Ok, so this is Startups for Employees 101. The warning signs to get out were here 1.5 years ago [1]. And they are:
1. Nut-bar egomaniac CEO bordering on the delusional; and
2. A business that probably should never take VC money. Producing content (which is what HQ Trivia does at the end of the day) is a notoriously hard business to scale. I can remember years ago when Rovio (remember when Angry Birds was a thing?) took VC money. Huge mistake. HUGE. It is seriously detrimental to your long term viability as a business that generates an income.
Minor nitpick, but Rovio seems to be doing ok. https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ROVIO:FH. Their price went down pretty hard after the IPO, but lately they've been trending up. They currently have a market cap of $500M. Would they ever have gotten that far without VC? Their only big raise was $42M, if Wikipedia is to be believed.
Of course it won't work out in the long run, but in the short term it might be fun and it'll employ some people for a few years. When the money runs out everybody can jump ship to other, equally nonviable, startups and do it over again.
Media companies can most certainly be massive multi bil companies. There is a reason why telcos are buying up media companies (e.g. ATT buying Time Warner/HBO and Comcast buying NBC) and some of the richest billionaires are media tycoons.
I think HQ is on the right track but I don’t see the current team being the right team to turn it into the next big media play. The future of live TV should be heavily interactive.
I remember a previous post saying that the Host Scott Rogowsky would have an extreme pull in the company and would present a big risk if he ever left the company. I guess this company could try to pivot onto someone else but I'm not sure they have the ability to do so. (they cite themselves in the article)
I wouldn't be surprised. The host would appear to be the likable face of the company, and with the current CEO being a prick, he would be the preferred choice for the cover page. Lorne doesn't appear on every episode of SNL, Kenan Thompson and Kate MacKinnon are. (I do NOT imply that Lorne Michaels a prick)(but a business needs to use the faces that will market the product service better more effectively)
I didn't know their old CEO died of drug overdose...wow! That's crazy to think... bad luck? I wonder if VCs have C levels take any drug tests or carry pretty thorough background check on founders who they invest into?!
Drug use is rampant in silicon valley. You wouldn't be a very successful investor is drug use was a disqualifying factor.
Of course it depends what kind of drugs. Potheads don't make very good CEOs and Cocaine is usually associated with destructive behavior. A lot of people in tech do the occasional hallucinogens or ecstasy without much issues.
I think a mental health evaluation would be more prudent from the VC than a drug test. If they are struggling with addiction then that would come out in the mental health screen with the therapist, and instead of being denied opportunity during a fragile time of their life, they might actually get the help they need without ruining their life and finding themselves unemployed due to a failed drug test.
Huh? There's a political battle for CEO in a multi million dollar startup and then the very new CEO dies on a drug overdose and nobody talks about possible murder?
Lots of drama here, but the real problem was obvious from the start: no path to making money. They literally gave it away daily. Anyone with half a brain could see where this was headed.
The app typically shows 350k - 500k participants in their nightly shows. They're giving away usually $5000.
Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune have around 10 million viewers each with over 30 years of history. Jeopardy gives away around $23k each day, I believe WoF rings in a little higher. They air 5 days a week and clock in around 200-230 episodes per season. Back of the napkin math puts that at $0.53 per viewer per year.
HQ is still at $4.29 per viewer per year. At their current rate they still need about 10x growth to match J! or WoF. But HQ is also only 2 years old on a somewhat new media format (live interactive entertainment).
Those numbers are just for the prize money. Pat Sajak and Alex Trebek each earn north of $10 million per year (and Vanna White somewhat less, but still in the millions), and the shows almost certainly have larger staffs. The actual value difference is probably closer to a 3-4x multiplier rather than 10x.
That said, since HQ is phone based there's a good chance the viewers are more valuable to advertisers since they can collect more information than on broadcast television.
I don't think HQ would/could have a path to profitability (setting aside internal business politics), but it's a matter of 1) convincing businesses that a new media format is worth their advertising dollars, 2) keeping players long-term, 3) finding effective ways to advertise in the more limited format that the game affords.
Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion? I'd argue torturing people is more in their interest than actual public opinion. With the latter they just try to stay above zero as long as possible to continue with their actual addiction, getting hard-ons from watching people suffer.
That's also why such people can under no circumstances really succeed with businesses. It's not the same kind of personality as Steve Jobs for instance. Jobs also hurt people, but the goal was always to increase public opinion and make money.
The differences between a sociopath (Jobs) and a parasite (this dude here).
And knowing that he's a parasite and not a sociopath, why keep him on as a CEO? The secretary or toilet cleaning person would have a lower chance to screw everything up.
> Also a funny side note: Why do people who seemingly care about public opinion so much always screw up their public opinion?
Its more common than you imagine.
Its incredibly clear that the CEO dude is super insecure person who feels some kind of inadequacy and a constant need to control everything. If you read the daily beast article showing the actual interaction, it shows. If he stopped thinking all about himself for a little while he could have done a much better job. But he has so far not faced consequences for his toxic behavior (his co-founder sounds shady af too and that person actually died of a drug overdose... what a mess).
This article is gross. Very one-sided, no attempt to paint an objective picture. If someone did this about a person, it’d be scummy, but about a company it’s okay?
Companies aren’t people. I think a lot of people are curious about what happened to HQ trivia, and I think it’s sad that the company seems to be falling apart.
(Ps, I think The Witness is one of the best games ever made and everyone should buy it)
HQ as a whole and Yusopov in particular refused to comment on the story. Instead it's left with multiple employee accounts. It may be one sided in that it conveys mainly the employee point of view, but when that point of view represents at least half of all employees (more than half signed the letter to oust Yusopov) then it would seem to have a fair bit of credibility.
Hard to not make it one-sided if the other side is not willing to comment. As long as the article writer gave the other side ample chance to comment, it's on them if they didn't.
At this point, why wouldn't you just quit? I get that there's equity on the line, but the average tenure is probably around a year (if that) given how new the company is. It was clear from the WSJ article on the drama between the two founders up to the other one's death that the current CEO is a textbook sociopath.
Convinced the only reason why talented rank-and-file employees would petition instead of leave is because we live in a world where we're all expected to become grossly emotionally attached to our work, despite how toxic work environments can be.
Seriously, this is the risk aspect of working for a startup that people seem willing to ignore when justifying VC getting preferential treatment to employees.
If you have a non-C-level job at a startup you likely need that to pay your rent, to buy food, to have health insurance (become HI system in the US actively fights freedom of employment).
The best you can do is delay while you find jobs elsewhere, as the article said the people who had an easy time working elsewhere have already left - the first step in employment in tech is to know people at other companies so you can skip the randomness of standard recruitment. I cannot imagine that the remaining people in this startup aren't actively searching for or negotiating new jobs.
[+] [-] cletus|7 years ago|reply
1. Nut-bar egomaniac CEO bordering on the delusional; and
2. A business that probably should never take VC money. Producing content (which is what HQ Trivia does at the end of the day) is a notoriously hard business to scale. I can remember years ago when Rovio (remember when Angry Birds was a thing?) took VC money. Huge mistake. HUGE. It is seriously detrimental to your long term viability as a business that generates an income.
So yeah, stay at your own peril.
[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/ceo-of-hq-the-hottest-app-goin...
[+] [-] asdfasgasdgasdg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ineedasername|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlarocco|7 years ago|reply
Of course it won't work out in the long run, but in the short term it might be fun and it'll employ some people for a few years. When the money runs out everybody can jump ship to other, equally nonviable, startups and do it over again.
[+] [-] minimaxir|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randomacct3847|7 years ago|reply
I think HQ is on the right track but I don’t see the current team being the right team to turn it into the next big media play. The future of live TV should be heavily interactive.
[+] [-] zitterbewegung|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chakintosh|7 years ago|reply
Rugowsky will end up leaving the company and be given his own Jeopardy-style trivia show by Amazon.
[+] [-] HenryBemis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randomacct3847|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctvo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dork_Sider|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orliesaurus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenneth|7 years ago|reply
Of course it depends what kind of drugs. Potheads don't make very good CEOs and Cocaine is usually associated with destructive behavior. A lot of people in tech do the occasional hallucinogens or ecstasy without much issues.
[+] [-] raverbashing|7 years ago|reply
A basic due dilligence on the company, yeah
But that seems like a very nice way of a VC getting shut out of multiple potential deals
[+] [-] asdff|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etaerc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nihonde|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cooperadymas|7 years ago|reply
Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune have around 10 million viewers each with over 30 years of history. Jeopardy gives away around $23k each day, I believe WoF rings in a little higher. They air 5 days a week and clock in around 200-230 episodes per season. Back of the napkin math puts that at $0.53 per viewer per year.
HQ is still at $4.29 per viewer per year. At their current rate they still need about 10x growth to match J! or WoF. But HQ is also only 2 years old on a somewhat new media format (live interactive entertainment).
Those numbers are just for the prize money. Pat Sajak and Alex Trebek each earn north of $10 million per year (and Vanna White somewhat less, but still in the millions), and the shows almost certainly have larger staffs. The actual value difference is probably closer to a 3-4x multiplier rather than 10x.
That said, since HQ is phone based there's a good chance the viewers are more valuable to advertisers since they can collect more information than on broadcast television.
I don't think HQ would/could have a path to profitability (setting aside internal business politics), but it's a matter of 1) convincing businesses that a new media format is worth their advertising dollars, 2) keeping players long-term, 3) finding effective ways to advertise in the more limited format that the game affords.
[+] [-] whatshisface|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] etaerc|7 years ago|reply
That's also why such people can under no circumstances really succeed with businesses. It's not the same kind of personality as Steve Jobs for instance. Jobs also hurt people, but the goal was always to increase public opinion and make money.
The differences between a sociopath (Jobs) and a parasite (this dude here).
And knowing that he's a parasite and not a sociopath, why keep him on as a CEO? The secretary or toilet cleaning person would have a lower chance to screw everything up.
[+] [-] pm90|7 years ago|reply
Its more common than you imagine.
Its incredibly clear that the CEO dude is super insecure person who feels some kind of inadequacy and a constant need to control everything. If you read the daily beast article showing the actual interaction, it shows. If he stopped thinking all about himself for a little while he could have done a much better job. But he has so far not faced consequences for his toxic behavior (his co-founder sounds shady af too and that person actually died of a drug overdose... what a mess).
[+] [-] mathattack|7 years ago|reply
http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/hq-trivia-losing-investors-sex...
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jblow|7 years ago|reply
I am sure the company is messed up, but come on.
[+] [-] empath75|7 years ago|reply
(Ps, I think The Witness is one of the best games ever made and everyone should buy it)
[+] [-] ineedasername|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m-p-3|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wsdfsayy|7 years ago|reply
Convinced the only reason why talented rank-and-file employees would petition instead of leave is because we live in a world where we're all expected to become grossly emotionally attached to our work, despite how toxic work environments can be.
[+] [-] olliej|7 years ago|reply
Seriously, this is the risk aspect of working for a startup that people seem willing to ignore when justifying VC getting preferential treatment to employees.
If you have a non-C-level job at a startup you likely need that to pay your rent, to buy food, to have health insurance (become HI system in the US actively fights freedom of employment).
The best you can do is delay while you find jobs elsewhere, as the article said the people who had an easy time working elsewhere have already left - the first step in employment in tech is to know people at other companies so you can skip the randomness of standard recruitment. I cannot imagine that the remaining people in this startup aren't actively searching for or negotiating new jobs.