Another interesting move on Benchmark's part. I wonder if this is the key sentence: "Travis’s failure to make good on this promise, as well as his continued involvement in the day-to-day running of the company, has created uncertainty for everyone, undermining the success of the CEO search."
One of the key things about organizations which isn't always apparent is that leadership isn't "given" it is earned. This is often used as a tool in story telling where the hero's actions inspire people to follow them and so even though someone else is the "boss" the people are following the "hero."
That they are complaining about Travis, who, AFAICT, does not even have an employee role at all in the company, continues to be "involved" in day to day operations, suggests that his lack of co-operation is the issue and Travis is, or continues to be depending on your point of view, the 'bad actor' in this situation.
Sometimes you have classes where they throw out a hypothetical question like "What if you fired the boss and he didn't leave?" If Travis is able to exert that level of control over the company then clearly he continues to have people loyal to him doing as he asks against the wishes of the board. I can imagine that this would make it extremely hard to manage a company in that situation.
Is this what happens when a CEO has a large voting block of shares (b/c he's smart enough to learn from previous founders' experience with VCs), and a VC firm that finds they can't have it their way (like they've been used to), publicly shame him for "not doing what he promised (us)"?
Last I checked they ousted _him_ and now they want to play "victim" because they're finding it hard to find a replacement? Maybe none feels they're able to fill his shoes or do as good a job as he's done? Last I checked Uber was still a tremendous success regardless of all their bad press and missteps/deeds.
Sorry, I just find it hard to sympathize with these people.
Not really a question of sympathizing, it's the fascination of watching warfare at these levels. Travis getting himself a right to appoint three directors, just before he is asked to step down, which he does and appoints himself as a director and has tickets for two more. While Benchmark was organizing other members of the Board to fire him, and now dealing a counter play to Travis' board seat strategy. It's rare this stuff goes on where people can see it.
Travis is probably the best entrepreneur ever in fundraising, so good he managed to at such later stage to keep control and even have a disproportionate power in relation to is ownership.
Mobody is crying for Benchmark and this lawsuit looks ridiculous and it's going to affect their deal flow quality for many years to come.
Just wondering if Travis could ever imagined the Uber success he could have funded Uber Angel round of $1,2M by inself he had the money to do it. Everything being equal he now would own 20% but probably would have the same problem with Benchmark.
Fascinating indeed. Do you happen to have any recommended reading for those of us interested in learning how things really happen at the board level? There's so much politics and intrigue that goes on behind the scenes that rarely becomes public.
Recommended reading? not really. I expect most people would find the real stuff just sad. Much of the drama seems to be politics mixed with greed.
I've served on a couple of boards (private companies) once as an independent director and once as a technical adviser and remember wondering once if the folks I was dealing with were just bored or if they really didn't care one way or the other.
That said, I've also worked with board members at companies that were very engaged and very involved with their companies and the companies involved benefited from their attention.
The only common thread was that generally the board members had a whole lot less to lose if the company failed than the executive staff did, and so they often assume that the executive staff is motivated to make things succeed, and seem disinclined to second guess the CEO and their team's tactics. Of course things get unpleasant when the tactics make them look bad as we've seen in Uber and Theranos as well.
There are various places that recruit people to serve on boards. Some people feel like it 'boosts' their executive street cred if they are on the boards of several companies. I'm not one of the people who is impressed by something like that but I recognize that some folks are and its part of the VC "game". (sort like having rare Magic the Gathering cards I guess, "I play Unicorn Startup on your Bootstrapped Lifestyle Business.") It would probably make for an interesting subplotline in Silicon Valley.
Faustian deal indeed. The only way to read Faust is as the story of someone who is in over his head and screws up at every turn. Every thing that Faust touches turns to shit. There's nothing Faustian about Faust.
And topical. Travis Kalanick plays Faust, Matt Cohler from Benchmark plays Mephisto. Susan Fowler plays Gretchen (or perhaps Marthe Schwerdtlein, no one applies for a leading position at any large company without doing diligence through inside contacts, and no one can tell me that she didn't know that Uber was full to the rafters with perverts and sex maniacs).
It also serves as a cautionary tale; as a venture capitalist, be very careful whom you provide capital to.
It has been obvious for years that Travis Kalanick will run Uber into the ground, unless controlled. This is not new. One of the reasons there isn't a CFO is so he doesn't have to justify his awful ideas.
It's good to see Benchmark is finally admitting that they (and the rest of the board) have failed to do their job; by failing to more adequately govern Uber.
Uber is a looming disaster for investors, and I pity employees there who think their options are going to make them rich. That will only be true for a very, very few, because Travis has made decisions that will leave most of them with basically nothing.
This is a pretty laughable comment to make about a guy who took a company from $0 to $70 billion. Uber has completely changed transportation for millions of people around the globe. You might be right that Uber needs someone different for the next phase, but you make him sound like Michael Scott.
He was a tremendous fund-raiser. He may have been a great early stage CEO.
Right now the company isn't worth $70B, and is hemorrhaging money. Which is why he agreed to step down. He's clearly been overmatched as CEO for a long while now.
He's an incompetent manager. There are suggestions and moments of characterization that suggest that he was a good salesman who was promoted above his abilities. He was not extremely successful.
I've watched like 4 episodes of the office, but we're talking about the same guy, right? The one who is a middle manager at a small sales office in Scranton? Pretty far cry from growing a company from $0 to billions in revenue, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, and upending a global industry. In 8 years.
It was a plot point of the show that his branch was the only successful one. The company was literally selling printer paper in an increasingly digital world. He may not have made billions of dollars, but he still succeeded at a seemingly impossible task.
Travis is a very sympathetic figure to many employees. He has poured his life into the company, to the point the two were indistinguishable up until his resignation. Travis was Uber, and Uber was Travis.
Benchmark's letter makes me wonder about the full content of the Holder report. Their lawsuit listed scandals that were already public, but whatever was in the report seems to be what triggered their initial request for Travis to step away from the company.
I wonder how many of the "Travis loyalists" would reconsider their position if they were aware of the full extent of the risks the company was exposed to as a result of his management.
> I wonder how many of the "Travis loyalists" would reconsider their position if they were aware of the full extent of the risks the company was exposed to as a result of his management.
If I learned anything from the last US election it's that many people will overlook all manner of moral failings if the person in question is powerful and "alpha" enough.
> If Travis is able to exert that level of control over the company then clearly he continues to have people loyal to him
Kalanick is being accused of defaulting on an agreement "to modify the company’s voting agreement to ensure that the board was composed of independent, diverse, and well qualified directors" and acting "to deter candidates and create a power vacuum in which Travis could return."
Defaulting on agreements doesn't take particular skill. While installing a surrogate would have been a show of power, throwing a wrench into the search process in hopes that it convinces people to bring him back also signals that those same people don't think he should be back right now. It's a move that signals weakness, not strength.
This letter is a message to people who, while perhaps not coöperating with Travis, left him dark corners from which to throw around muck. Loudly and clearly, Benchmark is saying "the old king is dead."
Disclaimer: These is personal, casual commentary and does NOT constitute investment advice. Please do NOT buy or sell any securities based on my Internet comments.
The fact that Travis doesn't want to let go of Uber is completely normal. He is the founder, the boss, the guy with lots of money. There's a power play in place and people don't know who will win.
It's normal that employees at all levels will still give him some leverage. It doesn't say anything about employee loyalty or Travis being the leader they want.
It's a board battle pure and simple. We are all speculating and making it worse. It's like speculating on a divorce. Doesn't help anyone. However, the married couple needs to come to some common agreement. That much we know.
Travis legally has control of the company just like an owner would. Nobody can "force" him to leave on run his company as certain way. Benchmark is just whining because they can't get their way.
Benchmark agreed to let him have permanent control when they invested, if they didn't want that they shouldn't have signed the contract.
> Benchmark agreed to let [Kalanick] have permanent control when they invested, if they didn't want that they shouldn't have signed the contract
Invisibly stapled to every contract is the entire corpus of relevant law. Delaware, for instance, protects minority investors from certain categories of abuse. If the claims in this letter are true regarding Kalanick telling Uber's Board that he was going to sign certain voting rights agreements, and then he did not do that, it could be grounds for finding violations per those laws.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor investment advice.
The board? What if they are inept? What if you have X0,000?? employees - especially those who are 99.9% NEVER going to set foot in an office of, or the presence of "dear leader"?
Why/how shall they 'earn' the respect of said leader?
Not going to happen...
Leadership respect is earned by those in proximity to direct results that affect THEM...
Driver results from leader in Uber's case == "all gripes drivers have due to proximity to leader/leader's policies that affect their $$ line...."
Tell Zuck to be a line cook in the BBQ stand in MPK - for two months, and not having to go to his palo alto compound, attend his 'charity' events for new-parent-syndrome-billionaires, etc... the outcome will be diff...
He will never earn the respect of a line-cook, as JK will never earn the respect of an uberdriver doing their "side-hustle" (the recent uber commercial is advertising to young, black, urban females to "get a side-hustle"^ by being an uber driver.
^ -- Yes this is the actual quote from the commercial.
Your direct reports. I have known managers who had earned the followship of their direct reports, and I've known some who "lead" by threatening their direct reports with retribution. In the latter case you can change leaders easily because there is no loyalty to the person just a fear of the retribution. If on the other hand a leader earns their followers loyalty their direct reports will do what they can to aid them, even when it might be against the rules to do so.
One of the tougher places you can find yourself is when you're loyalty is to one leader, but you are being asked to follow a different leader. That is especially difficult if it is a different leader that you do not respect.
I've seen that situation occur when the leader is removed against their wishes and so they have made no effort to help the team transition to the new leader (or acting leader). That is hard on the new leader and unfair to the team, but I have seen it up close more than once.
> But we acted out of a deep conviction that it would be better for Uber, its employees, and investors to have a fresh start.
Bull-fucking-shit. Don't condescend to us and pretend like you have the employees' interests at heart. I have no great love for Travis, but come on don't act like this isn't about getting your returns. The letter would have a lot more credibility if they just came out and admitted what is obvious to everyone.
Are you saying that Benchmark thinks/knows this lawsuit is worse for Uber and its employees?
It's an open secret that Kalanick is trying to regain control of the company, telling people that he plans to return as CEO; that he's "Steve Jobs-ing it." [1] That's what this lawsuit is trying to prevent.
I don't think Kalanick's return would be good for Uber, its employees, or its investors. Clearly Benchmark feels the same way.
I think most of us believe Benchmark couldn't give a fuck less about anybody but Benchmark and their personal billions (assuming they get paid 2 and 20, cashing out of Uber really could be worth a billion a partner). Given the behavior that has gone on while Benchmark has been on the board, this comes off as treacle.
(Which is not to say that Benchmark and employees' interests couldn't align in this case...)
But if they are ousting their CEO publicly it's probably because things are going extremely badly. I don't think ousting the founder is necessarily making it worse and thus the cause for those companies to worsen after the ousting.
I don't think they are somehow attempting to hide their motivations or mislead employees.
As you say, it is obvious.
They are only arguing that both employees and investors have a shared interest in the long-term success of the company. Which sounds pretty reasonable.
The problem is a lot of people believe that Benchmark has interest in the short-term success (until it IPOs) due to its fund cycle. So it's pretty obvious that there's no such "shared" interest here. Which is why this letter comes off as deceitful
Are Benchmark's interests not aligned with employees' interests in this case? They would have preferred stock, so it seems like there's plenty of scenarios where they extract benefit, but common stockholders don't, there's one scenario - perfect execution - where common stockholders benefit while Benchmark benefits enormously, but there are zero scenarios where common stockholders do well, but Benchmark doesn't.
This letter reads as faceless (who's Benchmark's representative on the board as of now anyways?) and a bit condescending to me. "We've never interacted with you in the past, but trust us, we're on your side and have your best interests in mind."
Not sure what this letter is supposed to accomplish. Employees who were behind Benchmark already will continue to support them, and employees who were behind Travis will continue to support him, and if anything, the polarization will increase with this message.
>Not sure what this letter is supposed to accomplish. [...] , and employees who were behind Travis will continue to support him,
Based on Travis' continued day-to-day meddling in Uber, it looks like he still has quite a bit of "soft power" within the company even though he's no longer an employee.
This isn't like the situation where Steve Jobs sold all his Apple stock and cut the ties after John Sculley and the Apple board fired him.
I'm guessing his soft power exists because you have a large faction of employees with stock options. For whatever reasons rational/irrational, they think the best way for the stock value to increase is with Travis instead of Benchmark's candidates. Maybe Benchmark thinks their letter can change some opinions on Travis or capture the undecideds.
(Yes, Steve Jobs coming back to Apple helped, but Jack Dorsey coming back to Twitter didn't. Therefore, don't get tunnel vision about Travis being the ultimate savior ... seems to be Benchmark's underlying message.)
Yes, Benchmark also has stock equity in Uber so the VC's protection of their capital should be perfectly aligned with the employees' desire for their stock to go up in value. The problem is that the employees have been "in the trenches" with Travis whose value to the business was demonstrated concretely whereas Benchmark is just an "investor" whose value to Uber is abstract.
> Not sure what this letter is supposed to accomplish
Communicate why Benchmark acted in a manner they find to be reasonable? Assuming every single one of Uber's employees don't divide into neat pro-Benchmark and pro-Kalanick camps, this could help keep nervous minds put.
Disclaimer: This comment is NOT investment advice. Please do not buy or sell any securities based on it.
> his letter communicates nothing but drama and uncertainty
This letter or the lawsuit? The suit certainly communicated drama and uncertainty, though if the accusations in this letter are true, it might have been a calculated judgment that lots of drama now is better than a slow drip over years.
After filing the lawsuit, Benchmark could (a) stay silent, leaving everyone guessing (and letting the machinations they accuse Kalanick of orchestrating continue to work their rot) or (b) explain their actions. They chose (b).
>Not sure what this letter is supposed to accomplish.
I would guess just stirring the pot and keeping Uber in the news. If you believe that Benchmark is the source of some leaks, like the poor state of the leasing program, that's the goal. Make enough noise that some other investor is willing to buy them out to stop the noise.
>Make enough noise that some other investor is willing to buy them out to stop the noise.
But hasn't that already been proposed? There was a letter to Benchmark from 3 Uber investors earlier this week who have offered to buy a minimum 75% of Benchmark's share. Approximately $6 Billion, if I remember correctly.
I feel like this letter would have come across as more honest if they had at least once acknowledged that they are also motivated by their desire/need to protect their own investment alongside the rest of the things they claim.
As an Uber employee, I can say this: although the feelings on TK are mixed (some loving TK, others glad that he's gone), the feelings about Benchmark are pretty uniform. They are only out for themselves, and nothing they have done have "helped" us. They have only hurt us. This current ploy they are doing is only further hurting us. Everyone thinks this "letter" is a joke. Nothing to see here, at least from an employee perspective.
Interesting. As far as I can tell (from the outside, of course) Travis is reneging on his deal and he's planning on reinstalling himself as CEO in addition to the extra board seats he just procured. This seems like it would hurt employees more than anything and possibly give Travis even more control over the company.
To me it appears Benchmark is mostly aligned with employees; both want the company to grow and do well. So why do many have bad feelings about Benchmark's actions? What am I missing?
Benchmark's interest lies in protecting the value of their investment and liquidating it as soon as possible.
This can be very different from employees' interest in the case where Benchmark seeks to sell their stake via a private transaction (e.g. to Softbank).
I'd also add that Benchmark couldn't care less if the company 'grows'. They've already made enough money to return their fund many times over. Their strategy now is mainly to mitigate risk to the paper value of their holdings.
Founders and employees typically own common stock. Investors will have preferred stock with different rights. Depending on the deal specifics this will give VCs different incentives for the company. So yeah I can't imagine that employees are very happy about this change of control.
Come on, guys. You all are smart enough to read between the lines.
Benchmark is desperate to get out. Why do you think that is? Do you think they'd be all hands on deck trying to get out of a rocket ship investment? Of course not.
Uber's unit economics are garbage, and will remain garbage until self-driving technology becomes universal. That will not happen in a timeframe that Benchmark is comfortable with - or to put it another way, within the preferred close dates of their fund - and even if it did, they clearly have little confidence that the current leadership (or lack thereof) are the right operators, either now or in the future.
The ship is sinking. They want out. Softbank wants in - for reasons I can't understand other than they have the money and want to spray it around aimlessly - and this bit of messiness is surely throwing a wrench into the plans.
As much as you and many on the HN like it. Ship is not sinking at least not any time soon. If all they wanted was a way out why tarnish their own image by filing this law suit and make benchmark look less founder-friendly and supposedly create leaks which make Uber look even worse. Making Uber look like a bad investment is possibly something they don't want to do if they want $$$ for their existing shares.
I'd like to hear your reasoning that the ship isn't sinking. My reasoning is their burn rate, unit economics, the writedowns, and VC's taking some controversial hardball steps to protect downside risk. Since they're private, there's not much real data to be had, but that's a lot of smoke for no fire.
Anecdotally, I have seen up close what it looks like when suit-and-tie MBA types start looking for the emergency exit, and this smells right.
BUT
What I don't know would fill volumes-- whaddya got?
A paper titled "Squaring Venture Capital Valuations with Reality" [1] was recently published by students at Stanford GSB that put forth a new model for valuing privately held companies [2]. If you consider "Table 8: Detailed Unicorns Fair Values and Post-money Valuations", Uber objectively has one of the smallest deltas of all valuations listed at 12% (bested only by Snapchat and Lyft out of ~100 companies).
I only skimmed these papers, but they seemed to be dealing with contract terms that caused later shares to have value not totally reflected in the per-share price, including but not limited to things like ratchets and liquidation preferences. Such that the valuation is that of a "unicorn" but that some conditions may apply if you want to realize that investment.
Nowhere did I find reference to the economics of Uber justifying their valuation. I should clarify my point: I don't think Uber is worth what they think they're worth based on the fundamentals. Certainly a bunch of tricky contracts could exacerbate that, but I think everybody bought into Uber at a valuation they were never going to sustain, and the ship is slowly crashing back to earth.
> If all they wanted was a way out why tarnish their own image by filing this law suit and make benchmark look less founder-friendly and supposedly create leaks which make Uber look even worse.
Because they're trying to shape the battlespace of public debate to create the best possible conditions for a resolution of this standoff in a way that gives them liquidity for their investment at a valuation approaching Uber's last round.
Softbank wants in - for reasons I can't understand other than they have the money and want to spray it around aimlessly
Right, so the smart money is the money that agrees with you, and the investors willing to sink billions into Uber must just be stupid. It's so obvious, guys.
Softbank has its fingers in all the major ride hailing, on demand companies (Ola, Didi, Grab etc) and getting a hold in Lyft or Uber helps them slowly grow more command on the whole market. That's the only play by Softbank that may make sense
Jeez, not trying to defend Travis, but the guy did create an umpteen billion dollar company in short order, creating absurd value for Benchmark's investment. The least they could do is start off with a hollow thank you and acknowledgement for that achievement. Apparently all Travis did was make mistakes. It really does smell more like a vendetta and less like them protecting their money.
If this letter's claims are true, Kalanick agreed, in writing, "to modify the company’s voting agreement to ensure that the board was composed of independent, diverse, and well qualified directors." He then defaulted on that written agreement with Uber's Board.
That's a pretty serious mistake.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor investment advice.
Is it? Does putting something in writing automatically force you to do it, legally, if that writing is not a contract?
Perhaps the mistake here is Benchmark's. If Kalanick agreed to do this in writing, and then didn't do it, that makes him look bad but it's unclear to me that Benchmark can do much about it. Maybe Travis has the last laugh.
> Does putting something in writing automatically force you to do it, legally, if that writing is not a contract?
It's unclear from the letter if this agreement was a contract or e.g. an email. If a contract, the answer is clear.
If something less formal, note that American courts tend to treat written communications between sophisticated parties as legally binding, particularly if it occurs around negotiating a contract [1].
There's the further distinction that these are written communications between a CEO and his Board. At the very least, Kalanick made untrue statements to his investors. If he did it intentionally, it could constitute fraud.
If that was in a contract, Benchmark wouldn't have to sue for 'fraud' - they can sue to enforce the contractual agreement. Sounds like what they have on paper isn't as solid as they'd like you to believe.
In the US, generally it is binding. Communications and agreements between parties are binding particularly if TK received something in return for said promises.
Even verbal agreements are binding in the US especially when dealing with parties such as these. If TK hopes to have any credibility moving forward, with the Board or in the courts, it would be in his best interest to keep commitments or he will be stuck in the "did you lie then or is this version a lie" mess.
If he wants to argue that he made the agreement under duress then he can argue that in court and the court may find the the agreement is not enforceable but duress can be a steep hill to climb without physical, or threat of physical, harm.
Generally, yes it does require you to do so unless you also have it in writing that whatever document you just signed is not in fact binding. Even verbal agreements can be enforced as a legally binding contract so having a written document is a pretty high barrier to overcome legally speaking.
So, this might be me just being dumb, but I don't understand how Benchmark has made any money whatsoever on this deal. Not yet.
And what I mean by that is this: they gave Uber money for shares. But they have not yet sold the shares to anybody, b/c no acquisition or IPO. Other investors buy more shares, but that's not a liquidity event, is it?
Benchmark has a whole boatload of paper profits that they can't return to their LPs, not yet at least.
Or am I crossed up here? Could they, or have they, done some kind of private sale? I kind of doubt it but could easily be wrong here. Is there some kind of financial instrument to cash out early I'm ignorant of?
That's why I said value and not actual return on investment. They have created an insane amount of value in the stock that Benchmark owns. If you were an investor would you rather take the money that Benchmark originally invested, or the stock they received for it? Pretty easy answer unless you think they will go bankrupt.
Discrediting Travis (read: vendetta) is the means through which Benchmark seeks to protect their investment.
In order to liquidate their investment, Uber needs to IPO or Benchmark needs to find another investor to buy them out.
Travis is a staunch opponent to an IPO. And, replacing Travis as CEO is a likely pre-condition to finding another investor who will buy Benchmark out. Either way, discrediting and removing Travis and protecting their money is more or less one in the same.
The audience of this letter is Uber employees, and the context is that the faceless VC who just pushed out their CEO is trying to gain their trust. I think a little flattery here is in Benchmark's interest, true or not.
FWIW, Uber is very far from the most important and promising company of our generation in my mind.
It's probably the company that has had the most concrete impact on my life and the lives of my friends of this generation (depending on how you define generation).
I'll reiterate my point: if getting to the airport a little bit faster or not having to drive home after getting drunk is the most important thing that happened to our generation, well then that's a problem.
first, I would push back against the idea that Uber has vastly increased mobility. It's made mobility slightly less annoying in certain places for certain groups of people. But most parts of the world have had taxis for a long time. You've been able to schedule a taxi for decades, something which Uber just recently added. Prices are a bit better with Uber, but it's unclear if the VC subsidized pricing is sustainable. In places like Cuba and Cambodia the taxis and tuk-tuks have been excellent and painless methods of transportation for generations and often require zero wait and have zero barrier to entry other than the price of the transportation, that is; it requires to smart phone, no data plan, no credit card.
I don't perceive Uber as having done anything other than contribute a level of convenience to transportation. I don't feel as though it's provided mobility to anyone who didn't have it before, it hasn't decreased congestion or pollution. How many lives has it saved? How many people who desperately lacked needed resources has it helped? How much has it decreased dependency on non-renewable resources?
I think companies that provide life-saving resources to people or companies that increase equality are much more important. Creating the technology to get everyone access to clean water or drought resistant crops are some ideas that come to mind.
I'm guessing you don't live in San Francisco, or at least didn't before Uber.
I can recall a number of times waiting on street corners trying to flag a cab for an hour, only to give up and walk home. Calling the taxi company on a busy night was a joke.
At least in this city, transportation was broken. Clean water and draught resistant crops are great in general, but on a personal level I'm still drinking and eating more or less like I was five or ten years ago.
I admit to nitpicking at this point, but my OP was mostly to trying to say that for a company to be called the most important of our generation the value judgement needs to look past the personal level of affluent people who already have their basic life necessities met. Personally, I think the criteria for the greatest company needs to account for all classes of people. If poor people are replacing broken or otherwise overly expensive transportation systems with Uber and those pricing models are sustainable then I'll admit to not giving them enough credit.
Also, Bart allows bikes, San Francisco is always pretty pleasant riding weather, the busses are robust and have provisions for bikes, there's an assistance program for public transit in the bay. But damnit Bart why can't you have 24 hour trains.
I don't know much about lifestraw, but they seem to have made a dent in access to clean water. Do non-profits count? Kiva seems like it does good work and really helped popularized a new idea to help individual aquire loans. As far as transportation, Global Electric Transportation and Pangea Motors created crazy cheap electric busses to replace the outdated busses in the Philippines.
One counter-anectode to your examples (and your condescending "point"):
I spent six months (Nov '16 - May '17) with my license yanked away after a seizure. Uber (and Lyft) changed my life at that time. The last time I was in a similar position I depended on friends' charity. There were taxis that you could call by phone, but around an hour away. I was in a large city then too (Atlanta).
You shouldn't be downvoted but, by contrast, even as someone who have travels a lot I've maybe taken five Uber rides and I'd have been pretty much indifferent to taking taxis instead. But then I don't live in a city.
Before Uber, getting around the city was a huge, huge pain in the ass and the logistics of it often curtailed plans before they got off the ground, or added tons of friction and wasted time.
Now there is an easy, cheap, fast, and reliable way to get anywhere in the city, any time I want, without planning ahead. That bar my friends are meeting at that was two busses away and not worth the hassle on a Tuesday? I'll be there in fifteen minutes for the price of my first beer. For those who drive: no more worrying about parking or how many drinks you had.
Ranking companies which had less impact on my life than Uber seems like a strange exercise.
More impactful companies, both direct and indirect, include any company that produces food, oil, or computers, especially cloud computing or mainframes for enterprises.
Beyond that, Uber's usefulness really depends on locality. There are some places in the world that actually have functioning, acceptable taxi systems, like Seoul, where the prices are reasonable and the drivers are generally fair.
The upcoming and currently unfolding autonomous transportation revolution (self driving cars + drones) is definitely a "shit your pants big" shift that's going to change absoloutely everything in our economy. It's the internet scale shift of this era. Uber may or may not be of the many companies to capitalize on this shift, but his statement makes sense to me on that level.
Even at it's most absurdly promising, it's a relatively minor change in how we move and transport people and goods. Maybe fewer people required, maybe cheaper.
To compare that to "the internet" -- a technology that eliminated and created entire classes of industries, fundamentally changed the way we interact at almost every level, how society operates, how economies are built and run? No. Not even close. Not even in the same order of magnitude of significance.
I just figured I am a part of a different generation. Über doesn't even service my area and I've never used their service while traveling. So, they didn't impact me at all. I'm a member of an older generation.
It is the most important company in their portfolio and they are afraid that should their investment in Uber not payoff int he most spectacular fashion, they themselves would find out just how difficult it is to raise money after being labeled as a failure.
[edit: Payoff in a most spectacular fashion here means "exited at nearly the top of the valuation"]
IMO, this was a clever PR move on Benchmark's part.
Benchmark needs to limit any reputational damage that results from the ensuing battle. In order to do that, they need to justify their actions to the public.
Engaging with journalists directly is suboptimal because it lets the journalist control the narrative which will naturally paint them in a defensive light. Addressing the public via a "letter to employees" allows them to fully control the narrative, defend their actions while not seeming defensive, and paint the picture that they are looking out for the greater good.
Of course, we all know that Benchmark is self-interested. Their goals are:
- Liquidate their investment ASAP via a private transaction (e.g. Softbank) or IPO
- Protect the value of their investment until liquidation event occurs
- Limit any reputational damage to their firm
Everything they do can probably be explained by at least one of these objectives. And, it should be obvious that they don't genuinely care about Uber's employees -- only to the extent that it preserves the value of their investment (i.e. preventing substantial attrition).
"Uber is the most important and promising company of our generation."
That is a totally delusional statement. The current status of Uber's decline is a direct contradiction to this very line. Uber isn't anything special. A case could be made to say that Travis is special, an exceptional force that bulled his way through red tape and created a lot of value for shareholders and users of Uber, but Uber, as a company is nothing more than a very nice brand, which has now turned bad.
You can see this in every market they try to capture, fail and end up partnering with others in.
These kind of statements are why people take the piss out of the Silicon Valley thought bubble. Uber augments the middle class by providing convenience functions on their phone. That is not going to change the world. Not one bit.
> Uber isn't anything special. A case could be made to say that Travis is special
in my opnion a very strong case, if you compare it to a proxy like Lyft, very competent funding team they preceded Uber by several years [1], add access to the same pools of capital and talent and probably are worth 10% of Uber and only have a regional impact on US not the rest of the world.
So what is special about Uber? Travis is.
------------------------------------
[1] The first company with the ability to get everyday cars with drivers was SideCar, Lyft copied SideCar, Uber copied SideCar.
Paul developed his concept for mobile ride-hailing over a wireless network, applied for a patent in 2000 and was granted U.S. patent 6356838 “System and method for determining an efficient transportation route” in 2002. Paul turned his idea into reality. He co-founded San Francisco startup Sidecar, which offers paid rides by private drivers in their own cars, summoned by passengers over a wireless network.
If we rewind the clock to 2012, Lyft launched a peer-to-peer ridesharing service and Uber was a black car marketplace. Lyft and Sidecar’s P2P taxis were a bigger idea in a bigger space. And like most marketplaces, it was a winner-take-all opportunity, or at least a winner-take-most. At the time, all three companies were only in SF and everyone was racing towards liquidity, with sights to have a right of first refusal on every other city in the country thereafter. Lyft had a big head start, but Uber was trailing right behind.
Uber began to aggressively put its war chest to work to achieve liquidity as fast as possible. This meant enabling ~5 minute pickups for riders and ~$25 hourly earnings for drivers. First, it guaranteed drivers hourly rates and spent money to acquire drivers. With drivers on the road, Uber focused on filling their cars through paid channels and incentivizing referrals. In a nutshell, the company subsidized fares and gave away free rides until there was enough demand and drivers could earn enough on their own. City by city, Uber implemented this playbook — buying drivers, buying passengers, subsidizing rides — to shave minutes off the pickup SLA and increase driver earnings, propelling Uber to liquidity.
In short, Uber burned cash to get more drivers and more customers on the road. As availability went up and the marketplace became stable, Uber got closer to profitability and could scale faster.
-----------------
Sidecar: ‘We failed because Uber is willing to win at any cost’ (2016)
Last time I checked, Benchmark has one board seat? A bit bizarre for them to assert themselves (note the plural) as a benevolent agent for employees. I know 'corporations are people too', but how are employees supposed to respond to this letter? They're not. This is a PR release. Good thing "this isn’t about Benchmark versus Travis."
The CFO inclusion screams IPO, which, consequently, is all this comes down to: money. Benchmark wants to cash out.
Entrepreneurs will still work with Benchmark. Yes, they'll push you out a la Twitter and Uber style, but, at the very least, you'll be a billionaire by the time they do.
The pro-Travis side of the board is trying to get Benchmark to sell its shares to them. It seems that they have a good cash-out option in front of them that doesn't not require an IPO!
Yes, at a 30% discount. Seems like Benchmark is pursuing other options to avoid selling at a lower price (although with a huge return on their investment regardless).
They are certainly exaggerating, but the service is a social good - my mother and other elderly and disabled without cars have more independence and freedom to do things around town without spending exorbitant sums on finicky taxis, or spending an hour or more in buses.
I'd agree that the concept of ride sharing is great. But Uber's execution of it has been a complete travesty. The precedent they set for people not expecting to tip drivers has set the standard for all "sharing economy" apps that came after. It is downright deceptive how they presented the service as "tips included" at first. On top of that, their technology is nothing that can't be copied and done better. I think Lyft is going to eat their lunch in the long run.
The "no tipping" was a great precedent they set. It made their service super easy to use. Call your ride, get in, get out, leave a rating if you're pissed off (vs. spending weeks dealing with the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission). Americans want to tip so badly, the only way to prevent them from doing it is to not give them the option to (it was always possible to tip in cash, but the intention was clearly to have all interactions happen through the app). Tipping doesn't actually lead to drivers earning more money, it just leads to the price of rides dropping as the need to tip increases quantity supplied and decreases quantity demanded until prices reach a new equilibrium, at which point the drivers are still making the same amount and riders are still paying the same amount, except now riders get all stressed out about how much they should tip and drivers get all stressed out about how much their passengers are going to tip. Drivers only think tips are a good idea since most of them aren't smart enough to understand economics. Or, perhaps the Lake Wobegon effect is at play and an overwhelming majority of drivers believe they would receive more tips than average.
Cities where ride sharing services like Uber was banned (e.g. Vancouver) have been getting along just fine with car sharing services like Car2Go[1], Evo[2], ZipCar[3] and Modo[4] for years. Uber hasn't really brought anything new to the table asides more competition to taxi companies though more convenient app services and VC money to drive prices lower.
Because of the per-minute billing nature of Car2Go (as opposed to Avis which is per-hour billing) as well as the convenience of these cars being within walking distance at any point and can be left anywhere within the service area, it is a direct competitor to one-way travel services like taxis. If I'm choosing to use Car2Go instead of a taxi service to drive my fiancé and I to the ferry on a weekly basis or to drive us home from downtown Vancouver after shopping, or I'm driving myself to the airport, then it's a direct competitor with taxis. Keep in mind that in all these use cases, Car2Go and other car sharing services are significantly cheaper than equivalent taxi rides.
There are enough cars in Vancouver that you'll find one within a few blocks 90% of the time, so the argument of "not bringing a car with a driver" is moot unless you don't know how to drive. There's also no surge pricing. It's always the same flat rate.
Boston Metrocab's app predates Uber by years. It just didn't have VCs subsidizing the cost of rides. Which, in fairness, isn't a business model innovation when it's not a sustainable price.
(Also why Uber went on a sustained binge of offering 5$ rides in Boston; they didn't have anything else to compete with BMC on).
I think Uber's execution got them the market share they have (which btw is a huge achievement by any means) but lost them the time to build a decent culture.
> Only saving the world is a good use of your time and everything else is stupid.
I roll my eyes at this sentiment, which has become an increasingly common criticism of Silicon Valley. If Facebook improves ad targeting, and it helps millions of businesses and individuals reach potential users more effectively at a lower cost that is still good for the world, even if the effort was primarily profit-driven.
Maybe we don't have to applaud it as heroism, but there's no doubt in my mind that ride sharing as a concept is a good thing for many people and a good thing for the world.
Methinks the fact that this letter has gone out to rank-and-file employees at Uber signals a very tumultuous cultural impasse that the board is having a huge amount of difficulty clearing.
No mention of the IPO disagreement. I wonder if most Uber employees would be for or against an IPO. I am sure many would want to cash out at this point and might support Benchmark for that reason alone.
> The search for a new CEO started over 50 days ago. It was at the same time that Travis agreed in writing to modify the company’s voting agreement to ensure that the board was composed of independent, diverse, and well qualified directors. Despite agreeing in writing to sign these amendments, he has still not done so.
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what the legal difference is between "agreeing in writing to sign something" and "signing something". Anyone familiar with contract law want to chime in?
Not a lawyer, but you can have a contract to sign a contract. In fact this is normal in, for example, merger dealings and even smaller issues like buying a house: you first sign an agreement that says, after certain due diligence, you'll sign another agreement. The original agreement may or may not specify penalties for defaulting on it and not signing the second agreement, and if sued for breaching the first agreement, a court might not hold you to signing the second agreement.
In this case, the first agreement definitely isn't enough to modify the company's articles of incorporation.
Say you sell wizards from the university of manchester. Say I want a wizard from the university of manchester.
If you and I sign a document that says umanwizard sells me a umanchesterwizard with all the little deets like price and timing of delivery and such, then we've reached an agreement.
If you and I sign a document that says we will put together a purchase in the future, however, we explicitly are acknowledging that we haven't signed the aforementioned document yet.
Depending on the facts and jurisdiction, some places deal with these situations differently, but in common law generally an agreement to agree is not the agreement, and is a non-binding promise. That said, this is very general and you should speak with a lawyer (because i am not yours) if you want a fast and firm answer in a specific situation.
> Uber’s excellent executive leadership team is making commendable progress on these changes, many of the most important issues agreed to by the board remain
unaddressed.
And so who precisely is Uber's "excellent executive leadership team" comprised of? No COO, CFO, and CEO...
Funny thing is someone linked to Benchmark's twitter demonstrating the authenticity of the PDF in a reply to you. But refreshing this page and the post has now being deleted.
Wow. Is there any precedent for this? Where the board is at war and the investors mail the employees? They must be utterly desperate for a fire sale IPO at this point. How is something like this not meant to spook other investors, employees and potential CEOs?
I do wonder if Travis is miffed at his ousting. Probably. But is he willing to burn the company to the ground in response? He must be a significant shareholder in Uber and obviously is still a board member.
The lawsuit by Benchmark alleging fraud was one level of desperation. I mean Becnhmark gave Travis the power to fill those board seats and now they have buyer's remorse? You get no sympathy from me.
This does raise obvious questions about what the lawsuit will reveal.
When reading letters like this always be aware of the interests of all the parties involved and what they have to gain. Benchmark has a lot to lose if Uber starts bleeding talent (especially so in the engineering department). And it is there investment at stake if they can't turn the tide.
I'm not advocating for one side or the other but there is a lot of money involved and when that happens you have to be very vigilant of who is espousing for what.
>It was at the same time that Travis agreed in
writing to modify the company’s voting agreement to ensure that the board was composed of
independent, diverse, and well qualified directors. Despite agreeing in writing to sign these
amendments, he has still not done so.
then
>A number of people have asked why we took legal action before giving Travis the chance to sign
these amendments.
It doesn't sound like he agreed in writing yet based on their own words. Maybe that's just bad wording though.
They also fail to point to any actual actions taken on his part, just references to vague statements or inferences of inaction.
Not to say I'm on Travis's side of this, but from what I've read its much more likely Benchmark is trying to stabilize leadership under someone who will focus on shareholder value (not company growth/stability) as they need to divest themselves within the next year or two. This obviously stands contrary to what Travis supposedly wants (and has failed to accomplish), and probably much of the rest of the board.
What cowards for hiding behind the cover of "we care so much about this once in a lifetime company" (cough, investment). So all this while, when Travis was fucking up but building Benchmark a giant return on their investment, they were fine with his behavior. And now they're calling it out?!
So basically Benchmark's people on the board are incompetent.
In other news, I hear the SPECTRE board is also scratching its head why it's struggling to find a popular replacement for Ernst Stavro Blofeld in its CEO position. While they had a bit of difficulty around that Nine Eyes launch, the numbers in its Extortion business are growing phenominally, and investors just can't understand why up-and-coming executives wouldn't want to associate themselves with its brand and lead arguably the most important and exciting business of our generation.
Bill Gurley is a clear vulture waiting for his opportunity and worried. Travis is definitely not a gentleman known fact from his video which the driver posted. I always wonder why they got to be so nasty and squeeze the little people.
I visited Uber and I felt that place was more of bar with the light settings in the lunch room. So many hastags outside the conference rooms e.g. #pumpedup.. pure sh.
"We have tremendous
respect for the incredible work you do to provide this vital service in cities all around the world
and to create work opportunities for millions of people globally."
Suggests that it is addressed to employees creating jobs, which would be the full time employees.
It is addressed carefully to all Uber staff - we know they don't have normal staff with drivers.
I think 'the umpire has spoken' and that Benchmark know that this well crafted letter will carry enough weight to be heard by everyone. I think it is a masterstroke by them to write like this.
The human race is facing slow but almost certain extinction (if things don't change radically) and people in tech (who can potentially do something about it) are wasting their precious bandwidth debating who's right and who's wrong. Everyone is wrong. Except for Elon Musk of course!
"Uber is the most important and promising company of our generation"
THen fuck you.
Why wasn't, mr. VC, "taxi companies and their rates and availability and regulations and customer dissatisfaction the most important and disuptional problem of our generation" of the past?
"oh look - people want this! Arent we innovative. Oh shoot! look people are pissed when the company still acts like douchebags! Why would they act like that?"
--
I love the uber product, hate the player and all that...
b
ut give me a fucking break - uber is a taxi, as taxi's should be and self-driving cars are the next inCARnation of said service - but stop patting yourself where you can see that they acted like many disruptors who come into big money do... it is not a surprise.
Uber is a very interesting litmus to the state of things - the confluence of big money, big problems is amazing:
* 1. female engineering drama
* 2. ceo drama
* 3. legal drama
* 4. funding/VC drama
* 5. employees love/hating drama (tech issues are cool and all - but fuck this place)
* 6. user drama
* 7. data drama
* 8. driver drama
---
1. sexist blah - we know this one
2. sexist blah, douchebaggery blah -- now the ousting...
3. cities/states/countries banning them
4. raised how much for what? uber car leasing/VC battles, waymo, etc
5. employees love the eng - hate the grind/sexism/bro-bullshit
6. many complaints, new complaints, better than those on Richess. What about the lame "party button" that I already wrote about - lamest contest mode ever "compete for a spot to exclusive lame party - we will pick you up and drop you off to a specific location... OH, You want a ride home from said undisclosed location; FUCK YOU - stand at the corner and cal a surge uber like every other pleb, you moron"
7. No access to any recent data - but we will use it against all our drivers.
One of the key things about organizations which isn't always apparent is that leadership isn't "given" it is earned. This is often used as a tool in story telling where the hero's actions inspire people to follow them and so even though someone else is the "boss" the people are following the "hero."
That they are complaining about Travis, who, AFAICT, does not even have an employee role at all in the company, continues to be "involved" in day to day operations, suggests that his lack of co-operation is the issue and Travis is, or continues to be depending on your point of view, the 'bad actor' in this situation.
Sometimes you have classes where they throw out a hypothetical question like "What if you fired the boss and he didn't leave?" If Travis is able to exert that level of control over the company then clearly he continues to have people loyal to him doing as he asks against the wishes of the board. I can imagine that this would make it extremely hard to manage a company in that situation.