I agree. I've been working in Silicon Valley for a few years now, and it honestly feels like a page out of Animal Farm. The Orwellian mismatch between rhetoric and action feels like cult-like propaganda to me.
I don't know how veterans of the Valley can keep this up.
Of course, marketing sometimes goes a bit over the board, and each release of version 8.4 is the best thing that happened to humanity since v8.3 was released and before it's time to release v8.5. But that's kind of expected, nobody I know takes it as a literal truth.
And of course there are mission statements that talk about improving human condition and expanding horizons and saving the world. Sometimes it happens, at least to a measure, sometimes it doesn't, but that's not usually what you're thinking the whole day about, and even not something you think about every week or every month.
And of course (almost) each startup CEO thinks his (or her) startup is going to change the world, or at least some part of it. That's how you should think if you're getting into a startup, otherwise it's not worth the trouble, the stress and the extremely high chance of failure. Of course the CEO believes she (or he) found some special thing nobody thought of before and some unique vision nobody had before - otherwise how the startup could take off the ground at all?
And really, describing giving up free gym, yoga class and cafeteria as "something horrible happening to you"... I can't even find adequate words to describe how wrong this is.
> And of course (almost) each startup CEO thinks his (or her) startup is going to change the world, or at least some part of it. That's how you should think if you're getting into a startup, otherwise it's not worth the trouble, the stress and the extremely high chance of failure.
I don't think this should be an "of course". This article highlights toxic tech culture, namely a culture found in tech that is toxic. Marketing is not specific to tech, nor are small businesses. Why does Uber tell me they're going to "make transportation as freely available as running water" but not Loreal's new shampoo? Why does the small chain of bike repair shops in my area, also taking the stress and high risk of starting their own business, not exhort about how their bike repair shop will change the world of bikes forever?
This overboard marketing and out-of-touch mission statements are much more commonly found in tech than in elsewhere. This article discusses a culture formed by overboard marketing and out-of-touch mission statements and labels it as toxic. Moreover, there's an argument to be made about a field that oft labels itself as "meritocratic" relies on these hyperbolic forms of marketing and mission statements to do business, rather than a more traditional, "stodgy" business.
> Why does the small chain of bike repair shops in my area, also taking the stress and high risk of starting their own business, not exhort about how their bike repair shop will change the world of bikes forever?
Maybe if they did, they'd be a large national chain of bike repair shops now? ;) Maybe not, who knows. The point is there's nothing inherently bad in wanting to change the world of bikes forever. And one day somebody might just do that.
> Moreover, there's an argument to be made that a field that oft labels itself as "meritocratic" relies on these hyperbolic forms of marketing and mission statements to do business, rather than a more traditional, "stodgy" business.
You can't really rely on mission statements and marketing to do business. At least not in any long term. And SV companies surely provide ample evidence that marketing is not the only thing they do. Surely, some companies are just hype, and those get up, stay up for a short while, and go down to the ash heap of history, never to be spoken about again (would anybody know what Juicero was in 5 years? maybe some ubergeeks would). But claiming it's a defining property of significant part of SV companies to be overblown marketing only is just false.
I didn't claim this. However, there's no correlation between sexist marketing and sexist work culture. On top of this, writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> Maybe if they did, they'd be a large national chain of bike repair shops now?
Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug? If so, then we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye in this discussion. I do not think that hyperbolic marketing is a necessary condition to success.
> The point is there's nothing inherently bad in wanting to change the world of bikes forever.
Indeed, but there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world. If 500 intelligent, aware people are all convinced that they are going to change the world then, well I'm interested in whatever kool-aid they're drinking and how. Moreover, you seem to be implying that founders actually believe their mission statements. I'm going to rebut and say no, most founders use the mission statement as another form of marketing.
> And SV companies surely provide ample evidence that marketing is not the only thing they do.
But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc.
> Surely, some companies are just hype, and those get up, stay up for a short while, and go down to the ash heap of history, never to be spoken about again (would anybody know what Juicero was in 5 years? maybe some ubergeeks would)
While this is a slightly different issue than the one discussed in the article, I'd like to reply to this. Behind each of these pure hype Silicon Valley companies are VCs who actually invested in them, who wrote them checks of $10,000+ that believed in the hype and marketing potential of these startups. This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion.
Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world".
> Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug?
I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. That requires certain mindset. Wanting to change the world highly correlates with such a mindset. Wanting to improve the cost of fidgelating type A sprockets by 0.1% does not. Of course, if humans were perfect robots, they'd always be exactly as much excited as it takes to be able to do a startup, and not one exciton over that. Imperfect humans frequently get more excited than that.
> there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world
There's million of traders believing they can make a profit (which is arithmetically impossible) and millions of people believing they all can win a lottery (which is even more impossible since lottery is a negative-sum game). Of course, vast majority of these people are wrong. And 499 of the 500 startup founders will be wrong too. So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world.
> But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc.
Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point?
> This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion.
High risk investment is in no way unique to SV. There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. They can afford it, and they are the lifeblood of innovation and invention. All power to them. I literally can't think of anything bad coming from a billionaire spending some promilles of his outsized bank account on some weird innovative project, that may or may not change the world. Some of those would be stupid, so what. You can't make innovation without doing a couple of stupid tries on the way.
Could I ask you (and hopefully, others) for a few examples of SV startups that have, in your opinion, changed the world?
I would like to impose some criteria however - and I don't know if you'll agree with them. I'll number them for easy reference but you don't have to respond with a respectively numbered list. You might contest my criteria, of course.
1. The change brought on must contribute to the wellbeing of a wider community, i.e., not just to the bottom line of the company. This is probably an obvious requirement.
2. The change must be a clear net benefit to the community. For instance, if a firm is selling millions of a device that "make the world a better place" but these millions of devices end up as unrecyclable garbage soon after, that's not an obvious net benefit- it's doing some good here, some harm there and it's hard to tell which is bigger. I think we should be able to agree on this being a reasonable requirement, too.
3. The change must not fulfill a need that didn't exist beforehand. For instance, insurance is not strictly needed until one is offered the opportunity to buy some, at which point there is a (conditional) benefit that was never expected before it.
4. The change must not fulfill a need that was adequately satisfied beforehand. For instance -this might be controversial- a smartphone fulfills the need of "communication" but people could communicate just fine without smartphones. Uber fulfills the need of transportation, but people had transportation long before Uber; etc.
I'm asking you specifically because you seem to believe that SV firms really want to change the world. I agree with Karrot_Kream that it's just marketing. So I am interested to hear why you think this.