so on thru wall street... it's just that they speak in a different language- call it their own code. :)
I think though that in general, Tony at Zappos cultivates a pretty open image about him and the company. Anything you read from them is really light on the legalese with clear thoughts. There are a few other notable CEOs that take this approach, but most do not.
You have to respect a company that doesn't try and squash communication, but instead releases a letter to its employees to the public blog like this.
Q: Will we get a discount at Amazon?
No, because we are planning on continuing to run Zappos as a separate company with our own culture and core values. And we're not going to be giving the Zappos discount to Amazon employees either, unless they bake us cookies and deliver them in person.
By all accounts a fascinating culture. I wish them well!
No, because we are planning on continuing to run Zappos as a separate company with our own culture and core values. And we're not going to be giving the Zappos discount to Amazon employees either, unless they bake us cookies and deliver them in person.
By all accounts a fascinating culture. I wish them well!
I think the handwritten points on the flipchart are an excellent touch by Bezos and likely resonated with the Zappos employees. Even better if it was organic rather than by design.
For those that missed the video, Bezos's points: - Obsess over customers - Invent - Think long term - It's always Day 1
For those that missed the video, Bezos's points: - Obsess over customers - Invent - Think long term - It's always Day 1
The reality often is that acquisitions are good for the founders who cash out after their holding period expires, but aren't good for the employees who are left holding the bag.
How are employees left holding the bag here exactly?
Employees with shares, options or RSUs of Zappos private stock now have the same on a publicly traded stock. There may be a holding period for them as well, but every time that I've been an employee at a company that's gone public or been bought by a public company (1 of the first and 2 of the second), the only bags I've been left holding were full of $$.
Employees with shares, options or RSUs of Zappos private stock now have the same on a publicly traded stock. There may be a holding period for them as well, but every time that I've been an employee at a company that's gone public or been bought by a public company (1 of the first and 2 of the second), the only bags I've been left holding were full of $$.
Almost a downer, I didnt think that tony was the kind of CEO who would sell out.
Somebody tell me it was the VC's.
Somebody tell me it was the VC's.
Somebody tell me it was the VCs
Happy to oblige:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=719049
Happy to oblige:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=719049
I like the very last question.
At the risk of sounding ignorant, what is zappos? I've never heard of them.
Let Me Google Is Your Friend That For You.
I'm curious as to why the parent is being downvoted. He asked an honest question that raises a valid point: Who are these guys, and if [he's] never heard of them, why is this news?
As far as I can tell, they're an online shoe store that focuses on customer service. I've never personally used them or been to their site, but I hear the occasional good story about them.
As far as I can tell, they're an online shoe store that focuses on customer service. I've never personally used them or been to their site, but I hear the occasional good story about them.
I think the parent was downvoted for asking people to explain it to him, versus typing "Zappos" into Google, and then clicking "Search".
"It was a great moment when we would examine every order coming into Amazon. And it was always a family member placing the order. And the first order we got from a stranger, I remember, there was probabaly 10 of us in the company. We were all gathered around after the bell rang, looking at the order. And we were like 'Is that your mom?', 'Thats not my mom!'. And thus, it began."
Can totally relate to this feeling.