Why I'm thrilled Mark Zuckerberg is annoying the bankers
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
Christ, what an asshole.
It's a negotiation tactic, one many of us use in interviews: by flaunting social convention and dressing down, you're signaling that you have leverage. Mark is the one being wooed, and not the other way around.
By whining about it in the press it just makes it sound like this fellow just isn't used to being the lowest status person in the room.
Okay, so he didn't. What are they going to do? Complain about it?
Anyway, ethics is about what people should do. If you switch to discussing what people can get away with because of power, you're no longer discussing ethics. If you switch back and forth, using "what X can get away with" standard for people with power and "what they should do" for everyone else, then there is something wrong with your argument.
Zuck May not have much value if he doesn't raise the money. Wasn't that the major reason why most investors gave him the money at the first place (or any other company in that matter)? To IPO and XX-fold their investments.
If you "come for money", you're doing it wrong. You should come for a mutually beneficial business transaction, and that seems to be exactly what Zuckerberg is doing.
This is just one possible explanation, but you shouldn't assume he's being a jerk for jerkiness's sake. Also, I'm sure whoever is negotiating with him is commanding a fat paycheck and used to negotiating through situations far more difficult than a dude wearing a hoodie. Bankers tend to just like to complain.
Finally, I'd be mildly surprised if you used underdressing to interviews as a successful tactic. (EDIT: underdressing means dressing lower than expected, not dressing down in general.)
Is it really ironic that they STILL don't trust them?
http://www.quora.com/The-Social-Network-2010-movie/What-did-...
He is absolutely blind to how little his money actually gets him. There is two much money (which is what happens when the FED prints money) chasing too few good investments that needs them (which is what happens when the price to run a company keeps going down).
But yeah, he just cannot fathom that money are not as important and that he by proxy isn't going to be as important.
And we can speculate all you want, but I'm under the impression that Facebook is primarily doing an IPO, because the SEC is forcing them to do so (500 investor rule). That and well, I think some people want to get paid.
For posterity's sake let's make this clear: the SEC rule regarding 500 owners is as follows:
> Companies with more than $10 million in assets whose securities are held by more than 500 owners must file annual and other periodic reports. These reports are available to the public through the SEC's EDGAR database.
Source: Securities Act of 1934, paraphrased in http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml
It requires firms to file special reports. The reason why people presume that it means that the firm must go public is simple: there are only a few additional requirements to go public, and the economic advantages in many cases outweigh the paltry effort.
For posterity's sake, this is worth repeating: THERE IS NOTHING FORCING A FIRM TO GO PUBLIC. NOTHING.
So the banker who expected Zuckerberg to bow and scrape was still badly mistaken. Zuckerberg isn't really "asking investors for their money" in the IPO, because he doesn't really need that money. That's the point.
Facebook might not have been "forced" to go public, but they still don't really need the cash from the IPO
If facebook actually did need the cash, why wait until they hit the 500 investor limit? Hitting that limit is clearly playing a role in the timing of the IPO, even if it didn't "force" an IPO.
If the exit wasn't important, they would stay private and run the business.
What's the percentage of firms with >500 investors that don't IPO?
I wonder if increasing the number of investors past 500 is more about using equity as a recruiting/retention tool than it is about cash.
I think we can agree on the two facts, namely:
- the firm probably doesnt need the cash
- the members of the firm and investors do want the exit provided by an IPO
[1]Facebook revealed in a document sent to potential investors in early 2011 that it was planning to increase its number of shareholders to more than 500. This will force the social networking site to either disclose a lot of financial information or go public by April 2012 -- which is 120 days after the end of Facebook's last fiscal year[2]. Typically the forced disclosure of financials triggers companies to go public, listing their shares on an exchange and, hopefully, cashing in. - http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-01/31/facebook-ipo-...
[2]The 500 shareholder threshold forces companies that have more than 499 investors to divulge information about their financial performance. Although the company may still remain private, it must file similar documents to those of public companies. If the number of investors falls back below 500, then the disclosures can be omitted. - http://www.investopedia.com/terms/5/500-shareholder-threshol...
(I am personally a big fan of Costco for rebuffing Wall Street's cries for higher prices and lower worker compensation and benefits)
> to treat contemptuously <flaunted the rules
> Although transitive sense 2 of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout
http://www.betabrand.com/executive-pinstripe-hoodie.html
http://www.betabrand.com/favorites/gray-dress-pant-sweatpant...
I'm most effective when I'm at my most confident, and I'm most confident when wearing the clothing that I am used to wearing every day. That might be a suit, and it might be the affordable and well-designed utility clothing that 99% of humanity wears.
If it's good enough to wear whilst creating a company worth billions of dollars, it's good enough to wear whilst selling it.
This annoys me. The 'dev-uniform' of t-shirt, jeans and sneakers is just as constraining as the 'business-uniform' of suits and button downs.
You rarely wear one, they are not necessarily expensive, and they are not inconvenient.
Basically, there is nothing inherently better about jeans and a t-shirt, and nothing inherently bad about suits or anything else that isn't in either category. The key is to not expect others to comply to your weird ideas about dress code and let everyone express themselves without stereotyping them.
More comfortable, more durable, cheaper, better selection of comfortable footwear that doesn't need servicing by a person at the airport or the main floor of an office building... need I go on?
If you pay $300 for well constructed leather boots, they will last you for years, even if you wear them almost every day. They are also much more easily repaired than sneakers, which gives you another nine months of life. So proper boots are actually a better investment than sneakers.
I was really skeptical until I bought really nice boots from Fluevog. Additionally, a good company will stand behind their boots, and give a warranty. Fluevog replaced my boots for free because there was a manufacturing error in the first pair.
Try it. Every man deserves a decent pair of boots. They provide great support and feel amazing.
Jeans are just nice because you don't have to worry about tearing them etc.
Have you ever tried to run or climb or do anything physical in a suit?
Also, by similarly irrelevant logic, flip flops should be a developer faux pas. They aren't.
That said, those activities make you sweat. Sweaty people smell. While wearing a suit to work doesn't affect your ability to work professionally, smelling bloody well does.
Also, what kind of software development job requires any amount of running or climbing.
I wonder what the national savings would be by raising the AC a few degrees and ditching the jacket and ties.
[1] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1402425...
Welcome to the industry wide corporate culture of banks! As absolutely ludicrous as this is to you and me, I can tell you first-handedly that this is the bread-and-butter in banking. This goes so far that (hearsay) places like Deutsche Bank have rules where the color/brightness of the tie signals how high up the ranks you are and dark colors must not be worn by youngens.
But something about this delights me. Imagine, walking into a room of self-indulgent, Wall Street pricks, knowing that they're tripping over themselves to get in on the action. I think I'd be tempted to rub it in. Ordinarily, someone approaches a bank out of their own necessity. Here, the tables have turned. And I love it.
Wasn't there a story a few years back about Microsoft calling Zuck for conference call at 9AM, and he told them he was still sleeping; and to call back?
Wall Street investors don't have any principles. The only thing they care about is how much money you make for them. Zuck could've shown up naked and they would've still jumped all over each other to invest in Facebook.
And this idiot who complained that Zuck underdressed - if he doesn't invest because of that, and the stock skyrockets, you think he's still going to have his job? Doubt it. He'd be out on the street wearing a hoodie.
That, my dear friend, would be priceless.
Yes, he's in a position of power, and could turn up to his meetings wearing only a cunningly positioned silk scarf, and it would have no effect on the banks' willingness to earn lots of money from overseeing the Facebook IPO.
But when you're in a position of power you also have a responsibility not to be a dick. I realize dress codes etc are a bit different over there in the US, but at work here I normally dress pretty casually.
However, if someone's coming in for interview, I will wear a suit. As I know the candidate's going to turn up in a suit, and it will make them feel uncomfortable if I'm interviewing them in shorts and a t-shirt.
The person in the position of power has a moral obligation not to make everyone else feel uncomfortable or stupid. A great example of this is Queen Victoria drinking from her finger-bowl after one of her guests did - in order to save them from any embarassment or discomfort (http://www.bobssermons.com/sermons/archive/030831.htm).
And yes, bankers have acted arrogantly, and swanned around like they own the place too long. But its hardly a great example to set to just start doing the same yourself as soon as the balance of power tilts.
But when you're in a position of power you also have a responsibility not to be a dick.
Say's who? The greatest minds of our day challenge status quo's, not accept them. "Dress" has historically been a badge of status, which has historically been inherited. I think the big "F U" that Mark is trying to portray (much like Jobs) is that his meritocracy wins.
Bureaucrats wear suits, Meritocrats wear hoodies.
Portraying 'not wearing a suit' as challenging the status quo is a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe Gandhi challenged the status quo with his choice of outfit, but a billionaire turning up to a meeting in a suit is hardly sticking it to the man.
I think it works both ways incidentally- if the banker is coming to your place of work, and you all wear hoodies and shorts, he should make an effort to dress casually too.
Wearing casual clothing to these sorts of meetings sends a clear signal -- "Fuck you, I'm the guy with the power here."
Zuckerberg can do this because in reality, what's the downside to him? If Facebook crashes and burns completely, he'll be a billionaire before age 30 who "lost it all" with just a couple hundred million in the bank.
What does a suit confer other than "you have to wear this because you do"? What are they, five years old?
I wear a suit for work when I meet with the various luminaries that I need to deal with (maybe 2-3 times a month). You get more respect. Waitresses are more attentive, and people listen to you more.
1) If you're careful, you can get away with wearing jeans and trainers (I often wear black 501s with nike low nike cross trainers, and various casual shirts - no one really notices/cares, especially if you're in software).
2) Suits and neat shirt/trousers tend to be the "default" and perhaps signal safety/predictability more than commanding respect (which doesn't make sense since everyone wears suits around here, and everyone doesn't command everyone, so it's a shallow heuristic to use when making quick calls on people - I know some dumb people who wear suits, and smart ones who don't).
3) I've incidentally worn very casual stuff (jeans, no suit) for interviews and then actually worn suit/tie/etc on the job later, i.e. more out of curiosity/wanting to, than obedience. I do think in some ways they can be nicer to wear. If you go more into studying design concepts, you start seeing some good elements in play within the standard template of what constitutes a suit (shirt, blazer, tie, boots, cufflinks, etc). Is there a better alternative? Not sure - I loved Steve Job's outfit too, though.
Imagine the Barrack Obama whitehouse photo with him in a hoodie. It wouldn't be unthinkable for him to do this, but I'm not sure it would communicate the right message to the general public (again, perhaps it's about projecting the idea of safety, stability, predictability, etc). In that sense, suits are a good communication facilitator.
A lot of jackasses wear suits, sure, but a lot of jackasses use iPhones, for example too. It doesn't mean they're a bad thing. The bigger problem perhaps with wearing a suit is that there are so many people wearing them now, many of them doing it because other people do it, rather than because they have some pure conviction to do so, that it has become a "red ocean" strategy, which naturally goes against the flow of innovation.
Many folks, particularly in IT, dress like muppets. We have one guy who routinely wears track suits in the office, for example. It doesn't give off a good impression.
No, but the point is a Meritocrat doesn't need image to portray his worth. The ideals of both are arguably opposites of each other:
Meritocracy - intelligence, credentials, education
Bureaucracy - authority, delegation, judgement
(meaning, those who display the greatest abilities in those areas are delegated to be responsible for governing others)
It's very easy to show bureaucratic abilities by use of imagery, symbols, and artifacts. Meritocracy can't be bought. In the end, it depends on what you, as an individual, value.
What if the billionaire forces the bankers to take 1/3 of their usual cut? Is that sticking it to the man? I say it is.
Maybe the reason he wore those clothes was different - he feels lucky/confident in them, they were the only thing in his closet at the time or something. Or maybe he just doesn't pay much attention to dressing code (if the clothes are comfortable, why not wear them)...
That's a very interesting point, and I had not considered it from that angle. Not sure if it changes my mind or not, but thanks for the insight.
Is that so? When has that ever been the case in real life?
Another point in the article mentions... "I think that he has to realize he's bringing investors in as a new constituency right now, and I think he's got to show them the respect that they deserve because he's asking them for their money."
However, this isn't some internet startup that doesn't have revenue yet. This is a company that's making buckets of money already. So in this case I think they really need to dance to his tune and they are going to take the lowered rate because he can go down the street and another bank is going to be jumping at the deal.
Are investment bankers really upset? Or are these just the reporters saying these things? Strange.
Wearing casual dress != being a dick.
Yes, you might wear a suit when you want to kiss up to someone. But being gravely offended by somebody not actively kissing up to you is much less becoming of a mature adult than the act of not wearing a suit. The clothes do not hurt you, they do not deprive you of anything — the only problem is that they don't flatter you. But expecting flattery is uncouth, even if you are accustomed to being flattered.
Sure. Wearing what he feels like wearing, something which isn't indecent and what he has been wearing on a regular basis for a long, long time is being rude and arrogant.
/s
However, I can't help but be amused at the thought of some stuffy prick having his nose tweaked by a billionaire in a hoodie.
More particularly, your comment reminded me of Dilbert [1] re abuse of power, when Wally asks, "What might be the other reasons to have power?"
In general, that's a great idea and I agree. But Wall Street types mostly don't believe in that responsibility. So it's nice to see someone turn the tables on them.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YQ1CPTNsj3A/TZ8SRBRCUNI/AAAAAAAABs...
Um, banks are no different than your auto mechanic. They want and are competing for your business. You can always tell them take it or leave it.
People seem to have this bizarre mentality that you have to go begging to your bank for money, which is hardly the case. Personal business like mortgages and chequing accounts, and for that matter things as large as an IPO, are hyper-competitive. There is a lot of room to shop around.
What is it about banking that people find so intimidating and confusing?
Similarly when you take out a mortgage - your interest is paying their salaries. It's a service industry and the bank manager is your servant.
The only different these days is that you are probably in a much better financial state than the bank!
Up until then, it's still their money - and they get to do what they want with it. That's why it's hard to negotiate to start.
Once they've given you the loan - it's a different story.
We tried to get a business mortgage - despite being able to show we've paid double the monthly repayment amount in business rent for 7 years no one will even give us a ludicrously bad offer nvm actually accept us as a customer.
This seems like madness to me, add a 25% deposit and an insurance requirement and I think it's impossible for them to lose money on the deal even if we default and they sell off the building - indeed they probably make a pretty good profit that way.
No bank needs my money. There are definitely some auto mechanics that do.
Not necessarily. He doesnt have to be rich, all he has to be is mediocre smart. Not apply for credit cards everywhere, burn wholes in his credit, drive recklessly, get in trouble with law, change job like gloves, etc; in other words: be a normal, decent citizen. Then his credit will keep building itself up, and yes every bank will be begging him to take the loan with them, knowing that at the end of the day the mortgage is bank's property until last penny is paid off, so there are limited ways he can "steal" it.
Life isn't so easy to summarize. Bad things happen to good people (whether I am one or not is another question).
Time and chance happeneth to them all, in short.
Both in business and privately we pay on time and have assets exceeding our credit. Ergo the only risk of lending to us for premises is that the mortgaged asset will fail to retain the value of the credit extended. At 25% deposit thats a serious piece of risk avoidance in anyone's books.
What's left is that we can't provide a sufficient up side to get any of the banks out of bed. Near zero risk isn't good enough, they want bigger fish. Of course we'd need credit to grow ...
It's all about timing. Thank the "business cycle" inherent to keynesian economics.
They sucked at it in the run up of the lending bubble (which is why there even was a bubble), and they suck at it in the aftermath.
Now, if the government(s) stopped running a pump and dump scheme, banksters wouldn't screw us so routinely and predictably. Adapting to a sensible system would be painful short-term though, which is why it won't happen without a collapse.
I wasn't being so specific though. It's a fact of life that expansion and contraction cycles must happen in most Western countries, given the generalised policy of having a (very) fractional reserve and resorting to "the printer" regularly to "stimulate" the economy. These cycles have been happening for many decades and will continue to happen as long as things work roughly the same way.
Quantitative easing, fractional reserve and stimulus measures are all forms of intervention creating artificial cycles that wouldn't exist otherwise.
Austrian school economics (if that's what you mean by market economy) don't advocate for any sort of counter-cyclical measures.
Is that because real estate prices can only go up?
Hah! Hardly. But you're right, being rich would help. I think Zuckerberg qualifies.
As someone else replied, your situation is a direct result of credit tightening, thanks to the recent crisis. Banks lent to a bunch of people who ended up being riskier than the evaluations, so now the banks are being prudent with lending. They consider you (or your business) a credit risk beyond what they're willing to accept. That's not an insult, just the fact-of-the-matter.
Believe me, the banks aren't doing it to spite you; at the moment they just have better ways to spend the money. Right now that happens to be paying down their own debt.
The days of being able to walk into a bank and say "Get the sherry out, I'm going to give you some business. I'd like a loan" are over.
Allow me to generalize here but in the minds of the majority of average folks pretty much everywhere in the world, banks and bankers used to hold a certain status, an image of serious business and grave importance and a position of some sort of respect. Same goes for politicians. And I cannot tell you how many times such average folks would not believe me that banks loan out, let's say, 10 times as much as you are giving them and that's already conservative. It has only started to slowly change now after all the crises that people start to look down on banks and bankers but you have no idea how many banks over here are pulling the "that was them, not us, we are still serious business and reliable!!!" to win customers over and get away with it.
The point I am trying to make is, most average folks really have no idea what a bank is doing exactly, how they work and how they are doing stuff you can definitely describe as playing with money; and they have no way of evaluating whether that friendly guy with the nice suit and tie and firm handshake is actually just an office drone, like most "bankers", who acts all important and serious, or if they really have anything to say - which most of the time they don't. So banks get away with holding up that "serious business" status with which they can shame you.
And most people typically want something from a bank, at least they walked up to the bank, and aren't exactly the most mature and educated kind of customers to begin with, so they definitely do see banks as something different from their mechanic and they certainly won't slap their oh-so-trusted banker silly with demands but will suck it up and sign and feel like they came begging the whole time. And how ridiculous it would seem to them to suggest maybe bringing in a lawyer so your trusted bank doesn't rob you blind!
And banks know exactly what they can get away with - the masses who have no leverage will certainly not get the humane and professional treatment of an exclusive private bank or a family office; they have no leverage, so they get treated like shit and beggars at their local SuperSeriousTrustworthyPlebeianBank because they hardly have an option or choice anyway. Go to PlebsBank instead, they will offer you practically the same deals in different wrapping and same shit treatment.
And finally, most of us are brought up with respect for money and professional business settings, so banks, bankers and their suits definitely trigger and touch the right buttons on most people there and shame you into feeling bad since most money issues are pretty tough for the real 99%ers. IT guys are usually well off and could easily cut most of their monthly expenses since none of them are vital.
The only people mentioning it are reporters and sell side analysts.
(The guy he mentions in the article is a sell side analyst)
Isn't all the faux-positioning and over-reverence to the banks the main problem with wall street anyway?
----
In the case of Facebook -- whose T-shirt-wearing, 27-year-old chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, is said to appreciate status updates more than stock brokers -- it's unlikely advisors will be able to command the standard rate.
"These Valley types think this whole process could be automated and they don't have to pay 7 percent to these flashy, French-cufflink-wearing Wall Street types," said Eric Jackson, founder and managing member of Ironfire Capital, a technology-focused hedge fund, who has interacted professionally with executives at Facebook and other social-media companies.
----
I doubt the IPO process can be automated to any large degree (unless all the players somehow started thinking like engineers) but I'd sure be happy to see people try!
Why? What's so complicated about it?
It doesn't seem so much like a target for automation so much as a target for "pro-competitive intervention" (which is very unlikely to happen).
For seasoned stocks a market consensus about the relevant stories emerge, and events within those stories drive the trading moves. People making money by being the first to adopt or drop stories.
But an IPO has no market-consensus stories of its own. So the book-building process involves explaining the company and getting market feedback on the credibility of that story.
Now this may or may not make sense. But it does give management some feeling of relationship with the market, by which they can hear what investors think and possibly influence those perceptions. Given the importance of stock price to most managements, it would be a very bold team that went forward without any perceived tool for managing the process.
Good for FB for questioning why banks still get 7% of new equity issues. It's highway robbery.
They only repaid that money because the bailed-out AIG paid off their credit default swaps, right? So isn't it only true in the most narrow sense that they paid it back, considering that the gov't totally ate it on AIG?
"Bailout" money is tracked in the account of the entity that receives it, but I don't think it's reasonable to continue tracing it as it moves around. Bailout dollars are just as green as regular dollars. If someone at Chase buys a car with bailout dollars, then the car salesman buys lunch with his commission, are you going to claw back the bailout dollars from the waiter? Debts are owed by the people who receive the money, not the guy left holding the hot potato.
You buy a bond, you're not guaranteed 4% interest, you're gambling that the entity who's indebted to you will still be around long enough to pay you. Same with these credit default swaps.
If the government doesn't step in, AIG folds and Chase doesn't get paid for those CDS contracts. Nobody paid the government back for AIG.
A bailout paid with a bailout, which tells us nothing about the health or viability of these financial institutions.
Also, the government is projecting a profit on the AIG bailout.
I checked on the projected profit, and it's quite a projection, based on the fact that the gov't is currently selling off from 70% ownership of AIG to 61%. So basically, that seems to me that all of AIG's operating profits are going to buying back stock from the government. Which is great. But the government still ate it on the initial bailout and if those CDSs were paid out and kept the banks afloat, it was done with government money.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-04-14/wall_street/3...
Two years ago, I would have agreed with that 100%. AIG has recovered far better that I would have expected, and the government will likely get the money back from AIG, albeit much slower than the banks.
Focus on stuff that matters.
"Dressing conscientiously is exalting in the act of being alive." -Gay Talese
It doesn't much matter what Zuckerberg signals or doesn't signal to Wall Street bankers by wearing a hoodie. It won't have a material impact on his company's offering.
Coco Chanel used to say that one shouldn't leave the house without putting some effort into one's appearance -- if only out of politeness. It is, after all, the rest of us who have to look at you. The most unfortunate part of this story is that Zuckerberg fails to realize -- or care -- that a little sartorial attention imparts respect for the people with whom you are doing business, both personally and professionally.
Whether he likes it or not, Zuck is now a high profile individual, with all the attention that follows suit. That's, in my mind, an opportunity to think critically about how he presents himself aesthetically. Contrary to what most posters here seem to think, fashion isn't binary: there are more choices than a hoodie and jeans or a suit. Putting some effort into his appearance doesn't mean he has to look like, or imply endorsement of, Wall Street bankers. If anything, purposefully flaunting that convention is the opposite side of the same coin.
So, FB is having the usual IPO roadshow, but they're not doing it quite as expected. My question: Why are they having the roadshow at all?
Instead they could have done a few interviews with major business magazines (which I believe they did), put out what amounts to an annual report, to get people information, maybe even had a special hotshot-analyst-only webpage for submitting questions about strategy & what not.
What does the roadshow get them that the above wouldn't have? The only things I can think of are time & money spent, and lots of headaches.
---
Western business wear is standard in many workplaces around the globe, even in countries where the usual daily wear may be a distinctive national costume.
Some non-Western businesspeople will wear national costume nonetheless. A Saudi Arabian sheikh may wear the traditional robes and headdress to an international conference; United Arab Emirates diplomats in particular are noted for attending conventions of the United Nations General Assembly in full keffiyeh and thawb. Diplomats of the People's Republic of China are similarly noted for wearing the Mao suit to international events; Indian leaders often wear Nehru jackets, with Manmohan Singh wearing a suit-like combination including such a jacket with his Sikh turban. Wearing national costume in such contexts can proclaim national pride, or just extremely high status which allows the wearer to defy convention.
---
Indeed, maybe that's what's happening here: the corporate chieftain showing his power among those in the room. Let Zuckerberg peacock; he is within his full rights to. Does a client have to dress however his banker does?
I will enjoy watch the two fight it out.
It would probably be better to just ignore this guy instead of playing into him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcs6pIslv1A#t=662s (Pedophilia Groups Invade Facebook)
And to think Mark actually single-handedly has the power to do something. Such poor character. And there's a ton of anti-semitic material too. Ewwww.
I suppose Facebook could whip up a trading system for "virtual FB shares" on top of FB on a weekend, no need for banks and stock markets at all? Some lawyers to comply with regulations, though :-/
They already have their own currency, so presumably also an infrastructure for transactions and so on.
Good on him for not caring. FU money. He suckered Microsoft and that's enough. He's set for life.
But it's not the hoodie, it's who's in it.
If he's rejected by investment bankers, it's not because he wore a hoodie. It's because of who he is. Wearing hoodies to meetings is but one very small part.
Clearly, he is.
I'd imagine most of his employees don't get to hop on the private jet whenever they feel like it, either.
just because they havent told doesn't necessarily mean you shouldnt have your own sense as of what to wear to work. if that would be me, and not seeing anyone how they really look at work inside fb, i would came with suit and tie and figure things out the first day.
After all when all the non-conformist looks differently the same way, you need to do something different to stand out.
And I have a pretty good sense of what to wear to work in the valley. Suit and tie is the wrong answer.
There is no dress code for people who come to interview for a job at Facebook. I am curious, was something vaguely worded in an email you've received? Please let me know.
I came in in jeans, t-shirt, and a sweat-shirt. This applies to all Silicon Valley companies: wear whatever you're comfortable interviewing in.
One of the previous I worked for used to say "dress casually" (meaning "you don't need to wear a suit"), but we noticed that people have began to interpret it as "wear business casual" and have been reacting strangely.
He has more customers on his site than the Nasdaq has share buyers/sellers. If he decided to reinvent stock markets and simply sell shares directly to facebook members then you would see some panic!
After all if shares are all traded electronically why do we need a room full of scrolling displays pretending to be ticker tape and opened by a bell? Why not have buying and selling shares in any company a feature of facebook ?
There are good reasons, but they're all regulatory, and there are workarounds.
Let's have some proper disruption of the finance industry, please. Now!
This is just a branding exercise to show how 'real' Mark Zuckerberg is and I would be surprised if there wasn't some high-powered PR people involved in shaping his public image, including the whole hoodie thing and training him in public speaking (and possibly placing fawning stories like this one).
Some occasions call for slippers, others for khakis and others for a suit and tie. Wear an ill fitting suit to show that you're not comfortable in one if want, but wear a freaking suit. You're asking strangers to buy with their hard earned money about $10 billion of your $100 billion pie. Show some respect for the occasion.
I look like fucking Bob Marley, I just fucking do. This hair is a fucking baby, but makes me flow like Spike Spiegal. I am not kidding you. I wear what I wear because, quite frankly, I found most of it. And I'm not letting it go. It's my "brand" or whatever trash-jargon concept you wish to apply. And I develop web apps. (these realizations were documented in hindsight to the following:) (But just a tad before: I actually had a client ask, "So what's up with the hair?" This "style" occurs naturally. I do what I can with what I've accepted about my personal image and what I am willing to accept of it.)
I took a job at Waste Management in Houston Corporate Headquaters with KF and BG. KF a hip, young but distinguished-looking 30-something, and BG another minority like me. We worked with git and I drew all sorts of nutty information architecture concepts upon a dry-erase board wall on the 17-th floor. Downtown Houston. We did front-end development. The teams wiped out now, after about a year. I believe I triggered part of that. And then they threw SharePoint at us. We were expected to devise a CSS system around trashy SilverLight modules and around some SilverLight developers bogus understanding of front-end considerations. And then the Enterprise CMS with no documentation and no "technical vision."
Garbage. In a world like this, why should Zuckerberg care? Developers have seen the dirty laundry of these rotting industries, and they're going to wear it.
The day it struck me is when I decided to take my morning stroll around the office, to strike up that Office Space tone for the day. So I could write my some-number-of-lines-of-code. My coffee was stale and depressing. As I turned the corner, a VP, along with others, about their own morning stroll, shouts at me, "Whoa! Hair!"
You just can't fucking win with these fucking suits.
I am preparing to compute in hostile climates (cold and hot climates, urban noisescapes, parking garages, etc.). I am preparing to compute in space.
bankers win again :-)