I am having a hard time following this comment. Are you suggesting that Jason Fried doesn't run 37signals in the manner he's talking about here? If so, then on information & belief, you're wrong.
If you're just saying that you think owning equity in a company not run the way he runs his own company undercuts everything he writes... ok, but what a boring objection to raise.
A board seat is a lot different from just holding equity. I own HPQ, RIMM, and YHOO, and if I had a board seat in any, my push would be for sale and getting rid of everyone above the first layer of management and engineers. (Boardmembers can't do this directly, but can work with shareholders and management, and ultimately hire competent CEOs)
It gives an unwarranted endorsement to GRPN; their business practices are fairly reprehensible, so if a marginal investor or marginal small business customer gets screwed because a well respected guy lent credibility to their board, it's a poor choice for him.
Do you really believe any of this comment? You're a pretty smart guy. I don't believe you think anyone reads this article and thinks Fried is saying Groupon runs that way, or that Fried is in any way endorsing how Groupon is run.
I know this is a message board and we're all committing message board thinking, but snap out of it for just a second.
We're talking about a real person --- a person who by the way is posting on this very thread --- who runs a real business. From what I've seen of that business, it runs, successfully, the way he describes it. I wish we'd stop talking as if Fried was Chairman Mao and we're really debating global communism.
Not based on the article at all -- just the general argument of "someone holding a board seat at a company is more of an endorsement than merely owning stock". There are people I respect who have board seats at really dysfunctional big tech companies, too, so maybe the argument doesn't work.
He's a great CEO (at least in the context of 37 Signals), and has a set of values which are internally consistent, and sits on a board of a company which is inconsistent with those values. I'm not sure how to reconcile this with my belief that boardmembers have a responsibility to exert governance and oversight over their companies.
Based on reading his responses elsewhere in the thread (left the board in 2010, was his first board seat, novelty, etc.), it makes more sense. I guess I am overly sensitized to passive board members from watching HP, Yahoo!, eBay, RIMM, etc.
Right -- so this whole thread is essentially people trying to troll him, which I didn't understand until reading the rest of the context and postings on other 37S articles. (and Groupon early days was fine). I assumed it was brought up because it was relevant to now.
Simple version: If he thinks and thought the Groupon scenario is "absolutely disgusting" why did he advise, take a board position, and retain shares in an "absolutely disgusting" venture?
You're just a little obsessed with parsing his every word. Maybe he did find Groupon's growth absolutely disgusting. Maybe he didn't. Either way, he was asked to participate and give advice, which is what he did. One can do that and not be thrilled with everything going on. We're not talking about criminal activity here, just one of many ways to run a business.
A bit confused why downmodded for responding to a request for clarification with a clarification. If you don't like the original post, isn't downmodding that enough for you?
If you're just saying that you think owning equity in a company not run the way he runs his own company undercuts everything he writes... ok, but what a boring objection to raise.