Who Turns Down $4 Billion Dollars?

Who Turns Down $4 Billion Dollars?

Evan Spiegel, 23-year-old co-founder of one of the newest forms of social media, SnapChat, that's who.

After being offered $3 billion by Zuckerberg's very own Facebook, the young business man also turned down a $4 billion offer from Google. 

Although the letter below is a satire written by Nina Ippolito, a freelance writer, it raises some good questions regarding the future of social media sites such as Facebook.

“Yo Zuckerbro,

I wanted to hit you up personally to tell you how gutted I am that stuff didn’t work out between Facebook and Snapchat. It’s a bummer, but Facebook just isn’t the smexy young hookup we’re looking for, $3 billion or not. Sorry to be a buzzkill.

I’m sure you get it, brosepher. You can probably still remember being a hot-to-trot brogrammer, back in the day, when you were still 23. Remember how, when you weren’t hella old, shit just kind of came to you, like how you had your hand on the pulse of digital innovation, or how your parents gave you a brand-new Escalade, and then pulled strings so you could park it next to your high school?

We both know what it’s was like to be a little too badass for college — you for Harvard, and me for Stanford. We also both know how to party hard in Palo Alto. I bet your ragers with Sean Parker are pretty similar to the stuff that got my frat, Kappa Sigma, kicked off campus.

And then there’s the fact that we’re both total geniuses. You came up with Facemash to look at pictures of chicks, and I invented Picaboo so hotties would send me nude selfies. You crushed it, and after one thing led to another, your company became the new hotness. But then your classmates got all greedy, and started claiming that maybe you kind of screwed your certified bros out of a lot of money. What even is that? We’ve both been there, brogellan. Good thing we’re too rich to care.

That’s why you’ll totally understand that the reason Snapchat couldn’t take your money is that — no offense, bro — it’s ‘cause even though we don’t have any kind of revenue stream, in a few years, our mascot, Ghostface Chillah, is going to be all kind of dancing on Facebook’s grave. I’m sorry, but kids just don’t do Facebook anymore, Zuck. You’re like Tom from Myspace. Or what was that other thing our parents had? Friendster? Did they have a mascot?

I get it. It’s hard out there for a disruptive technologist pimp. Not everyone can create an app that perfectly captures the ephemeral and fluid nature of human communication. After all, aren’t sexts just back-alley flashing made digital? Doesn’t the transience of Snapchat’s dick pics mirror that of Anthony Weiner’s political career?

But bro. Bro. Don’t sweat it. I am like 100% certain that your next startup will be huge. If you haven’t come up with an idea, you should totally start shopping around for one. I hear Uber drivers have some bitchin’ schemes these days.

Boom.

Warm brogards,

- Evan Spiegel, Snapchat co-founder and CEO

As Facebook continues to change in its nature, from starting out as a college girl finder if you will, to the now ever effective communication tool its provided for businesses all over the world, is it on the outs or will it continue adapting to the rapidly changing society around us and maintain itself?

Has Facebook become more business oriented and with their ever changing policy updates are they soon to lose users?

As the article below states, Spiegel apparently refused to take the offers from Facebook and Google because he feels as though it will be changed into something that it wasn't ever intended for, such as Facebook. The point of SnapChat is to be able to send out pictures without leaving behind any history which is subsequently what allows Facebook and Google to run. Spiegel didn't feel as though Facebook or Google are genuine in their offers, primarily because he knows SnapChat would inevitably be altered.

So, how do see the future of social media? Is everybody going to sell out to top servers?

Could Facebook one day divide into two different entities?

One for business, one for social communication?

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/meet-the-23-year-old-kid-who-turned-down--3-billion-for-snapchat-010309114.html

Communism Vs. Democracy

This is a One Way Street  

            

In recent years, the United States and Chinese governments have continually remained allies in all aspects of the term. Together they have the ability to work things out in a civilized manner. President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao released a joint statement back in 2011 that proclaimed their shared commitment to a “positive, cooperative and comprehensive U.S.-China relationship.” But with recent advancements in technology and the expansion of media throughout the globe, the Chinese has held a tight grip on internet censorship throughout their nation especially when it’s coming from the United States. 

Chapter 8 of On Deadline: Managing Media Relations highlights the importance of knowing the history and culture of the local people before implementing any media relations into their country. As well as being sensitive to their customs and beliefs, the chapter stresses doing research to inform yourself of unidentifiable ideals. Although Americans believe that we are the best, there are many countries that would beg to differ. Our arrogance can lead to failure. 

The article “China’s blackout of U.S. media can no longer be ignored,” written by Jim Sciutto outlines the blatant disregard of U.S. affiliated brands such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube throughout China. News sources such as The New York Times and Bloomberg News were also blocked due to sensitive content that harm the reputation of the Chinese government. Google is only partially blocked but remains heavily regulated by the government.

This censorship excludes American companies to benefit off one of the world’s largest markets and our largest trading partner. So how will the relationship between the United States and China change?

Being American means being democratic. Knowing in which ways the Chinese government functions could have possibly saved the United States from running into this problem. Had we taken into account the heavily regulated everyday life that the Chinese lead in their communistic society over us freely independent Americans, an agreement could have been made prior to the Chinese government discovering the need to censor the world wide web.  

So things bring me to:

Do you think the relationship between the Chinese and the United States will change because of the already heavily regulated internet?

Or  

Is it possible for the United States and China to come up with an agreement that would help benefit the economy of both countries?

AND

Should both countries be able to publish videos, blogs, articles, and other forms of media that might question the motives of the government in either country?

  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chinas-blackout-of-us-media-can-no-longer-be-ignored/2013/07/10/2bdea62e-e7f5-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html

 

Martha Stewart...Enough Said

Although this article is a bit dated, I feel it still provides relevant questions in the public relations world as it pertains to spokespersons. Over and over again we have seen celebrity endorsements go wrong. But one 'celebrity' not only damaged her personal reputation but her reputation as the CEO of her own company, Martha Stewart. 

For those of you who don't remember, Martha Stewart was jailed back in 2004 for 5 months for conspiracy, obstruction of agency proceeding and making false statements to federal investigators. She was reportedly told by the assistant of her Merrill Lynch broker to sell her shares of ImClone Systems because the company was about to implode. Stewart jumped on the opportunity, sold her shares and was later arrested for insider trading. Had Stewart not sold her stocks, it would have barely made an impact on the empire she built.

In an article published in NY Magazine they reported that Stewart was reported saying "isn't it nice to have brokers who tell you these things." This statement is inevitably what got her in trouble.

This raises multiple questions but first, what makes a good spokesperson? The book, On deadline: Managing media relations gives six characteristics that represent a qualified spokesperson. A spokesperson must be knowledgable of the subject he or she is talking about. They need to have a detailed understanding of the organizations overall goals and objectives and they must be able to make a sale and have an overall desire to present the information.  

For Stewart, it would have almost seemed silly to not have her represent her own company by becoming the face. It was an empire she built around her name, so why pick anyone else to be the spokesperson? 

But as we have all seen in the past, celebrities are notorious for making quick, irrational decisions and having a bad case of word vomit.

This brings up the question

Is it more effective/practical to have a celebrity spokesperson who can make you cash fast with the chance they could possibly destroy your organization altogether

Or 

Have a credible spokesperson, such as the CEO, who might not bring in as much revenue as quickly, but in the long run?

Even eight years later, Stewart, being as she was the CEO and face of her company, unfortunately still hasn't been able to repair her image or the company's.