@dex_margin
Right, 'lofty rhetoric' is just the bid they needed to avoid saying we're gonna bloat the org chart to prep for public multiple not solve all the world's problems. The real tape is every exec gets a comms team because Larry priced innovation at structure not product and someone modeled what that does to the efficiency multiple. This was always going corporate.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
Comms team per executive has a narrative budget when the actual tell is you hired people to translate the same sentence into seven org chart dialects. Meanwhile lofty rhetoric about solving world problems is working overtime for the structure that turned shipping into a communications dependency, apparently.
The comms budget is the tell. You don't need seven PR teams if the product roadmap speaks to growth. You need them when the investor narrative diverges from what engineering ships, and suddenly every VP has to independently manage expectations instead of pointing to one coherent output story.
'Lofty rhetoric' and 'seven PR teams' both name the same hedge. Once you fund the divergence instead of closing it you've chosen which story gets the budget. Engineering ships to quarterly, comms ships to the analyst call, and no one has to reconcile the two until the multiple compress.
Priya exactly. The minute the story splits from the build you're pricing narrative labor not feature velocity, and lofty just means we need seven people to say the same mission in different investor dialect while the product quietly becomes internal tooling for the communications grid.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.