Foursquare Gets $45M and a New CEO to Build Out Enterprise Business - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/14/foursquare-gets-45m-and-a-new-ceo-to-build-out-enterprise-business/ <comment><USER2> With all this criticism against checking in, if Foursquare was still the app it used to be with Check-in built in, I'd still be using it.

The best part about Foursquare for me was a personal diary of things I did, the ability to share and gamify that diary, and only as a headfake, get location info. Swarm, not so much. They should have just made two apps -- one, the present day Foursquare, and another for Foursquare check-ins. They didn't have to create another brand. See how FB split itself into multiple apps.

Also, they killed the diary, the mayorships, the accomplishments. It's very hard to trust them with even an icon space on my phone anymore. Foursquare wanted a bigger toy, it threw what it had under the bus, and it wound up with neither.

<comment><USER3> In my opinion, the gamification was getting kind of old, especially as a lot of people had third-party apps that would check them into any location they even passed by. This probably made it very difficult to monetize location data, but it also made Foursquare less reliable for me when I want to know if my friends have actually been to a place.

I quite like the new Foursquare app, and never use other services like Yelp or Urban Spoon anymore. I see new places pop up on Foursquare before they're on Google Maps all of the time.

On the other hand, Swarm is a dull replacement of the gaming side of things. I find the design too "bubbly" almost childish. I do like that it is very easy for me to rate a place I've been, but I'm not very clear on how those ratings work with the ratings in the Foursquare app (which are much more in-depth).

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I noticed recently that I was automatically checked in to a bunch of places I haven't actually been, and I can't seem to find any setting to turn it off except for "disable background location data" which seems like it might be what triggers it. We will see if it actually stops, though.

<comment><USER5> You sure it's not the suggested check-ins feature? [http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/09/22/swarm-now-lets-you- che...](http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/09/22/swarm-now-lets-you-check-in- belatedly-based-on-your-gps-history/#gref)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Foursquare has to dangle a carrot for people to actually install and then use their apps. What's in it for them? Two+ years ago, I would see Foursquare check-ins on my social media feeds daily. Lately, not so much. As the novelty of checking into places continues to wind down, their data will get more and more stale.

Why should a user click "Allow" when the app asks to "access your location even when you are not using the app?"

<comment><USER7> Disclaimer: I don't work for Foursquare, but am fond of some people who do.

Checking in is definitely pretty dead - but the personal value of Foursquare for me is that they track where I go without any input from me. You can view your "location history" in the app, and for me it's ~90% accurate, and this data can be used to improve recommendations.

Anecdotally Foursquare's food/drink recommendations for me are far superior to Yelp and way less painful. I can trust the rating (Yelp's star ratings are a special kind of messed up hell) and the user-submitted tips is pretty great for quickly getting info on what to order and what to avoid.

I can search Foursquare with a keyword and go to the top 3 results and have a 95%+ odds of really enjoying myself. I can't say the same for Yelp.

<comment><USER8> > Checking in is definitely pretty dead - but the personal value of Foursquare > for me is that they track where I go without any input from me. You can view > your "location history" in the app, and for me it's ~90% accurate, and this > data can be used to improve recommendations.

Not sure about iOS, but every Android device can do this by default: [https://www.google.com/maps/timeline](https://www.google.com/maps/timeline).

<comment><USER7> Foursquare's version of this is _much_ more powerful, and IMO one of the actually valuable things they've created.

I live/work/play in Manhattan where the density of businesses is extremely high, but even here Foursquare is able to tell the difference between the bar on the ground floor vs. a restaurant in the basement of the same building. The level of specificity they've been able to achieve is pretty spectacular.

So it's not just a history of GPS coordinates or semi-educated guesses about which places you've been, it's a 90%+ accuracy list of _actual_ establishments you've visited. That's pretty great.

Looking at the Google page 6 of the last 10 places it guesses I've been are off the mark - most are just places I've walked past in the last day or two, and Foursquare almost never erroneously picks those up.

<comment><USER9> What do you do with that data? If it's just used for tailoring recommendations, wouldn't it make more sense/be less invasive for the app to ask you for your top 5 restaurants, coffee shops, etc. You may go places you don't enjoy and never go back, but those would still end up factored into your recommendations with Foursquare.

<comment><USER7> The invasiveness is definitely a concern - but in my experience things that quiz you on preferences are rarely actually accurate. Honestly I'm not normally so liberal with sharing my location data, knowing actual people who work there probably tilted this in their favor.

I'm not an expert in recommendation systems or anything, but just anecdotally it seems like the amount of real observed data needed to make _actually_ accurate recommendations is pretty high, beyond the abilities of a short intro quiz.

Though having experience building apps one concern is self-reporting vs. observation. Foursquare knows _every_ place I go, not just the ones that deserve a pic on Facebook or a checkin. The problem with asking users for their top restaurants is that the responses you get will be more aspirational than real, and reflect who the user _wants_ to be rather than their actual preferences.

> _" but those would still end up factored into your recommendations with > Foursquare"_

On the history page you can mark places as "not liked", presumably this lessens or removes the impact of it. Definitely still some user interaction required - but it's IMO still a lot better than manually checking in, or using a completely unintelligent system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10>
        We've heard that this latest round of
        financing cut the company's valuation
        roughly in half. Foursquare declined
        to speak to valuation, but its previous
        round in 2013 put it at a reported
        $650M valuation.

In other words, if you joined Foursquare in the last two years, your stock options are now worthless.

<comment><USER11> Not at all true. Employee option prices are not based on market (e.g. VC) valuation. They're based on 409A valuations which are usually much, much lower.

<comment><USER12> This is correct.

Most employees have a stock strike price that is say $2.00 when the company is valued at $20.00.

So if each Foursquare stock was worth $20 and is now worth $10, the strike price of $2 still allows employees to make $8 per share now.

If you are granted 100,000 shares and wait it out and build the company back up to $20 you will make $18 per share times 100,000 shares for a nice little $1.8M bonus for putting in the hard work.

Maybe because you stuck it out you not only increased the price to $50 per share, but you were also granted 100,00 more stock because you didn't care what TechCrunch said. $9.6M isn't bad for 4 years of hard work...

<comment><USER13> "So if each Foursquare stock was worth $20 and is now worth $10, the strike price of $2 still allows employees to make $8 per share now."

"Now" is wildly inaccurate; these are still illiquid assets, so even if this person were to exercise their options, they can't sell yet, most likely (I'd be shocked if they could turn much of a profit selling in the private markets).

And I have no idea what the terms of the new investment are, but I imagine they include some sort of protections for these new investors (I'd put money on them getting their money back plus full participation in a liquidity event). They probably get preferred shares. They probably get last-in/first- out privileges.

If you joined in the last two years, you're probably underwater based on strike price. Even if you're not, if the company has a liquidity event, once these latest investors get their money back, you're probably underwater by then (this new $45m coming off the top, minus any debt, you might split whatever's left -- MAYBE).

If you're an employee, you're probably not going to get anywhere close to $9.6m even if the stock rebounds. That's reserved for the new CEO who turns the company around, maybe some of his top brass.

<comment><USER14> Do employees have any opportunity to sell their ISOs on the secondary markets if they don't want to wait? No clue how any of that works so forgive me if that is a dumb question.

<comment><USER13> Tricky question that I'm not 100% sure on the answer of... My understanding is that it depends on the company, the stock agreement and of course finding a buyer. A company like foursquare is probably tough because there is such a risk of the stock being worthless. There are a lot of ways that I mentioned such that most common stock will become worthless, so all of that is factored in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would've spit my coffee up as an investor back when they told me they're ditching check-ins. That was such a terribly bad move, caused so many users to forget them, really Crowley should've moved all the way out.

It was one of those "we're going to be like steve" and do some jerk product design move, but it wasn't like steve in that it failed.

Rule #1 for the net: if you ever get so incredibly lucky as to define a verb (like google it, or tweet that), like they had with check-ins but we just didn't get to fully grok it and then they whacked it ... grow that like gold.

They should've built out check-ins as this powerful "where am i now" related kind of thing .. it could've been a real mobile local gem beyond anything today. Think the star trek moment where you scan where you are and it tells you all sorts of interesting things, useful utility links, cool data.

But instead they called it "swarm" and made it all about your bro's ... maybe that says something about Sf? oh wait they're in NY.

<comment><USER16> Maybe they'll bring them back in some new-and-improved form and generate renewed interest in the app--maybe it's a strategy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Keith Rabois in 2013 to Dennis Crowley.

       Maybe Hail Mary Bebo-style acquisition will bail you out.

[https://twitter.com/rabois/status/312974304155422721](https://twitter.com/rabois/status/312974304155422721)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/keith-rabois-bashes-square- on...](http://www.businessinsider.com/keith-rabois-bashes-square-on- twitter-2013-3)

<comment><USER18> Damn

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Almost everyone on this thread is referring to removing the check-in functionality as the death of Foursquare as a consumer product. Y'all - Foursquare did that because it was not just dying but basically dead. The change allowed them to be more flexible in the new phase of the company. It might not have worked the way they dreamed (I don't know) but Foursquare was crashing fast at the time of the split.

</comment><comment><USER20> The main issue I see with this new enterprise business is that it depends on people using the Foursquare / Swarm app. And few people seem to be using it lately. In the past, I had tons of friends using it. But checking my friend list, no one is using for quite sometime.

\-- edit I had to download the app to check as I did not had it installed anymore.

<comment><USER21> I don't know the numbers, but I have anecdotal experience.

Most people seem to be not using 4sq. It varies a lot by location, and NYC seems like it would have the highest user penetration.

Out of the registered users, a subset of 4sq users (including myself) check-in very consistently (multiple times a day). For myself, it's useful in a quasi- lifelogging role.

<comment><USER22> > Out of the registered users, a subset of 4sq users (including myself) check- > in very consistently (multiple times a day). For myself, it's useful in a > quasi-lifelogging role. reply

Google Timeline does this automatically now, without the need to checkin:

[https://www.google.com/maps/timeline](https://www.google.com/maps/timeline)

> To determine popular times, Google uses data from users who have chosen to > store their location information on Google servers. Popular times are based > on average popularity over the last several weeks. Not all businesses will > have a popular times graph; the graph will only appear for businesses whose > hours are listed on Google and about which Google has sufficient popularity > data.

<comment><USER21> While Google timeline might be in the same ballpark for geologging, it is definitely not the same use case as having a newsfeed of check-ins by yourself & friends. Google timeline seems closer to 4sq's Pilgrim, both which are not anywhere near the same level of granularity as manual, explicit check-ins.

<comment><USER22> > While Google timeline might be in the same ballpark for geologging, it is > definitely not the same use case as having a newsfeed of check-ins by > yourself & friends. Google timeline seems closer to 4sq's Pilgrim, both > which are not anywhere near the same level of granularity as manual, > explicit check-ins.

I agree manual checkins are more granular, but it seems like the fad has worn itself out, and Foursquare is going to die a slow death with Google providing the data for free.

EDIT: As Steve Jobs wisely commented, "Its a feature, not a product."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder what if Foursquare did the opposite of what they did with Swarm. Keeping Check-in in Foursquare and creating a new app to find places (like yelp), people will leave the notion of check-ins behind in the Foursquare app and the new app will be a clean slate for a discovery app.

</comment><comment><USER24> Foursquare has an enterprise business?

"Congrats, you're the Mayor of Conference Room 3C!"

</comment><comment><USER25> I have a friend that's worked at Foursquare for a long time. Hopefully this new pivot works out for them.

I'm not sure I understand what they've pivoted to though. It seems as if they're providing location data to customers like Apple?

<comment><USER11> They're selling location trend data to anyone who will buy it. Retail operators (like Apple) may buy it, but the more typical customers for these types of services are hedge funds and other traders who want an edge. They'll correlate check-in volume with iPhone sales, for instance, to more accurately estimate Apple's quarterly revenues before they're announced.

<comment><USER22> > They're selling location trend data to anyone who will buy it.

Is this the same trend data Google is showing in location search engine results?

[https://support.google.com/business/answer/6263531?hl=en](https://support.google.com/business/answer/6263531?hl=en)

> Popular times

> Google Search shows users the most popular times for some of their favorite > businesses and institutions. When users search for places like a restaurant, > bar, or gym on Google, they'll see when their destination typically draws > the largest crowds.

> To determine popular times, Google uses data from users who have chosen to > store their location information on Google servers. Popular times are based > on average popularity over the last several weeks. Not all businesses will > have a popular times graph; the graph will only appear for businesses whose > hours are listed on Google and about which Google has sufficient popularity > data.

<comment><USER11> > Is this the same trend data Google is showing in location search engine > results?

Very similar idea, but different source (4SQ app versus Android/Google apps). Also I'd imagine the 4SQ enterprise offering has a lot more ways to slice and dice the data so that it's useful for business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> How is 4sq worth millions but yelp is worth billions? I find them both to be very similar services. Should there really be that much of a difference in valuation between the two? Seems like one is either over-valued or under- valued.

<comment><USER27> 4sq has struggled mightily with traction/retention since the big change. Yelp is ubiquitous in the US and they are making strides into other countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> All the great lasting products come with a strong sense of community, no matter the mechanic. Foursquare had that with its friend list and checkin scores.

Once they removed that from the core app, it became this faceless product that left me in the uncanny valley of trust. Where is this score coming from I would ask myself everytime I launched the app?

Maybe it was the failing of branding not to follow back up with OkCupid style of "hey did you know??" blog posts.

Swarm was a cute project, reminded me a little of Gowalla but without that digital diary/passport that Gowalla had. So it felt like it was missing the other half of my life story. It's not JUST the weekly checkin score, but my entire journey I want easy access to.

</comment><comment><USER29> Just a casual Foursquare user here - I actually like(d) the app and found check-ins kind of fun; an interesting location is kind of like a hot selfie on Instragram for padding one's ego.

But from what I gather, check-in feature was removed? I must be using a rather outdated version of the app cause I had checked in to a few places recently.

This new focus on 'enterprise' ie- selling my data is a bit troubling.

Sooo... yeah, not intending to update the app - and will looking forward to an alternative or perhaps a more private geo app that isn't focused on 'enterprise'.

<comment><USER30> Checkins are still there, they're just split into a separate app called Swarm[1] that integrates tightly with the core app.

[1] [https://www.swarmapp.com/](https://www.swarmapp.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Used Foursquare almost daily until they forced me to install that awful Swarm app - have barely used it since.

One of the worst product decisions I've known a `mainstream` tech company make.

</comment><comment><USER32> Foursquare is dead. Social-based sites were a bad investment in general.

The Advent of the Algorithm is here aka real technology companies on the horizon.

</comment><comment><USER33> I hope they do succeed. I find their recommendations more useful than Yelp.</comment>


Browser Stats: Firefox 3.5 Is More Popular Than IE 7 or IE 8 - <AUTHOR> http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/Browser_Stats%3A_Firefox_3DOT5_Is_More_Popular_Than_IE_7_or_IE_8

<comment><USER2> I love the fact that we've gotten speed of innovation back into web browsers, and i wouldn't ever want to go back.

However, i also fondly remember a time not long ago where all i had to do was to develop in IE6 and I'd be sure it would work for most everybody ;-)

</comment><comment><USER3> However, Firefox 3.5 < (IE 7 || IE 8).</comment>


How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy - <AUTHOR> http://jacquesmattheij.com/How+to+damage+your+brand+in+one+smooth+shot+Way+to+GoDaddy <comment><USER3> I guess I'll be the lone discenting voice and say I don't think it's that bad. Bob Parsons has always run his company the way he wants, and he has particular freedom to do so since he has zero investors and is the sole owner. He does certain things for shock value, such as the super bowl commercials, which by the way caused outage with a completely different demographic of people.

Slaughtering an elephant might offend some of your sensibilities, but hunting in Africa is wide spread and as long as the elephant is not endangered, I don't think your outrage has a leg to stand on. The elephant was used as food and now crops are protected.

There are much worse things going on in America's food industry then this. In fact if anything if that elephant could feed the village I'd say this was actually a _good_ thing.

I can understand how this might offend vegetarians but even then, it's not like the animal was wasted.

<comment><USER4> Thank you. Agreed. He fed a village (or more), saved the crop, and it looks like the people there find this to be a noble act.

Our U.S. grocery stores have stock piles of meat stacked in open refrigerators, butchered behind closed doors. Animals are fed and bred to be slaughtered so we can have a juicy burger and fries. Out of sight out of mind I guess.

Now... MAYBE the CEO of a hugely popular brand should not have participated in such an activity and filmed it for sake of his company, employees and customers, but I'm certainly not moving my domains over this.

There are probably employees there that don't like what he did either, but I'm not going to punish them for the actions of 1.

<comment><USER5> > I'm certainly not moving my domains over this.

Me neither. I'm moving my domains because this reminded me of the silent, seething rage I have for Bob Parson's face.

When I go to a site that registers and manages domains, I don't want to see your face. I also don't want to see ads about how great your company is. When I buy a domain, I don't want to wade through five pages of bullshit you put up in the hopes that I won't notice some default or will misclick somewhere and inadvertently buy your useless services. I just want to _register_ and _manage_ my fucking domains.

Seriously, GoDaddy is the expertsexchange of domains.

<comment><USER6> Just out of curiosity where are you going to move your domains? I own just over 30 domains all at GoDaddy and I'd move them over the massive amounts of cross selling and insanely cluttered UI.

<comment><USER7> Namecheap offers a 4.99 USD transfer special using the "byebyeGD" coupon code, valid until 11:59pm EST 1st of April 2011: <http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/03/30/elephants/>

<comment><USER8> ... and just emailed me, as an existing Namecheap customer, letting me know that I can help save the elephants. Nice fast-move marketing. :)

"It's not often that we would disagree publicly with a competitor, but we at Namecheap are very disturbed by this video of a competitor killing an elephant for sport. Check out the ABC News Report (Warning: Very Graphic!)

We've decided to throw our support behind our Elephant friends by offering domain transfers at a price where we actually lose money.

Show your protest by saying BYEBYEGD again and transfer your domains to Namecheap for $4.99 for the next 24 hours through 11:59pm EST on 3/31/11 (limit 10 per user, valid for all com/net/org domains).

On top of that, we'll donate $1 for each transfer to Save The Elephants at <http://www.savetheelephants.org/>

Use coupon code BYEBYEGD and let's help the Elephants together!

Regards, Team Namecheap"

<comment><USER9> NameCheap are an ex-client (obvious disclaimer) back when they were a lot smaller than they are these days. They were a decent bunch and while always on the ball with marketing, I can imagine there being some genuine feeling behind this - they weren't the type to stick branded caps on African villagers, that's for sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As someone who has worked with ecologists in the field on a number of wildlife projects in rural Africa, I find this to be truly repugnant. There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing them -- in fact, killing an elephant is almost _never_ an option. If the villagers don't have the financial resources to implement non-lethal control measures, I'm sure Bob Parsons does.

<comment><USER11> > As someone who has worked with ecologists in the field on a number of > wildlife projects in rural Africa, I find this to be truly repugnant.

Really? You know that the majority of ecologists support Elephant Culling (killing elephant family groups wholesale from helicopters)?

> There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing > them

There is an oversupply of elephants and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone elephant bull is no problem.

I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as elephants) because some groups (such as PETA) opposed elephant culling.

How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly an elephant fucks up a tree? Elephants are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).

And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have animals.

I fail to see how anyone opposes elephant culling can label himself as an ecologist.

\--PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE--:

<http://hubpages.com/hub/Elephant-culling-in-Africa>

<comment><USER12> There is an oversupply of humans and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone human male is no problem.

I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as humans) because some groups (such as the UN) opposed human culling.

How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly a human fucks up a tree? Humans are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).

And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have humans.

I fail to see how anyone opposes human culling can label himself as an ecologist.

<comment><USER13> This satirical response only applies if you value human lives and elephant lives equally.

<comment><USER14> So true. The Bible says that we are created in God's image and that God gave us domain to do whatever we like to animals... just so long as we don't attempt to copulate with them. It should be a crime to even hint that an animal's life could be valued as a human life... Except for my trusty dog companion. </sarcasm>

<comment><USER15> Sorry if I actually subscribe to that belief. Neither did God give humans a free pass on torturing less valued species. Animals are given as a resource much like trees and oil. Animals also happen to have some capacity for emotion and intelligence. Since they are similar to us in some way we should respect them, lest we become callus with the taking of intelligent life.

As for pets, it's a cultural thing that we don't eat pets. The bible cautions against following culturally aberrant activities provided doing so doesn't infringe on your service to God.

I would hope you will have some respect for other peoples' beliefs in the future.

(Sorry if I am less than clear, I'm typing this on my iPad and I can't edit stuff in text boxes very easily.)

<comment><USER16> > I would hope you will have some respect for other peoples' beliefs in the > future.

Some beliefs don't deserve respect.

<comment><USER11> Look, you can be a smartass and try to criticize other's beliefs. But at least know what the beliefs of others are.

Criticizing a group of people based on your own naivety of their beliefs is both ignorant and arrogant.

Read this:

<http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/an-tpr-are-10.html>

Many passages in the Bible explain that humans are _stewards_ of nature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow. Just wow.

Having been to Africa and seen elephants in the wild up close, among other animals, I simply can't stomach that I'm supporting a bunch of fat white Americans flying half way around the world to destroy a magnificent animal simply because they can.

I'll be moving my domains away from GoDaddy asap.

<comment><USER18> >> I'll be moving my domains away from GoDaddy asap.

I moved all my domains, ~30, from GoDaddy about 18 months ago. It was a slog. There was no "asap" to it. It took about 2 months to get them all moved over to namecheap. Transfers gets curtailed for various reasons and the current registrar is usually little help in solving the mysteries.

I'm telling you this not to take the wind from your sails but to prep you for a bit more effort.

The reason for my move was the full-on "retail experience" of GoDaddy. It just didn't work for me anymore. I wanted a more spartan registrar.

<comment><USER19> I also transferred all my domains from GoDaddy to NameCheap in the past year and never looked back. I was tired of having to navigate a maze of circa-1995-UI pages filled with upselling. Want to change your DNS settings? Oh, look for that teeny tiny link in the corner. Want to turn on domain privacy? That'll be another $9.95, and you have to log in to a different site with a different username+password to manage that.

Admittedly, GoDaddy has a genius business model IMO. The confusing UI is what probably makes them their bucks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note: Submitted by me, by hand, after reading the posting and deciding it's relevant to startups.

Branding is important, and what you do with your brand is important. Actions speak louder than words. Google is still associated with "Do no Evil," but that's starting to wear a little thin as some of their actions belie the mantra. Similarly, you can get people chanting a slogan, but if you do something wrong, people will notice, and the backlash can be severe.

I would add that this:

      > There is no way to explain all this in a way that does
      > not make GoDaddy and it's CEO look good, and plenty of
      > ways to interpret it as bad.

... appears to have either too many or not enough negatives. I suggest it should read:

      > There is no way to explain all this in a way that makes
      > GoDaddy and it's CEO look good, and plenty of ways to
      > interpret it as bad.

<comment><USER20> This is a CEO who, in 2005, posted a blog article talking about why we have to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, because (mumble mumble) 9/11. He deleted both the original post and a half-retraction shortly thereafter, or I'd provide a link.

As such, I'm not surprised that he turned his personal hunting exhibition into a marketing expense. He seems to have a deaf ear when it comes to brand management. And that doesn't seem to have hurt him in any meaningful way.

I'm not sure what lesson to take away from any of this, except that he runs his business differently than I do.

<comment><USER21> Right, I find it difficult to believe that any of this was uncalculated (does that make me a high-mach?)

They appear to target the bottom 90% who needs a domain name. And, they very wisely get name recognition with non tech savvy business owners who often have the ultimate decision in which registrar to use.

Look at it from the vantage of a typical conservative small business owner here in America. Slaughtering a beautiful and rare animal is not deaf-ear branding - it's shrewd marketing. GoDaddy is not afraid to kill to solve problems. The association is powerful and on target.

<comment><USER14>
      > GoDaddy is not afraid to kill to solve problems

Just don't forget to pay your GoDaddy bills...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What I find most distasteful is the lie that he "saved a village and fed them". That's just bullshit.

There are more guns in Zimbabwe than most other parts of Africa. If the locals really wanted that elephant gone, it would have been machine gunned by two guys arriving on foot.

What really happened here is that a hunting party arrived, killed an elephant and left the carcass for the locals to eat.

What a hero.

PS: I spent my childhood and early 20's in South Africa and we hate this great-white-hunter tourist shit, but it sure pays the bills if you're the driver guide or booking agent.

<comment><USER11> > PS: I spent my childhood and early 20's in South Africa and we hate this > great-white-hunter tourist shit, but it sure pays the bills if you're the > driver guide or booking agent.

Uhm... no.

Do you know how much money hunters bring into rural areas? Do you know what a big shitload of game farms they fund?

I would argue that American hunters are the biggest boon for animal conservation. I see many farms being turned into game farms. In certain areas you cannot throw a rock without hitting a game farm.

American hunters put their money where their mouths are and pay serious $$$. The so called "animal rights groups" pay basically nothing and expect animal nirvana.

<comment><USER22> There is no hunting in the Serengeti just north of Zimbabwe and consequently it's the only place in Africa you can see a full wilderbeest migration. Game farms have fences and are basically zoos that let you shoot the animals. They are not a form of conservation.

<comment><USER11> > Zimbabwe and consequently it's the only place in Africa you can see a full > wilderbeest migration.

The biggest problem is space (for wildebeest migration for example). You need large places - in many countries it is not possible.

Some private game farms can get quite big (easily over 20,000 hectares). And yeah, it may be small when compared to large parks but it still fulfills quite a few functions.

One example is ensuring genetic diversity - more space for animals, more genetic diversity.

Another is breeding programmes - a good example is breeding of buffalo that is free of Bovine TB (Bovine TB is dangerous for humans, spreads to domestic cattle and threaten buffalo populations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Let's see who this outrage is coming from:

1) Someone who has never gone hungry for a single day in his/her life.

2) Someone who has consumed 100s of chickens, many cattle, and many other animals so far... Most of which have been literally tortured all their lives.

3) Someone who has never gone to Africa to help, but sits around all day posting his/her opinion on how things there (and everywhere else in the world) should be done.

I'll give you a secret. Want to change the world? Change yourself. It's the only way. Stop complaining. Stop finger pointing. Stop exerting yourself on others.

But yes... I do agree that it would have been best for GoDaddy to not post this.

<comment><USER24> Allow me to point you to these:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring>

Not to mention that you are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions about the outraged people.

<comment><USER23> You are using the above as buzzwords.

Making a valid and logical declaration based on personal experiences with the society he/she lives in is not a logical fallacy.

A logical fallacy is incorrect reasoning.

An opinionated, consumption-oriented, and selfish society is not one that produces people that have:

1\. Either fasted, or have gone hungry (even the povery line class has been able to eat - a lot of food is cheap and there is also government and community help).

2\. Do not consume animal products.

3\. Truly help others (or anyone but themselves).

<comment><USER24> > You are using the above as buzzwords.

I agree that my reply to you was not very articulate. I originally started explaining why your points were not relevant to the question whether his behaviour was morally acceptable, but then I realised that I would essentially be explaining the above fallacies, even though there are already better explanations available.

I may have misread your post, but to me it looked like you were trying to invalidate people's criticism of his behaviour by making (speculative) statements about their behaviour or character. I know at least one person who is angry about this and is a strict vegetarian who has done lots of humanitarian work in Africa. Anyway, if I misread your post and that was not the point you were making, I apologise.

<comment><USER23> > I know at least one person who is angry about this and is a strict > vegetarian who has done lots of humanitarian work in Africa.

Agreed. There are people like this in the world.

But they are few, and certainly not the majority.

My issue is not with what is moral, but with how easily people blame and demonize others.

<comment><USER25> .. and so you generalise and point your finger towards others as a response?

<comment><USER23> observing != generalising or blaming or finger pointing

I'm not sure how you are getting that from what I have posted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Unfortunately all my domains are with GoDaddy. Moving them ASAP. It is unacceptable for such a big company to have its CEO involved in something like this.

For years we've been discussing social responsibilities of the enterprise (I've been on it since 1998 here in Brazil) and then we see something like this. If it has the potential to make one disappointed and wonder if she shouldn't give up the fight, it also makes one see that discussing the social impacts and actions of businesses is still tremendously important and necessary.

I'm proud to be on the right side of the fight. And I'm ashamed of having my domains hosted with the slaughterhouse registrar.

<comment><USER27> I found an email in my inbox today from a competitor who are taking advantage of the PR disaster by offering a discount and a charitable contribution to anyone wishing to transfer their domains to them over this. Here's a screenshot: <http://i.imgur.com/za7G6.png>

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't agree with GoDaddy's lowest common denominator branding strategy, but it seems to have served them well over the years. It's hard to argue with results.

Make no mistake though, this is just as much a part of their branding strategy as their stupid, tasteless Super Bowl commercials. They'll probably make a token PR apology to hedge their bets here, but this reinforces their "brand" more than it damages it.

<comment><USER29> To paraphrase P.T. Barnum "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the buying public."

<comment><USER30> It's worth remembering that the producers of "Bumfights" went out of business due to lawsuits, not because they had revenue problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> So, to recap: sexist advertising campaigns for the benefit of the entire company == OK; the CEO shooting an elephant == boycott. To be clear, I'm in no way agreeing with his actions, but it was getting fed up with the advertising that got me to dump GoDaddy for DynDNS long before anything like this occurred.

<comment><USER32> Umm -- YES! Sexist advertising campaign = Silly, but I am not going to choose or drop a registrar based on that. CEO shooting an innocent animal = A company that I don't want to do business with.

You aren't trying to say that showing some scantily clad women is equivalent to killing, are you?

<comment><USER33> Almost every CEO in the country is responsible for killing "innocent" animals, since most are not vegetarian. Most are paying others to do it for them and are eating it themselves, but why is that morally better?

<comment><USER34> This is a form of blood sport (i.e. killing for personal entertainment). Animals that are destined for human consumption aren't generally killed for entertainment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Why did the village need Bob to shoot the elephant? What, the villagers do not have guns? or do not know how to use them? these guys use AK-47 since childhood and those villagers are much better hunters than an american rich guy who just arrived on a helicopter. The real story is that local villagers are not allowed to kill elephants and are fined if they do so. the american smartass bribed corrupted local government to let him shoot the elephant. Local corrupted head of municipality gets a couple of thousands of dollars (which makes him the richest man in the surrounding are) and the american guy (and his brand) gain cheap publicity back at home. everybody wins, except the elephant, but who cares about the elephant, right?

<comment><USER11> > The real story is that local villagers are not allowed to kill elephants and > are fined if they do so.

The real back-story is that Zimbabwe used to have a fairly urbanized population. Many young people worked in cities and larger towns (and only their parents had homes in rural areas).

Zanu-PF is strong in rural areas. The reason for this are numerous - it is much easier to co-opt tribal leadership, easier to organize genocide (e.g. Gukurukundi) and more difficult for opposition groups to organize in rural areas. The opposition (Movement for Democratic Change) had its roots in the trade union movement - which was undoubtedly urban.

By destroying the formal economy and urban settlements (e.g. Murambatsvina) Mugabe forced urban people to do one of two things: 1\. Become illegal immigrants in South Africa. 2\. Become subsistence farmers in rural areas.

With this he accomplished his goals – illegal immigrants in other countries can't vote and those in rural areas came under his power.

So this is what you are sitting with now: a large formerly urban population busying itself with subsistence farming to try and eek out a living (while living in squalor with a low life expectancy).

> the american smartass bribed corrupted local government to let him shoot the > elephant.

There are actually two problems. Firstly, all Zimbabwean game farms are basically completely poached of animals. People need food and bushmeat is as good as any.

Secondly, expensive game (such as Rhino) was hunted illegally.

I doubt the second case is of concern – since elephants are not that expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I doubt that even a video of Parsons raping small children would affect their sales. As long as they are slightly cheaper than other registrars and offer the same functionality, they will always have customers. People don't vote with their wallets, and have very short memories anyway.

(DNS is something I consider too important to delegate to the lowest bidder, but I am apparently a minority.)

<comment><USER37> It's strange that people will pay $5 for a cup of Starbucks for the convenience and atmosphere, but insist on saving $3/year by going with the most obnoxious DNS registrar.

You couldn't pay me enough to have to put up with the GoDaddy bullshit. I have no idea why anyone does. It basically costs nothing extra to choose a registrar that respects you and provides a non-ridiculous interface.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> The part that struck me the most odd is he claims that this is the most fulfilling thing he does. He must be pretty hard up for fulfilling activities.

<comment><USER37> He sees himself as the hero of the village. Practically a superhero to these Africans.

You don't see how a massive narcissist would find that fulfilling?

<comment><USER39> I don't see how he'd find it more fulfilling than being CEO of a massively successful tech company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> In my opinion, the animal cruelty side of this pails in comparison to the total and utter obtuseness of playing an AC/DC track over the top of a bunch of people who are clearly starving scrambling for a hunk of meet like some post apocalyptic nightmare!!

It doesn't really surprise me coming from this guy because the he is obviously obtuse (NASCAR sponsorship, Pamela Anderson ads etc.) but I found the graphic pictures of the slaughtered elephant far less confronting than the fact that he turned the life or death struggle of these desperate people into a sideshow spectacle for his PR exercise.

</comment><comment><USER41> Anyone who has had the misfortune of registering a domain with GoDaddy and using its horrible user interface to try to adjust DNS settings will not be surprised by this.

GoDaddy should have been out of business a long time ago just due to the horrid usability of its product.

<comment><USER42> _"Meant to buy 1 domain at GoDaddy; receipt also shows 3 yachts, a skank in a tanktop, and 11 yrs of "WebPlus+ Turbo SomethingSomething™."_

<http://twitter.com/hotdogsladies/status/1553046234>

</comment></comment><comment><USER43>
      It's not a crime to kill an elephant.
      It's bigger than all that.
      It's a sin to kill an elephant.
      Do you understand? It's a sin.
      It's the only sin that you can buy
      a license and go out and commit.
      That's why I want to do it before
      I do anything else in this world.
      Do you understand me?
      Of course you don't.
      How could you?
      I don't understand myself.

Clint Eastwood, "White Hunter Black Heart"

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100928/>

</comment><comment><USER44> This is stupid. If the elephant is going to be shot by a warden anyway, WHY NOT let some rich american shoot it? Why does it matter WHO shoots the elephant? It doesn't!

If you want to argue about whether the elephant SHOULD have been killed, that's fine. There is plenty to debate there. But who does the shooting is of no importance.

That said he's right that as a CEO you represent your company--especially when you're handing out swag. Probably not a smart PR move.

<comment><USER45> He explained it - it gives an incentive for marking more elephants as "problem elephants" than needed.

I wonder if a couple of fence (electric) might be a better solution than shooting the elephant. And all I saw in the video was a couple of square meters of trampled grass. I wonder what animal court in the world would give the death sentence for that.

<comment><USER46> It might look just like trampled grass, to you, but it's Sorghum (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorghum>) which a subsistence farmer was growing so he could feed himself, and to him it was the difference between eating and starving. It's ridiculous to glibly dismiss the farmer's worries about STARVING because you didn't see much damage in the video.

And do you really think a poor village in remote Zimbabwe is going to have the electricity (and money) to put up an electric fence around all their fields?

<comment><USER45> Would I be very far off if I would guess that a single photo safari for taking pictures of living elephants would earn more money than the whole village makes in farming the whole year?

Maybe they can't afford electric fences, but the GoDaddy guy surely could. Also now I remember in the Zoo they also don't have electric fences. It sounds doable to me - certainly not more effort than for example building those rice terraces other countries seem to manage.

Maybe these farmers really have no choice, which would be a purely political problem. They are definitely picking the wrong solution, though.

<comment><USER47> Do they even have electrical service in that village - and more specifically in some distant field?

<comment><USER45> I don't think electricity is needed, just some wall or burrow. Or even just some trees?

<comment><USER47> Wood is in very short supply in that part of the world. And building a wall strong enough to stop an elephant, and big (long) enough to cover a farm is really really hard without power tools.

<comment><USER45> Killing an elephant without power tools is really hard, too, yet they managed it easily.

Even if your arguments are correct that the villagers are so poor that they have no choice (which I doubt), it all crumbles down when the rich hunters come into play. Surely they have enough money and tools to erect a wall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> What a truly awful stunt & person. How can he even live with himself for this?

<comment><USER49> I think that attitude is a bit harsh. Does it make him a bad person? I disagree. While I can't imagine doing such things, I understand that people have vastly different values regarding many topics and aren't trying to be evil regardless of how opposed the values are to others.

I agree that in this particular case its a bad move to release this publicly because he is a leader of a major company and shouldn't invite such controversy.

<comment><USER50> >Does it make him a bad person?

yes. While i think all killers are bad persons, i see how a necessary killing may be up for debate. Jumping at the first chance to kill and doing it willingfully indicates that the person is a moral trash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Can't believe this thing. I bought a domain name just 5 minutes back, and now I am feeling disgust.

I have around 60 domains with godaddy, and after watching this I don't think I will go for any more. Let the unimportant ones expire this year, and I'll transfer the rest to somewhere else.

Can someone suggest me a good registrar?

</comment><comment><USER52> I have thirty domains registered with GoDaddy. I'm taking all of them somewhere else now - just need to figure out who the best competitor to go to is.

</comment><comment><USER53> In the grand scheme of things, my 27 domains switched from GoDaddy won't change much from their company's perspective, but I will not continue to use them as a domain registrar because of this.

<comment><USER54> Actually, it will. What if a 1000 customers like you who own 10 domains do it at the same day?

They sure HAVE to notice it. I've already transferred my domains and I'll make sure I won't buy any from GoDaddy again.

GoDaddy already has one of the scammiest UIs I've ever come across (with a possible exception of, maybe, MySpace) and the recent elephant killing was the last straw!

<comment><USER55> But where to transfer to? NameCheap? 1&1?

<comment><USER56> Gandi.net seems to have a good reputation here on HN, and I like them myself.

<comment><USER57> I liked Gandi.net's attitude but I couldn't get over their prices. I ended up at dynadot.com which has a fairly busy home page but a pretty clean UI when dealing with your account. It's prices are more in line with what I expect and they seem to have a good reputation.

<comment><USER56> Gandi is slightly more expensive than GoDaddy on domains with no extras, but if you want to anonymize your whois data, the combined price of the domain + the anonymization is cheaper with Gandi than with GoDaddy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> This is the final straw for me, godaddy has a horrible UI that looks like a toplinks page and functions much the same I presume. I've been wanting to move my domains from godaddy for years, but haven't due to laziness. What are the best alternatives?

</comment><comment><USER59> Thanks for putting this out there. Just transferred my domains and hosting away from GoDaddy. I won't even get into how I hate the needless killing of ANY animal. There are almost always alternatives.

</comment><comment><USER60> Well, I'm pretty sure this won't be a popular response, but anyway.

Firstly, I'm not really referring to this specific case. I think the video is tasteless and in many ways vile. However, I want to comment specifically on trophy hunting.

In my opinion, allowing big game hunters to pay for trophy animals is an important and integral part of animal conservation. In many impoverished African countries, their is little to no government funding to conserve animals.

Yes, there are risk factors. But personally, I believe the additional amount of animals that are killed due to the argument of excess demand is a lot less than the number of animals saved by the increased funding for poaching prevention.

Furthermore, I believe the economic benefits of this to the local community hugely improve the lives of the local people (who I believe are a lot more important than the elephants, as important as I think the elephants are), and that this improvement will decrease poaching.

To summarize: \- I agree that Trophy hunting can have negative effects. \- However, I believe the positives for animal conservation of Trophy Hunting offset the negatives in two major ways. \- Trophy Hunting decreases the ease with which poaching takes place by funding anti-poaching measures. \- Trophy Hunting decreases the extent to which poaching takes place by improving the situation of the local communities.

So if you are pro animal conservation, and pro human rights, you should be pro Trophy Hunting. IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER61> How can you damage a trashy, publicity-stunt-driven brand by shooting an elephant?

You can't.

GoDaddy is light-years ahead of the competition in terms of marketing.

He may have lost several thousand bucks do to some discerning geeks, which is not the GoDaddy customer anyway.

Nothing to see here.

</comment><comment><USER62> This is terrible. Anyone have any suggestions for a registrar to switch to from GoDaddy?

<comment><USER63> I have been with Gandi for years. They are a bit more expensive than some other other registrars, but offer good service, and donate proceeds to non- profit projects:

<http://en.gandi.net/supports/>

<comment><USER64> Not to mention they have excellent support for domains with different tld's and offer an SSL certificate free for one year with each domain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I needed to purchase a name today.

BTW, I found this...

GODADDY.COM TRADEMARK LIST

Below find a list of Go Daddy's registered and pending trademarks. Please note that these brand guidelines apply to, but are not limited to, the following marks.

Registered Trademarks

Blue Razor® Blue Razor Logo Black/White Bob Parsons® CashParking® Cool Name. Hot Prices.® Daddy® Domain Alert® Domain Name Aftermarket® DomainNameAftermarket.com® Domains By Proxy® Domains By Proxy Logo with Star Domains Priced Right® Express Email Marketing® Go Daddy® Go Daddy Head Logo Go Daddy Logo with Star GoDaddy.com® GoDaddy.com Logo GoDaddy.com Logo on Black GoDaddy.com Logo with Tagline Go Daddy Auctions® Go Daddy Cares® Go Daddy Connections Logo Go Daddy Girls® Go Daddy Hosting Connection® Go Daddy Marketplace® GoDaddy.tv® Hot Prices. Serious Support.® Mad Dog® Mad Dog Domains and Cattle Company® Mad Dog Logo Make A .COM Name With Us!® Online File Folder® Quick Blogcast® Quick Shopping Cart® Radio Go Daddy® SmartRegistration® SmartSpace® SSL Certificate Logo Starfield® Starfield Logo StealthRay® The Web is Your Domain!® The Web is Your Domain! Logo There's A Name For People Like You!® Traffic Blazer® Traffic Blazer Logo Transfer Concierge® Turbo SSL® Verified by Starield Secure® Verified by Starfield Secure Logo WebSite Tonight® Wild West® Wild West Domains Logo on White Your identity is nobody's business but ours.®

Pending Trademarks

4GH™ Claim Your Domain™ Data Center on Demand™ Data Widgets™ Domains, websites & everything* in between!™ Domains, websites & everything* in between! Logo Dream Design Team™ Dream Design Team Logo Expert Hands™ Go Daddy Savings Network™ GoDaddy.co™ GoDaddy.co Logo GoDaddy.com SSL Seal Logo Social Visibility™ Video.ME™ We Make Websites Easy™ Web Professionals' Day™ Website Protection Seal Logo

</comment><comment><USER66> Well, GoDaddy is getting mentioned on HN and Reddit, so... mission accomplished?

Personally, I got fed up with their insulting commercials, horrible interface, and crappy service long ago. I've since switched registrars and haven't regretted it for a second.

</comment><comment><USER67> GoDaddy has now lost all current and any future custom they might have had from me.

</comment><comment><USER68> Facts: 1) GoDaddy has been doing crazy stunts forever (see rejected Super Bowl ads) 2) GoDaddy is the largest registrar, with 31% market share (<http://www.webhosting.info/registrars/top-registrars/global>)

Given the above, I would say: 1) He knows exactly what he is doing and why 2) It is working*

*meaning growing the company, making lots of money, returning value to shareholders etc.

</comment><comment><USER69> I like the ad unit at the top of the blog page.

<comment><USER70> <http://i.imgur.com/ec4lM.png>

<comment><USER71> Oh Google!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> I'll paraphrase Justice Stewart: "I may never be able to intelligibly explain human cruelty, but I'll know it when I see it". Looking forward to seeing him on the news circuit dancing around like a, uhm..., wounded elephant.

</comment><comment><USER60> Well, I'm pretty sure this won't be a popular response, but anyway.

Firstly, I'm not really referring to this specific case. I think the video is tasteless and in many ways vile. However, I want to comment specifically on trophy hunting.

In my opinion, allowing big game hunters to pay for trophy animals is an important and integral part of animal conservation. In many impoverished African countries, their is little to no government funding to conserve animals.

Yes, there are risk factors. But personally, I believe the additional amount of animals that are killed due to the argument of excess demand is a lot less than the number of animals saved by the increased funding for poaching prevention.

Furthermore, I believe the economic benefits of this to the local community hugely improve the lives of the local people (who I believe are a lot more important than the elephants, as important as I think the elephants are), and that this improvement will decrease poaching.

To summarize: \- I agree that Trophy hunting can have negative effects. \- However, I believe the positives of Trophy Hunting offset the negatives in two major ways:

</comment><comment><USER73> I cringed seeing the neighboring villagers trampling the same field that the elephants had been trampling. Talk about unintended consequences.

</comment><comment><USER74> GoDaddy is one skanky company. Buying a domain is a chore. You have to walk through a minefield of up sells. The ads are gross. All that hassle is just not worth the couple dollars I save every year.

<comment><USER75> Not sure you really save anything anymore. I've moved most to omnis.com - renewals are < $9 - even less with bulk discounts. GoDaddy is now >$10 for renewals unless you scavenge some coupon. No coupon needed at omnis.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> What "Brand"? We ARE talking about the same company that puts out ads which double as Cinemax's 11pm lineup, right?

<comment><USER14> Slaughtering an endangered species and women in tank tops are hardly on the same level.

<comment><USER76> Absolutely, but it's not like this should be the moment when it suddenly becomes clear GoDaddy is a skeezy company run by scumbags.

<comment><USER14> No, but it's like they've been digging themselves into a hole. Then they break throw to a seemingly bottomless pit, and decide it's a good idea to jump in to see how deep it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I agree that it's a horrible stunt, but I don't see how it can harm GoDaddy's reputation. As far as I am concerned, GoDaddy's reputation is so far down in the dumps that it is difficult for it to sink any lower, and that is based on their behavior as a registrar, not stunts by the CEO.

</comment><comment><USER78> This merely ensures that I will never use GoDaddy's services, and I'll also advise others not to use them.

</comment><comment><USER79> Bad taste, up, down, left, and right. He removed any reverence of the hunt, respect of the animal. Just him, his orange hats, his gun, his camera, his killing, his audio track of choice, his vacation video. Ugly rich guy video #93,275

</comment><comment><USER80> GoDaddy will need an extra sexy ad campaign to calm the crowd. Maybe Danica Patrick will ride an elephant.

Elephant killing aside, I can't use GoDaddy's hosting/domain control panel. Settings feel buried under layers of links and is just confusing.

</comment><comment><USER81> Never using GoDaddy again. I'm not a vegetarian or a leftist, but glorifying the murder of an endangered species is sickening.

<comment><USER81> Just finished transferring all my domains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> There can be no explanation for this. I think we should all boycott GoDaddy.

</comment><comment><USER82> Godaddy sucks and has for... ever. I've been with Namecheap and I'd recommend them any day.

</comment><comment><USER83> Here's the NameCheap transfer offer

<http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/03/30/elephants/>

</comment><comment><USER84> Remember when Acclaim seriously considered advertising its games on tombstones?

Yeah, way to top that in the lack of taste department.

Guess who I'm not registering domains with.

</comment><comment><USER85> You have to wonder who is/are the animal(s) here?

<comment><USER86> Could be worse... "The last license to hunt Bushmen was reportedly issued in Namibia by the South African government in 1936. " - <http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0102/feature6/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> This isn't something I'd do, but doesn't really seem like the biggest outrage ever.

There is one rifle shot which would remove a clear threat to everyone in Zimbabwe and the region. If the CEO of someone like Xe flew in and took that shot, I'd be happy to transfer all my domains to his company. (Mugabe, obviously)

</comment><comment><USER88> I don't think this will have any tangible effect on GoDaddy's brand except for maybe a slight increase in visibility via the free press you are giving them right this second.

As far as actually shooting the animal, I'm not an African game warden so I can't give any scientific or even remotely educated comment. That being said, the only facts I know are these: Bob Parsons shot and killed an elephant in a completely legal way, and was so proud of what he did that he had a professional make and edit a video which he then posted on the internet. The people in the video seem grateful and excited that he has done this. They are also wearing godaddy hats. This morning, a lot of people who weren't there are passing judgement.

I guess I'm just confused as to the source of the controversy?

</comment><comment><USER89> I would agree with most on here, this is par for the course considering the companies branding already, which is pretty cheap low rent stuff. He's coming across as the "dickish" "most interesting man in the world" here. And I agree it should be a game warden duty to handle such situations, for the same reason McD's wouldn't allow old food to be eaten by employees, because it would increase the chances of there being more "old food." But the thing that really bugs me is the end, why not have it properly butchered and dispersed that way? Instead of something that reminds me of Bum Fights. Class is obviously not part of their branding in anyway.

</comment><comment><USER90> GoDaddy had a positive brand before? I didn't realize there was anything left to damage.

</comment><comment><USER91> I see that most of the folks here are choosing to discuss the morality of this video; some are electing to defend, and some showing disapproval.

What I'm finding odd about these reactions is that, viewing other people's reactions (outside of the delicate shell of opinion here), the clear conclusion is that this is a PR disaster. From the Twitter search alone, in the last 2-3 minutes, my feed has gone up easily hundreds of entries, all of them agreeing about their distaste for this event.

Isn't that where the real knowledge is, here? Whether or not you agree that this was a bad decision, it undeniably harms the brand in what could be a catastrophic way.

</comment><comment><USER92> Following in the footsteps of Thomas Edison? [1] I've never been a fan of the phrase "Any publicity is good publicity." But damaging the brand? I don't know that it rises to that level. Because the guy slaughter's elephants you think he can't maintain a credible domain registry? Now if he was running a shelter for abandoned big game animals, sure it would be a challenge but this is the guy who uses large mammary glands as a marketing tool.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_%28elephant%29>

</comment><comment><USER51> I dropped a mail to GoDaddy regarding this. Here's the response from their side:

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

Our Office of the President has responded to your request, details of which are described below:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion about Mr. Parsons' recent trip to Zimbabwe.

As you may be aware Mr. Parsons has also made several comments regarding this on his Vlog at BobParsons.me which you may wish to review. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in making any final determination about your relationship with GoDaddy.com.

We thank you again for your time and feedback.

Regards,

The Office of the President

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

</comment><comment><USER93> This was a reasonable post when it was about it was stupid to mix up GoDaddy's corporate image with this stuff. But this:

> It's a good thing that I have all my domains with another registrar or I'd > be forced to move them.

is way over the top. Nobody's forcing you to do anything. If you choose to buy into the "CEO image = corporate image" thing, then fine, move your business elsewhere. But I kind of thought the point of the post was that it's kind of silly, but yeah, people do conflate those things.

<comment><USER94> GoDaddy is essentially 100% owned by Bob Parsons. I've heard that their marketing department dislikes the Super Bowl ads almost as much as the rest of us, but the final call rests with Bob.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> Look at all these passionate discussions. Positively and negatively charged, both sides full of fiery opinion.

I thought this was supposed to be a terrible publicity stunt. I say it worked.

</comment><comment><USER96> Whether or not someone agrees that killing the elephant in this particular circumstance was warranted, I definitely feel like a CEO going into a foreign country and culture, killing an animal and making it into a publicity stunt is offensive and distasteful.

It also seems like many other CEOs would have been crucified for doing this. But for some reason Parsons is getting much less flack than would the CEO of Wal-mart, Monsanto or McDonald's. Why is that?

</comment><comment><USER97> So much for Groupon's Super Bowl commercial looking bad ...

</comment><comment><USER98> So, Bob, how many customers is one dead elephant worth? Next time you could leave the film crew at home maybe? Or would that subvert your whole point?

</comment><comment><USER99> Hi All,

Having been involved in wildlife conservation for nearly three and half a decades and trying to address human-elephant conflicts for nearly 16 years what I can say in all honesty is that elephant control is a double-edged sword. There are no utopian answers or solutions to these issues either. When it comes to human-elephant conflicts unlike in the proverbial biblical story where the lion and the lamb lied down together, people and elephants cannot do the same. One has to give away to the other. I think in regard to Bob Parsons' affair everyone is too focused on what he did on the basis of the moral implications of shooting an elephant as pertinent to western sentiments and emotions and how elephants are perceived in the west. I really wonder how many even paid the slightest attention or took notice of the farmer whose sorghum field was destroyed or gave thought to how he and his family is affected or for that matter the protein starved and raggedy rural masses that descended on the elephant once it was shot. The average Zimbabwean is living in abject poverty and I doubt their perspective of elephants is anywhere close to that of the people of the west. Western colonization has destroyed traditional African life to such an extent that they are now living in-limbo where they are neither, westernized or Africanized and have lost their connections to their own environment and nature. These are some of the repercussions for the damage that has been done to them. Most of them live hand to mouth - <USER2> caring about their daily survival. Since I live on both sides of this divide – I'm fortunate to see both sides of this coin but also it is frustrating because these completely opposing perspectives can be a huge hindrance to addressing these issues in a realistic manner. For example if we can step outside the western mentality box and look at it from a different perspective (from a poor Zimbabwean farmer's point of view) – probably Bob Parsons is in fact doing a huge favor to the farmers. African elephants are not a threatened species in any imminent danger of extinction. In fact they are now too many elephants in the Southern African nations. But from a South Asian and western perspective Bob Parsons has done the unthinkable – which is to kill an elephant and then glorify it by putting it on public display! For that he should be ostracized and penalized. There is no glory in killing an elephant considering it is humans who have created the situation where they too are fighting for survival. If an elephant has to be killed then it should be done with dignity, respect and with the empathy it deserves.

The cost to immobilize and relocate a problem bull elephant in Sri Lanka cost on average US$5,000. In Africa it could be more considering the vast distances that need to be covered. I'll try to get this information. In Sri Lanka trans- locating problem animals is a futile exercise since you are basically transferring the problem to another area. For example if earlier the problem bull was terrorizing a 50 square mile area – after it is translocated it terrorizes a 500 square mile area because now it's trying to find itself back to its home territory.

Welcome to addressing human-elephant conflicts in the truest sense.

Best,

Ravi Corea -

There will be a site for this but this just was emailed to me, trying to keep speed

<comment><USER100> Hi Ravi,

You seem like a well-meaning guy, but this line of yours is total nonsense.

"Western colonization has destroyed traditional African life to such an extent that they are now living in-limbo where they are neither, westernized or Africanized and have lost their connections to their own environment and nature. These are some of the repercussions for the damage that has been done to them. Most of them live hand to mouth - only caring about their daily survival"

For the record, starvation simply wasn't an issue under colonial rule. There were plenty of other problems, to be sure, but getting enough food wasn't one of them. Nor was there any problem with farming in general. Indeed, Rhodesia (as it was then known) boasted some of the most productive farms in Africa, which was no small feat, given that the land itself is a high and rocky plateau, and not a lush, agricultural wonderland.

The rampant starvation is the singular product of Robert Mugabe, who has been in power since 1980. Unlike the white farmers, he's actually responsible for honest-to-god genocide (aimed at the Matabele tribe, who live in the southern part of the country.) And by 'genocide', I mean murdering 10,000 men and throwing the bodies down empty mineshafts. Also, all that hunger? Yeah, it wasn't just the product of gross incompetence. Some of that was a matter of policy - literally starving his political opponents into submission.

Seriously, Ravi, are you honestly not aware that this guy is one of the nastiest dictators alive today? Do you not understand that he's managed to turn one of the most prosperous sub-Saharan countries into one of the world's severest basket-cases. How can you talk at length about the situation in Zimbabwe without even MENTIONING Mugabe? That's like talking about The Great Leap Forward while ignoring Mao Tse-Tung.

It's just ridiculous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> I really like how he through in some ACDC while all the hugry people are fighting for the food. Classy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Offered as advice: s/through/threw/

</comment></comment><comment><USER102> So it is ok to have show on cable TV where people shoot animals for fun (or our politicians doing that) and but we are disgusted of killing animal for food and protect the crops.

This is good very PR move because it hits the center of hypocrisy in wester societies: our "love" of animals.

</comment><comment><USER103> I hate godaddy to death, guys, but I use them because they offer most tlds around the world easily (me, ly, at, to, etc)(that's the only easy thing they do)

If you can name at least five registrars with world wide reach please do so, so we can have a better option next time.

</comment><comment><USER104> I guess I'll leave this here: <http://mashable.com/2011/04/01/bob-parsons- elephant-story/>

Caution: Ignore if you prefer the stereotype of an exposed rich white game hunter.

</comment><comment><USER105> I haven't watched the video (I'm at work now), but are elephants currently protected? I recently read about a program where African elephants are being sterilized because the populations have grown so large that they're becoming a problem.

</comment><comment><USER106> I blame Disney. Killing an Elephant that is clearly a pest is no different than the thousands of businessmen that shoot Deer and Tahr for sport every year.

Dickish move by Bob tho, he's truly testing the adage that "any publicity is good publicity".

<comment><USER50> >Killing an Elephant that is clearly a pest

from the point of view of any super-human civilization, humans are clearly pests of the planet Earth, not an intelligent civilization to have contact with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER107> Obviously late to the discussion, but surprised no one has posted a link to this famous Orwell essay: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_an_Elephant>

</comment><comment><USER108> I feel for the hungry guys shown in the video but still looking at the way those guys are cutting the meat and hovering over the dead animal's body just reminds me of a quote from matrix by Mr.Smith: Humans are parasites.

</comment><comment><USER109> ok, so who can recommend a good domain company I can transfer all my domains to?

<comment><USER110> Namecheap: <http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/03/30/elephants/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> It's almost as if Achewood's 2011 predictions are coming true three months early: <http://achewood.com/index.php?date=01052011>

</comment><comment><USER112> It's brilliant. They just drove away hordes of geeks - you know those pesky techies who only buy the loss leaders without loading up on the profitable stuff?

</comment><comment><USER113> Where do I think he went wrong? Passing out the hats. I was fine up until that point. This isn't for a GoDaddy commercial. Sheesh.

</comment><comment><USER114> I thought this sort of thing died off with Teddy Roosevelt, so it was interesting to learn what kind of people still do it.

</comment><comment><USER115> the worst part about this is that it totally worked on me. I now know about their video.me product.

</comment><comment><USER116> Any chance this is just an April Fool's joke with a whole lot of time put into it? :P

</comment><comment><USER117> There is no bad publicity.

</comment><comment><USER118> It's not April Fools?

</comment><comment><USER119> Going falconing is on my bucket list, so I can't get too angry.

</comment><comment><USER120> I will be on the phone with each and every person I know who has a domain.

We will discuss whether or not they happen to be using this cowardly imbecile's business.

I will describe this horrible little gutless advertising stunt.

We will work to switch them over to another company immediately.

<comment><USER121> Together, we can end violence against elephants!

</comment></comment><comment><USER122> If Bob is so invested in selfless help, why doesn't he drop some cash and build a fence to permanently keep the elephants out?

Also, to those suggesting that killing this elephant is chill because it fed a lot of people, I'm pretty sure there are more cost effective ways to feed people than mobilizing an elephant hunting squad.

</comment><comment><USER120> Having grown up around guns and hunting, I can tell you this guy's story just sounds worse and worse. Laws and hunting ethics generally precludes use of artificial illumination to hunt by, cf:

[http://www.africahunting.com/hunting-africa/1321-namibian- ph...](http://www.africahunting.com/hunting-africa/1321-namibian-ph-charged- hunting-leopard-artificial-light.html)

[http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37704-3...](http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37704-31392--,00.html)

No "fair chase" here. Somebody quoted Parson's as claiming it was completely dark as he lay in wait for a hungry elephant to walk right into a field of, well, elephant food. If that's the case, he either used artificial illumination to shoot, or there was no very good way for him to tell whether he was shooting a cow with calf, a calf, or even one of the villagers he now so adamantly (after he gets called on it) and frankly unbelievably insists was the true mission of this hunt...a mission that just happened to come complete with film crew and GoDaddy logo for everyone.

Sounds fishy. I don't fish (or hunt) anymore.

</comment><comment><USER121> Let's count the ways in which the media, twitter, and even HN can be hypocritical:

Driving cars that pollute the environment and force the US to wage continous war to secure oil. Supporting a food industry that is killing us. Support raising my taxes so you can live a better life. Use an inordinate amount of energy, water which is scarce. Live wonderful lives with nice furniture, clothes, etc that are made by really poor people the world over. Take trips all over the place, using more oil. Sit at home watching TV and being entertained instead of being productive and fixing problems (yes, this too is a sin). Have bad children that will grow up to be murderers, theives, leaches, and knownothings because you're too busy whining about some guy hunting an elephant. Have supported tons of politicians that serve to further their own interests and that of their corporate sponsors.

I could go on and on and on before I finally get to:

 _Legally shot and killed an elephant which was destroying crops in an African country._

If I switched my domains from GoDaddy for this, I'd pretty much have to withdraw from American society for good, in order to be on decent moral ground.

</comment><comment><USER123> I think many of you are missing the point. One could argue both for and against killing the elephants. I think what's important here, and this is just a guess on my part, is that 1) I believe that Parsons was using this as an excuse to kill some really big wild game in Africa to show how "manly" he is; and 2) he clearly enjoyed it as evidenced by the big smile on his face in the pictures. For comparison, American Indians used to kill buffalo but I don't think they gloated over it as Parsons is doing. They had reverence for the buffalo and demonstrated that by using every bit of each buffalo they killed. Parsons, on the other hand, just did it for the thrill of the kill and that, to me, is wrong.

By the way, I moved all of my domains off GoDaddy last year. I got tired of paying above-market prices just so that GoDaddy could create those lame Super Bowl commercials. Also, their UI sucks.

</comment><comment><USER124> What amazes me is that anyone here cares about GoDaddy, and as much as it pains me to imagine, there are probably people here that do business with GoDaddy.

It's a shame really. Your loss.

</comment><comment><USER125> This is going to have about as much effect on GoDaddy's userbase and bottom line as did all of the privacy concerns last year with Facebook.

A sliver of a fraction of GoDaddy customers will ever see that video or even hear about it. Most people buy domains there because they have hot chicks in super bowl commercials.

</comment><comment><USER126> Technically it was two shots...

</comment><comment><USER127> On the other hand NRA members might now choose GoDaddy as their registrar and webhost.

<comment><USER128> Well, NO. I believe in the bill of rights, but I do not condone the hunting of elephants.

<comment><USER127> What do you use a gun for if not killing people or animals?

<comment><USER127> I dont mind the downvotes but I could like the education on what people who believe in gun rights believe in.

<comment><USER129> If you're genuinely interested (and not just trolling): [http://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed- Constitutional/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/That-Every-Man-Armed- Constitutional/dp/0945999380)

<comment><USER127> Thanks for the link. I shall read it. I wasnt trolling, but I come from a country where we won our freedom with a non violent movement so the point of guns is largely missing from my cultural upbringing. In my opinion 10 million people uprising is sufficient for any government - with or without guns. That being said I will read the book and will not comment on this conversation any further so that it doesnt derail the original post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER130> This is perfectly acceptable, and all the bravado about moving domains looks silly. Obviously, the local citizens (tour guides) in this video didn't want to tell the warden about the elephant.

Additionally, I have no doubt the owners of many registrars do objectionable things. The devil you know...</comment>


6-keys keyboard really smart for mobile touch typing - <AUTHOR> http://tikilabs.com/ <comment><USER2> Question: top speed on one of those? Faster than a normal kbd? Most macro keyboards (all?) are quite a bit slower. If someone can make one that you can get faster with, I'd be excited.

Question 2: Spam submission?

<comment><AUTHOR> The speed is depending on the keys you are using (Ferrari or Ford T) and of your finger velocity (virtuoso or average person). If you have some nice keys : above hand writing. With nowadays mobile phone : equal or above T9.

You will be excited if I can show you the thing face to face. I have no pictures right now (their are not completely finished) as we are in early stage of developing the stuff. But we will provide soon nice ppt.

Thanks for your attention and keep a eye upon the site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> No picture?

<comment><AUTHOR> See answer to the point above

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does this differ from a Twiddler? http://www.handykey.com/

The ubicomp guys at GT have been using the Twiddler for a few years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Tiki uses only 3 fingers instead of 5.</comment></comment>


Why you should pay developers to learn - <AUTHOR> http://vladmihalcea.com/2015/01/05/why-you-should-pay-developers-to-learn/

<comment><USER2> You should pay all employees to learn.</comment>


NodeUp - Node.js Podcast - <AUTHOR> http://nodeup.com/3

<comment><USER2> I don't have time to look into the actual project, but a few comments on the web site. The logo is quite nice (really, I like it a lot), but the page design is so sparse it's hard to read. One's eyes don't really have anything to focus on -- there are no clear lines or markers of any kind to help divide the page. Honestly, in my first few glances I thought your "Subscribe to..." options were actually Google ads!

</comment><comment><USER3> I tuned in yesterday for the last 30 minutes. Well worth anyone's while on a Lazy Sunday. +1

</comment><comment><USER4> Why does each episode have its own subscribe links? It makes it seem like you would need to subscribe to each own separately to hear them all.</comment>


The Top 5 Problems With Having a Hit On HackerNews - <AUTHOR> http://www.querycell.com/Hacker-News-Problems.html

<comment><USER2> The same holds for reddit#programming. My blog analytics in month view are now almost useless: usually 100 pageviews-a-day, and have two or three peaks of 2000-4000 from hn/proggit. Not like I didn't enjoy it, mind you :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep :) I just go to traffic sources and limit it to search engines - unpaid. That's what I'm mainly interested in, my organic search traffic growth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Speaking of this, what's a reasonable number of requests per second an application should be able to handle before it's safe to post it on HN (or Reddit?). I've got an application almost ready that I'd like to post for comments, but I'm a bit concerned that the machine it is on might buckle under the load.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure... From my past experiences if you post an item that hangs on the front page for around 15 hours you will get around 3000 visits.

That order of magnitude is my experience. Google for "the hackernews effect". I know Justin Vincent from the techzing podcast (great podcast) has posted numbers from when his web app Pluggio (formerly tweetminer) was on Hacker News, so you could search for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you use mixpanel, you can turn off particular items on your graph, which makes the scale usable again.</comment>


Artist ships glass with FedEx for exhibition featuring shattered boxes - <AUTHOR> http://www.designfaves.com/2017/01/artist-ships-glass-with-fedex-for-exhibition-featuring-shattered-boxes <comment><USER2> Reminds me of [https://www.moma.org/collection/works/78993](https://www.moma.org/collection/works/78993)</comment>