Summary: the cofounders disagreed so two of them left.
Maybe I'm an old guy but I don't really understand why this blog post exists, it's like hundreds of words of emotive rambling and vague talk of journeys and values and euphemisms for simple concepts.
Would it like have ruined anything to write something like "A couple key early people are moving on but we're doing pretty good, we make social media software and have revenue ok hey thanks for listening I'm going to get back to that now have a great Friday" and then hit save?
I work at buffer. Some slight perspective. From all my interactions with Joel, I could describe him as soft spoken and very sensitive towards people around him. For him Leo and Sunil really did cross the boundaries of being simply coo and CTO. They have all been extremely close friends. For him this blog post probably isn't just a public announcement. It cements in the fact that it's actually happening. The transition period is closing off. His close friends whose advice he could always rely on are no longer there and that weight of being responsible for close to 80 people suddenly feels a lot heavier on him. I totally understand where you are coming from. All I'd like to pass on is the thought that it's not just numbers and back to a great Friday for him (or any of us). He's human too. And we humans need some space to take in and deal with complex emotions. That's kind of the bigger feel to what this blog post is about :). Cheers!
This is a great comment. It's so easy to be hyper-critical when you're critiquing words on a screen and not realizing there is a human behind those words.
I've been at a startup when a high-level executive/cofounder abruptly left with nothing but a short and vague email, and it was very unsettling to me and immediately made me worry about the long-term health of the company and whether or not there was hidden infighting at the top.
I think I would've felt a bit more comfortable with this sort of transparency, although I agree that ultimately it's still fairly vague and feels a bit rambling. I think most likely Buffer is just beginning a slow decline that will be drawn out for several years leading to either more downsizing or eventual death, and the two cofounders who left decided to get out now rather than ride that out. I don't see a major company acquiring Buffer's 100% remote team, but I could be wrong.
"We will be a long-term, sustainable, fully remote team that works hard on mission-driven work. We will be the most reliable social media tool in the market. And we will continue to push the boundaries of transparency, culture and freedom in the team."
The first and last sentence has nothing to do with the product, and the product statement doesn't even hint at what it does... just that it does it well!
Yeah after a while it seems like the classic case of taking themselves too seriously. I was like "Chill" you guys are developing tools to tweet later not saving lives or anything.
Employees are an audience, maybe the primary audience, for this message. Buffer has collected employees that prioritize this sort of transparency and emotional sharing. Which makes the message seem apt.
It's less this and the fact that their radical transparency is something that resonates with certain folks who will buy the product because of it, regardless of whether it checks every box on their feature list.
For some companies, they buy software because they like the sales guy who took them out for a steak dinner.
For other companies, they buy software because they like the culture and philosophy of people making it. This is why companies like Basecamp, Buffer, etc. can keep operating the way that they do.
Most products I've seen are "good enough" and have trade-offs with their competition. Infrequently have I seen a product that's head and shoulders above.
So companies get the checkboxes in features, then when I'm deciding between the finalists, stuff like this is a tie-break.
In other words, company culture is a differentiator, especially in a commodity product market.
I disagree on this. The companies culture is only a matter in terms of how it manifests within the product itself and the things around the product. It isn't THE product.
I don't buy a product because their CEO's salary is public and I can see what I'd make there in a hugely arbitrary / convoluted form based salary metric. I buy because the product is good and support is good.
Yeah tend to agree - if we look at the evolution of the product over the past 3 years, as a user I can't see much in the way of innovation or improvement. They've added Pinterest, but there's little else that I see - did I miss it?
I'm old too but you should think harder about this.
You can learn from bitter experience, and you also can learn from the detailed accounts written by others. Don't begrudge the youngins the chance to learn from other people's experience (and mistakes).
It's a ton of work to manage these kind of leadership changes, so the incremental cost of also writing about it for an hour or two isn't much.
So no, to answer your question, it wouldn't have ruined anything to write something short and sweet like your example.
And yeah, if he had taken more time he could have made the post shorter.
Yeah there is some real baby language: "But this is indeed a case of differing visions – neither better than the other, just different." OH PLEASE!
Joel clearly wants to be transparent about this, but the core of you the reader wants know is glossed right over. But full transparency around a personal disagreement would be really inappropriate. It'd make everyone & the company look terrible. If you want to be transparent, c'mon, let it fly - who's the egomaniac, who's the alcoholic, whose vision is going to burn the company to the ground etc. etc.? (ofc please don't)
Good luck to 'em, we're paying customers, but I totally agree a buttoned-up, terse post would be more transparent than this eye-rolling "incredible journey".
I respectfully disagree. Buffer needs to fully commit to a single path forward. The cofounders disagreed on which path to take. Rather than going with a compromise that would certainly fail, one of them left so that the company might succeed.
You might, perhaps, say "a case of differing visions - neither known to be better than the other", because at this point they really don't know which approach will work best. But I don't see anything insincere in this post. They need to fully commit to a single vision. The former cofounder did the right thing by leaving and making space for someone else who does share the vision to step in.
Buffer is somewhat well-known for over the top, radical transparency. Not writing something like this would have been far more surprising if you've followed the company at all.
Buffer is all about social media. What drives their product/business is sharing and transparency -- Collaboration, openness, sharing is what make their product thrive.
It's also the values, conversations and content that their typical customer (social media, influencers, mavens, etc, etc) loves to engage in.
They live that through the company, their values - which manifests in content and transparency like this.
Makes total sense to me. Perhaps not right in other contexts (likely the ones you value or are used to) -- but in general aligning your company culture, values, brand and approach to your market makes a lot of sense.
> hundreds of words of emotive rambling and vague talk of journeys and values and euphemisms for simple concepts.
I think for the new generation, vague emotional rhetoric has replaced old school business gibberish like "We need a paradigm shift" and so on. People like the idea of appearing to be open and honest without actually making themselves vulnerable by revealing their true thoughts and feelings.
I came to the same conclusion too, but I felt the blogs left a good taste in the end rather than raising questions in my mind. I was surprised at the number of "retreats" the team seems to have had though, maybe that's baked into the compensation, etc.
Agree with CPLX. It is improper to speak for others in this way. If Leo and Sunil want to post about their plans, they may do so. "Leo and Sunil asked me to to say this...." would be fine, although still TMI.
A customer might think, 'Wow the company is falling apart and the remaining founder seems lost in his own world. I should find another vendor.'
There doesn't seem to be any reason for customers to be concerned, and the contemplative style of the post is by no means new. On the contrary, it would be a matter of concern if the post wasn't primarily concerned with a retrospective on how they got to where they are today as well as individual styles, goals, personalities, and emotional fulfilment.
I agree with you and even though their words may be a bit fluffed up, they really are transparent. It's hard to fault Buffer when they have been transparent with everything they do!
Old guy here. I am sure many like me find the whole premise of the company a bit repulsive.
If you are going to throw all of your professional energy into creating and growing a company can't you find something more meaningful than just building a social media spam engine?
Maybe I'm an old guy but I don't really understand why this blog post exists, it's like hundreds of words of emotive rambling and vague talk of journeys and values and euphemisms for simple concepts.
Would it like have ruined anything to write something like "A couple key early people are moving on but we're doing pretty good, we make social media software and have revenue ok hey thanks for listening I'm going to get back to that now have a great Friday" and then hit save?