GoDaddy was the first software engineering job I worked for. I had interned there too. It's understandable that the external perception of the company is bad (and even sexist), but internally GoDaddy was a great place to work.
They're always a major sponsor of Grace Hopper. They were adamant about hiring women. They made my internship so much fun, and I am still friends with many of my co-interns from that summer. Of the places I worked for, GoDaddy was the only one I would say had a "family" like quality.
I'd say the family metaphor is very apt. As a customer I always felt they were family run. Possibly a very large, ethnically homogeneous family with interests in funeral homes, car parks, casinos and hospitality. That kind of family.
I've literally never heard about sexism directed their way, but given you worked there I'm sure you know better the story of treatment they get. What was the sexism, who was it directed against and why do you reckon they recieved it?
The only experience I have with GoDaddy is their awful support, and predatory practices. Ditching them has been the biggest single improvement to our IT practice.
GoDaddy's entire brand presence was based on objectification of women for their early life. After GoDaddy's founder Bob left, it got better. Bob was a character and arguably the entire reason for the insane brand -- strange, strange man.
Yes this is what I'm referring to - the Danica Patrick bikini ads in the mid 2000s.
The first day of our internship they briefed us on that history. Bob had thought that the market for small-businesses in need of a domain name were men aged 35-55. Once bob was gone, actual market research was done and it turned out that over half of their clients were women, so he had completely mis-identified the market.
But, because of the commercials, the brand recognition was over 90% in the US so they couldn't change the name.
Look, "Go Daddy" itself is pretty weird and creepy as a name. The thing that really soured me on it and pulled my clients who were there was the fact that the "daddy" in question was out shooting elephants. Family environment is great and all, and I suppose some villagers got to eat an elephant, but I'll be damned if I'll let anyone I know pay that guy for domain registration.
Go Daddy is proof that a fractured market can be consolidated with extreme marketing exposure. Wix, Monday.com, Asana, etc. are using the same playbook imo.
This is a really good point. No doubt, they took a relatively small operation in the crowded hosting market and made it a household name. How it became a household name wasn't just over the top marketing, though... it involved scandal and negative press. I do handle design and marketing for one regional corporate client (a holdover from my design days)... and even though I'm not afraid of pushing edgy campaigns, I'd personally be pretty gun-shy about employing the sort of scorched earth stuff GoDaddy did. I'd also just be concerned about the sanity of my client.
Paying people to raise social, intelligent animals in horrific environments and then slaughter them seems more morally questionable than quickly ending the life of a wild elephant. Do you ensure that the CEOs of companies you do work with are vegan?
Of course it's totally valid to make whatever decisions you like, but there is something disconcerting to me about how we judge our hands clean as long as we pay someone else to do horrific things to animals. Personally I think I probably do worse moral harm than killing an elephant every time I buy a dozen eggs or a Costco rotisserie chicken.
An average African elephant weighs 12,000 pounds. A roaster weights about 10. As a yardstick, someone who goes out and kills 1200 chickens just for joy is probably a shittier person than someone who kills one to eat.
It was Barbara Rechter (I think that’s her name) who was CMO that changed the name from Jomax Technologies to GoDaddy and spearheaded the logo and ad campaigns. But Bob threw the best corporate holiday parties. All employees and their +1s flow out for 2 nights to Phoenix. One year they rented out Diamondbacks Stadium, had Daddy Yankee and Pitbull perform, and gave away 10+ cars. Fun times
Externally, GoDaddy ran a very questionable Super Bowl ad in which Danica Patrick unzips her jumpsuit to reveal a stuffed beaver.
Internally, a previous employer was colonized by a group of ex-GoDaddy execs. They were half-witted folks who displayed every negative -ism that creates a toxic workplace.
It was their early ad campaigns that featured Danica Patrick. They even showed some ads during the Super Bowl. You can still find them on YouTube.
It was the high (low?) point of techbro culture in ads (mid 2010's). They got a lot of bad press and pressure campaigns and started to change their culture after that.
What always rubbed me the wrong way were two things. They have the impression of being spammy [even their UI felt/feels spammy] And then their UX really sucked. They almost felt like a parked domain itself.
This is an external perception, but internally they tried to upsell some web and email hosting stuff by including those options by default when purchasing a new domain. Those options were literally invisible to the unsuspecting customer like me, thanks to dark UI patterns and small fonts. And of course, the purchase wasn't refundable after the fact it was made! The only thing that saved me from being ripped off was a spending limit on my PayPal account. Mind you, that was the last time I've ever purchased a new domain from GoDaddy. They lost me forever.
At the same time, their domain broker service was excellent and allowed me to acquire a few already registered domains I desperately needed without spending too much.
In their heyday they set high water mark for aggressive/annoying marketing techniques. I think I was one of many, many developers who bought a domain through them precisely one time before realizing I'd made a huge mistake.
I think a lot of us have a good feeling about early/first employer. But I am not sure we would feel the same if we started that job today. "It was better back in the days" mentality.
Oh good... another CEO mass-firing statement that takes no responsibility and indicates no negative side-effects for their "leadership" ability.
To those recently let go, I hope you find a new opportunity in a place where the those in charge actually care about their employees; and they have the foresight to ensure their long-term well-being.
Really? You think any employer “cares about their employees”?
A job is a transaction a way for me to trade labor for money and support ny addiction to food and shelter. It’s my responsibility to save accordingly always expecting a lay off.
This has been my mindset since I was 22 years old making 11/hour as a computer operator saving my overtime pay until today at 49 where I stumbled into a role at $BigTech three years ago and save/invested all of my after tax signing bonus and divest my RSUs once vested.
A job is a transaction a way for me to trade labor for money and support ny addiction to food and shelter. It’s my responsibility to save accordingly always expecting a lay off.
I'm sorry you're being down-voted, because the frank truth is... you're exactly right. To a first approximation, 0 companies really "care about their employees" in any meaningful sense. Work is simply a transaction arrangement, where you trade some of your time for some of their money. And either party can (generally) terminate that arrangement at any time, for any reason.
That's simply reality. One can choose to accept that reality and live accordingly, or they can choose to live in a pollyanna'ish world where one doesn't have to take personal responsibility.
I think it's being downvoted because it's a little too simplistic to be meaningful. Everything we do, literally everything, we do because it makes us feel good, and therefore everything is a transaction. We provide food and shelter for ourselves because, well, we enjoy those things. We help friends and family in need because we derive pleasure from helping others and seeing our loved ones flourish.
If we all agree on that basic universal law of human behavior, we can talk about higher level meaning about the role of an employer in society beyond the simple transaction of money for labor.
We can talk about philosophy all we wish. But reality is that I can’t take the philosophy and exchange it for goods and services. Whatever you think the role of an employee should be, we have to accept reality for what is and take responsibility accordingly.
My wife and kids had no desire to talk prosaically about the role of the employee when I got laid off a decade ago.
They were assured when I told that we had 3 months worth of savings in the bank, that my resume was updated and I had a strong network and could get a job quickly - I had an offer in less than a week at another company. While now admittedly it would take longer, I’ve also reduced my expenses.
You’re 100% correct but it’s easy to dismiss because it devalues individual perception of how one thinks their company values them. Most of us aren’t special is the reality. Few are special and irreplaceable.
Have you known of any company of any size to go out of business because one person left?
I assure you that if any of us got hit by a bus tomorrow, the company would send our next of kin flowers along with “thoughts and prayers” and have an open req for our position before our body got cold.
Three months later, you would only see our name brought up in the occasional “git blame”
By your definition, the only way someone "cares" about another person is if they are prepared to suffer any and every possible loss to protect said person from harm?
You mean like laying people off so the company doesn’t go out of business?
Whether the company “cares” about me is irrelevant. I need for them to put money in my account at the agreed upon intervals. I have family that “cares” about me.
Thought experiment: if the company you worked for that you thought “cared about you” told you they couldn’t pay you would that care be reciprocated and would you work for free? A 30% pay cut?
You state (or at least imply) that the fact that a company is not willing to go out of business to avoid firing someone is proof that they don't care about that person. All I can say is that you seem to have a reductionist definition of the word "care". I also wouldn't expect my friends to, say, sell their house to support me if I needed it.
I’m saying whether the company cares about me is irrelevant. The “care” from my company is not where they exist in my hierarchy of needs. That’s what my family is for. They exist solely to provide money to support my need for food and shelter.
My wife “cares” about me and I her. I know for a fact that she would make sacrifices for me even it put her in a bad spot temporarily.
I’ll leave my job at the drop of a dime and they will get rid of me as soon as they see my contribution to the bottom line isn’t beneficial to them. I would hope that the bar would be much higher for my marriage - ie “the person I want to care about me”
>You think any employer “cares about their employees”?
Employers are people. Some people are cynical and greedy, others are empathetic.
Yes, they will fire people as is some times necessary and as an employee you should plan for that. They won't make great sacrifices for you like family or very close friends might, but I've definitely had employers who wanted the best for me and made an effort to help me achieve it.
But small structures are the norm, or at least very common, aren't they? There are plenty of established, small to medium businesses out there. Someone for whom this is important can certainly find a job like that within one of those.
Yes, I do. I really do care. And I know there are other founders and hiring managers who care too (except HR, they only care about the business).
re: walking uphill barefoot in snow both ways, attitude towards a financial plan is not your career; it has little to do with those who work around you.
It doesn’t matter if you “care” as a founder if you accepted VC money.
So do you “care” enough to put your company’s survival and well being beneath the needs of your employees? Do you think your employees “care” enough not to take a much better offer it becomes available? If your investors told you you need to increase your runway to stay in business would you?
I know that the people in my personal life who “care about me” will make all sorts of sacrifices for me and financial trade offs
It is only in good taste to express gratitude. I would expect nothing less.
Indeed, speaking of gratitude, it's nice that this announcement even exists. Many companies don't even tell their employees that people are getting laid off, much less tell the public.
And calling it a euphemism is only confusing. A euphemism for what?
They sent the company an email at 3pm saying 8% of the company was being laid off, then sent Zoom meeting invites to the people being laid off 2 hour later. They didn’t tell us.
It's interesting seeing GoDaddy/Gitlab lay off so late in the game. Jeff Lawson (TWLO) who is a fantastic financial and product focused CEO did his prep work in September last year with 11% of the company. I find it pretty hard to grok what your FP&A team must be like if you're a b2b supply chain business thinking about this stuff Q1 in global economic downturn.
I don’t even understand what you’re saying. This fantastic CEO did prep work last year with 11% of his company? Do you mean that he laid off 11% last year?
Yes, that said... depends how you define infra, I chatted with a marketing tool CEO last week who compare themselves to servers, so I've been thinking CEOs are out to lunch a bit these days.
Your point is well taken, but again: this is the power of a strong FP&A team, a good CFO and thoughtful FP&A shouldn't be blaming macroeconomics at this point. I advise CEO's and I was flagging in August last year, I talk to bankers and read the news. Seems to me if you're at this point in Q1 or Q2, you were in denial about the reality of what 2023 would look like, doesn't matter when you'll be affected, the writing was on the wall Q2 last year. It's kinda sad for your staff to be in the "last to lay off" bucket.
We were affected by this layoff, software engineering family over here.It seemed to be so random. It was people from so many different areas. We have beena GoDaddy family for over 17 years. This was a shock for sure
It's suspiciously close to what I understand to be the normal steady-state turnover rates for the tech industry. Nobody quits their jobs in an economy like this, so the turnover must be achieved by other means (and this way lets the employer pick who turns over).
It's an amount you can do safely without your employees or shareholders thinking you are a sinking ship, as that's what everyone is doing.
However don't be fooled - it will be 7% repeatedly until things stabilize. People think it's just 7% once. It might be, but this will be repeated if needed.
For those unaware the number 7 seems to have a special place in the human brain as it's the number of distinct things most humans can hold in their brain at once before needing abstractions or other devices to keep track of the information.
It's also the point at which our brains seem to switch from "a few" to "many" and because it's prime it's the highest a few number that we don't mentally split into groups of other numbers.
Layoffs typically go like 7%... then you get another 1-2% of people who jump from the sinking ship. Then you get another round of 5%.. and another 1-2% who jump from the sinking ship and end up at a nice round number like 15%. Looks better than laying off 15% at once (although Zoom is doing great?)
So is this officially a trend now? Just drown the bad news in a massive pool of other bad news about other companies? Good time to soften the blow of bad PR?
It doesn't cause too much attention when you lay off 10-15% of your workforce despite profits if 20 other big name companies are doing it as well.
I mean, it makes sense. The issue here is knowing when you have to do it. This news will get under the rug right away because people are paying attention to more "important" news like chatGPT, the state or the union, other companies laying off people, etc...
I mean, this is the perfect time to lay off people from a PR perspective. You'll see that by tomorrow morning, the public will be still talking about something else, prob. how google lost 100 billions in market value, Lebron breaking the all-time scoring record, etc...
This honestly shook our family as we were included in the 8%.
We have been with them for over 17+ years and were treated very well throughout our time with them. I've read the news stories and the "public statements" so many times and we still can't figure out the why.
The morning after the layoffs, they hosted a townhall assuring the lucky remainers that profits were up, and there was still security in their jobs.
So again, we go back to the question of the why. We were mid-projects that needed to be handed off to contract workers, as our access was taken away almost immediately.
Our family has been with GoDaddy for over 17 years and both my husband and myself have personally loved working for the company. Our whole marriage, the birth of our children, we ere there and we are deeply rooted in the company and have been treated very well. Which I guess makes this that much harder honestly. The last few days have been tears of both fear and sadness that this is no longer a part of our life.
They're always a major sponsor of Grace Hopper. They were adamant about hiring women. They made my internship so much fun, and I am still friends with many of my co-interns from that summer. Of the places I worked for, GoDaddy was the only one I would say had a "family" like quality.