Zuckerberg's Hoodie and what your clothing says about what you think of those around you

[SergioFM]

I stand corrected.

So he didn't dress up for the VCs? They don't care. They want in on the FB moneytrain no matter what MZ wears.

 

[Equus Leather]



Make no mistake, this is a power play.
You do not get to be in the position he is without some political savvy.
He's like the hedge fund traders who turn up for work in flip flops or LBJ greeting people while on the toilet. It's all to distract you and let you know who is boss.
Also helps that he's comfortable wearing it and feels himself when doing so.

This - there is one Facebook but many bankers and he's making sure they know their place.

 

[Quadcammer]



Personally, I think he is an immature twat who has the single most punchable face in Silicon Valley. He won the lottery and to say that he's on the same level as Jobs, regardless of potential net worth is outlandish. He started something that took on a life of its own while Jobs was always involved and carefully steering the company exactly as he saw fit.
Now, on to MZ's choice of outfits: I don't necessarily think a Silicon Valley CEO needs to show up in a suit, as it is a bit out of character and not necessarily the right image. But jeans/sport coat/button front shirt would have demonstrated that he's still every bit the tech (as much as I grit my teeth every time someone refers to FB as a "tech" company) mogul but understands that this is a situation in which one should put some thought into his appearance. I don't always dress formally, even for important meetings, but I always convey that I've put thought into my appearance and that everything is done with purpose.

100% on all of it

 

[cptjeff]



I found myself a couple of days ago talking to someone (a perfectly reasonable person in all respects) who was utterly dumbfounded at the idea that I might wear a shirt at weekends. You know, a shirt with a collar and buttons all the way down the front. Not a t-shirt. I don't think he'dd have been more astounded if I'd said that the world was secretly run by budgerigars.
People like that are not members of an organised insurgency against style or good taste, who are plotting a massive DDOS attack on this forum. They are just ordinary people.

I ran into one of those recently, wearing a ratty old sweater and a shirt with jeans on a day off. She commented on how dressed up I was. I was a bit out of it, so my response was basically just 'huh?' rather than anything witty, but I get the comment all the time.

 

[Quadcammer]



The bankers in this case do not create value--they find ways to skim profit from value that others have created. MZ is really showing them how he feels about them by forcing them to take only 1% of the money raised rather than their usual 3%. Remember, Facebook is only going public because of SEC rules that essentially force private companies to go public when they have too many owners.
The bankers are lucky he's not engineering a way to go directly to investors and cut them out entirely. And they know it. Whining about suits is one way to vent.
The clothing issue is just a side show. And it has become a personal brand for MZ. Who do you think he considers more important--Wall Street, or his users?

bull. He could have chosen the Google route with a direct auction, but he didn't, because he realized there is value from the underwriting process. As such, maybe show some respect to people who spend a lot of time trying to accurately price and market the shares. Flout it all you want, but once the shares hit the secondary market, you see no extra capital from the appreciation that will likely occur.

He can hate bankers, but right now, they need each other. Put on a sportcoat.

I still remember a story about 4 years ago where zuckerberg cancelled a meeting with microsoft because he wanted to sleep later. Hopefully sandberg can hold the ship together to complete the roadshow.

 

[PhiPsi32]

I'm having trouble seeing this as a power play. Maybe it's his version of Steve Jobs' black tutrtleneck and jeans. I dunno.

 

[cptjeff]



I'm having trouble seeing this as a power play.  Maybe it's his version of Steve Jobs' black tutrtleneck and jeans.  I dunno.

I suspect that's what it is. Just his brand as a young, hip guy, signalling facebook is a young hip company. It's brand control, if he dressed in a suit too much people would start to perceive them as the corporate behemoth dead set on perfecting algorithms to learn everything about and control your life they really are. As he gets older and the style starts to look awkward on him, he'll probably change it to something a little more adult, but still casual.

I don't think this is a power play, just calculated management of his (and facebook's) image, with some cultural confusion between west coast tech and east coast banking.

 

[LA Guy]



Also helps that he's comfortable wearing it and feels himself when doing so.

This. It's hard to project power when you don't feel comfortable. I work with startups too. No one gives a ****, as long as your junk is not hanging out.

 

[TimelesStyle]



This. It's hard to project power when you don't feel comfortable. I work with startups too. No one gives a ****, as long as your junk is not hanging out.

I still disagree. Not that one needs to be as formal as a banker in these situations, but one's appearance should be enough of a departure from everyday to signify the importance of this event to them. While FB is a huge IPO for reasons both monetary and symbolic, the bankers will pitch hundreds of these in their careers, Zuckerburg maybe one or two. I also know plenty of bankers and know that their attire when seeing clients (suit, tie, conservative shirt, polished lace-up shoes) is different from their client-free days (when it's slacks, checkered button-ups and loafers).

MZ can live without any given banker, but he can't live without all of them and it would have been wise to step it up just enough so that people knew he understood just how important this was for his company.

 

[imatlas]



Yeah, and Bill Bellichick is a lousy coach because of his short-sleeved hoodie as well.

I hate this concept that the CEO of a company has to also be some pitchman who goes out and sells his product by the way he dresses. Zuckerberg came up with a better widget, that's all that really matters. I could care less what he wears. I wonder about the investment chops of any potential investor or analyst who would worry more about what the CEO is wearing rather than the product itself and the actual financial statements.

In most software companies the CEO is the chief pitchman, whether it is pitching to VCs / investors or pitching to prospects and customers. In terms of the success of the company, the fact that they have a better widget is completely secondary to the marketing of that widget.

That said, I think your main point is dead on.

 

[Bradford]



In most software companies the CEO is the chief pitchman, whether it is pitching to VCs / investors or pitching to prospects and customers. In terms of the success of the company, the fact that they have a better widget is completely secondary to the marketing of that widget.
That said, I think your main point is dead on.

I agree, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[imatlas]

It's one of the things I look for in an employer - I don't want a CEO who is down in the trenches banging out the technology, I want a combination of visionary and pitchman.

 

[fashionsnob]

I personally don't care what he wears but, given the importance of the meetings, why risk anything. Dress in a way that is professional, shows respect, and doesn't open too many doors for negative first impressions. While suit & tie might be a bit too much for his personality, nice jeans, dress shoes, and a button up will go a long way. Just my 2 cents...

 

[chogall]

WTF are people comparing Zuck with Jobs? Jobs defined and created industries but Zuck is just one of those social junk that did not fail (and almost did in 2008).

Besides, Steve Jobs used to appear well dressed in suits before he got kicked out of Apple.

 

[TimelesStyle]



I'm having trouble seeing this as a power play.  Maybe it's his version of Steve Jobs' black tutrtleneck and jeans.  I dunno.

I've already mentioned why I find the Jobs comparison ludicrous but to expand on it, MZ is nothing like Jobs in any way; while both men are (were) quite arrogant their arrogance came from very different places. With Zuckerburg it's "well I'm Mark Zuckerburg, I can do whatever I want because I'm Mark Zuckerburg, I invented Facebook". Unlike most great entrepreneurs he knows nothing of failure nor spending years dealing with all of the naysayers who thought he'd never make it. Jobs, on the other hand, never gave me the impression that he walked around saying "**** you, I'm Steve Jobs," rather he'd say "**** you, I know what I'm doing, I know it's better than what you suggested and if you don't like it there's the door." I love the fact that he used to answer customer service emails and had no qualms about getting into it with unhappy customers if he thought they were wrong, he never had an "I'm way too cool for this bullshit" attitude. His was much more of an earned arrogance and he learned from years of failure; Apple did not initially take off, he was actually pushed out of the company at one point only to have people realize that he actually did know what he was doing and was a visionary who could keep producing and keep creating new demand from consumers and increased value for the shareholders. Let me put it to you this way: Jobs' passing made me more pessimistic about Apple's future (not that I'm pessimistic, just more guarded) while Zuckerburg's departure wouldn't really impact the quality of the company in my opinion.