Comments on: How Sequoia forced Tony Hsieh to sell Zappos A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: OnTheTimes Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:30:00 +0000 A startup company where the goals of the VCs did not coincide with the founders? And this is worthy of a book?

Even though VCs will talk about how they deserve preferential tax treatment because of all the jobs they create, their #1 priority, and the only reason they are in that business, is making money. For themselves. Any entrepreneur should know this before they ever speak to a VC.

Zappos was sold for $1.2B at a time when they didn’t even have $1B in sales, which is a remarkable achievement for a retailer with no inherent advantage over anybody else. Hsieh should be very happy with that accomplishment, and use the proceeds to find a way to change the world that doesn’t require selling shoes.

By: HBC Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:08:20 +0000 That’s more overpriced footwear than a whole season of Sex And The City. With approximately the same amount of sex involved, i.e. zero.

By: keithbohanna Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:34:07 +0000 Having read the full article (but not the book) I agree there are a number of sweet/sour contrasts in this.

It is a shame the investor board were so out of sync with the core reasons why their investment was a success in the first place.

However Tony Hsieh kept his focus on the core principles which were important to him and used that focus to guide his decision to sell.

On the tracking of employee relationships reference very few of us have had the experience of managing “happiness” in a 1,800 ee operation so I would reserve judgment on that.


By: ScottAllison Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:15:07 +0000 Such a shame… the ideal purchaser for Zappos would have been Berkshire Hathaway.

By: absinthe Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:22:07 +0000 “To address that, we’ve begun tracking employee relationships.”

That’s even more unsettling than most of the details that were in The New Yorker’s profile.