Hello, my name is…
Lyft is bringing on a new board member with experience in both government and transportation.
That new board member is former senior advisor to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett.
Experience to boot
As one of the longest-serving advisers to the former president, Jarrett consulted with Obama on public engagement and intergovernmental affairs. Before joining Obama’s team, she had previously chaired the Chicago Transit Board and was a commissioner of Chicago’s Department of Planning and Development.
In a statement on Monday, a Lyft spokesperson said that Jarrett “brings experience tackling the problems and opportunities related to urban transportation.”
Jarrett is the first independent Lyft board member, and joins Floodgate’s Ann Miura-Ko to become the second woman on Lyft’s board. Other board members include Lyft founders Logan Green and John Zimmer, Sean Aggarwal, Ben Horowitz of Andreessen Horowitz, and GM President Dan Ammann, bringing the total to nine members.
Besides serving on Lyft’s board, Jarrett is also on the board of Ariel Investments in Chicago, and serves as an adviser to the Obama Foundation.
Thrilled to join the ride
In a post on Lyft’s blog, Jarrett said that she believes “that reliable, affordable transportation positively impacts social mobility, and improves the quality of life in densely populated communities.” She added, “I am thrilled to join the ride.”
This isn’t the first time that ride-sharing company has drawn D.C. alumni to the Silicon Valley.
David Plouffe, campaign manager and senior advisor to Obama, worked at Uber from 2014 until early 2017. Uber also hired former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate allegations of sexist discrimination and harassment.
Jarrett joins Lyft at a time when the ride-sharing app’s star is rising.
Amidst allegations of sexual harassment and evasion of law enforcement, several Uber execs have left the company in the past several weeks. A consumer boycott of Uber has prompted many customers to switch to Lyft.
On the up
The company raised $600 million in capital this year, at a $7.5 billion valuation. To date, the company have raised more than $2.6 billion.
Just halfway through 2017, Lyft says that they’ve already completed more rides than in all of 2016.
Everyone should have an interview escape plan
(BUSINESS NEWS) A job interview should be a place to ask about qualifications but sometimes things can go south – here’s how to escape when they do.
“So, why did you move from Utah to Austin?” the interviewer asked over the phone.
The question felt a little out of place in the job interview, but I gave my standard answer about wanting a fresh scene. I’d just graduated college and was looking to break into the Austin market. But the interviewer wasn’t done.
“But why Austin?” he insisted, “There can’t be that many Mormons here.”
My stomach curled. This was a job interview – I’d expected to discuss my qualifications for the position and express my interest in the company. Instead, I began to answer more and more invasive questions about my personal life and religion. The whole ordeal left me very uncomfortable, but because I was young and desperate, I put up with it. In fact, I even went back for a second interview!
At the time, I thought I had to put up with that sort of treatment. Only recently have I realized that the interview was extremely unprofessional and it wasn’t something I should have felt obligated to endure.
And I’m not the only one with a bad interview story. Slate ran an article sharing others’ terrible experiences, which ranged from having their purse inspected to being trapped in a 45 minute presentation! No doubt, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to mistreatment by potential employers.
So, why do we put up with it?
Well, sometimes people just don’t know better. Maybe, like I was, they’re young or inexperienced. In these cases, these sorts of situations seem like they could just be the norm. There’s also the obvious power dynamic: you might need a job, but the potential employers probably don’t need you.
While there might be times you have to grit your teeth and bear it, it’s also worth remembering that a bad interview scenario often means bad working conditions later on down the line. After all, if your employers don’t respect you during the interview stage, it’s likely the disrespect will continue when you’re hired.
Once you’ve identified an interview is bad news, though, how do you walk out? Politely. As tempting as it is to make a scene, you probably don’t want to go burning bridges. Instead, excuse yourself by thanking your interviewers, wishing them well and asserting that you have realized the business wouldn’t be a good fit.
Your time, as well as your comfort, are important! If your gut is telling you something is wrong, it probably is. It isn’t easy, but if a job interview is crossing the line, you’re well within your rights to leave. Better to cut your losses early.
Australia vs Facebook: A conflict of news distribution
(BUSINESS NEWS) Following a contentious battle for news aggregation, Australia works to find agreement with Facebook.
Australia has been locked in a legal war against technology giants Google and Facebook with regard to how news content can be consumed by either entity’s platforms.
At its core, the law states that news content being posted on social media is – in effect – stealing away the ability for news outlets to monetize their delivery and aggregate systems. A news organization may see their content shared on Facebook, which means users no longer have to visit their site to access that information. This harms the ability for news production companies – especially smaller ones – from being able to maintain revenue and profit, while also giving power to corporations such as Facebook by allowing them to capitalize on their substantial infrastructure.
This is a complex subject that can be viewed from a number of angles, but it essentially asks the question of who should be in control of information on a potentially global scale, and how the ability to share such data should be handled when it passes through a variety of mediums and avenues. Put shortly: Australia thinks royalties should be paid to those who supply the news.
Australia has maintained that under the proposed laws, corporations must reach content distribution deals in order to allow news to be spread through – as one example – posts on Facebook. In retaliation, Facebook completely removed the ability for users to post news articles and stories. This in turn led to a proliferation of false and misleading information to fill the void, magnifying the considerable confusion that Australian citizens were confronted with once the change had been made.
“In just a few days, we saw the damage that taking news out can cause,” said Sree Sreenivasan, a professor at the Stony Brook School of Communication and Journalism. “Misinformation and disinformation, already a problem on the platform, rushed to fill the vacuum.”
Facebook’s stance is that it provides value to the publishers because shared news content will drive users to their sites, thereby allowing them to provide advertising and thus leading to revenue.
Australia has been working on this bill since last year, and has said that it is meant to equalize the potential imbalance of content and who can display and benefit from it. This is meant to try and create conditions between publishers and the large technology platforms so that there is a clearer understanding of how payment should be done in exchange for news and information.
Google was initially defiant (threatening to go as far as to shut off their service entirely), but began to make deals recently in order to restore its own access. Facebook has been the strongest holdout, and has shown that it can leverage its considerable audience and reach to force a more amenable deal. Australia has since provided some amendments to give Facebook time to seek similar deals obtained by Google.
One large portion of the law is that Australia is reserving the right to allow final arbitration, which it says would allow a mediator to set prices if no deal could be reached. This might be considered the strongest piece of the law, as it means that Facebook cannot freely exercise its considerable weight with impunity. Facebook’s position is that this allows government interference between private companies.
In the last week – with the new agreements on the table – it’s difficult to say who blinked first. There is also the question of how this might have a ripple effect through the tech industry and between governments who might try to follow suit.
Plant-based milk company Oatly is going public in the U.S.
(BUSINESS NEWS) With the growing popularity of plant-based goods, it is unsurprising to see Oatly going to market, but how much the investment pays off remains to be seen.
On Tuesday, the plant-based milk company, Oatly, filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the U.S., which could value the company between $5 billion and $10 billion.
The IPO will take place after the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) completes its review process and is subject to market conditions. Additional details of the planned sale were not offered in the confidential filing. The price and number of shares available to purchase are yet to be determined.
The Sweden-based vegan food and drink maker was founded in the 1990s by brothers Rickard and Björn Öste. The company sells its products online and in more than 50,000 retail stores in 20 countries across Europe and Asia. The company entered the U.S. in 2017 and has also partnered with cafes, such as Starbucks.
Last July, Oatly raised $200 million in investment equity. The company is backed by former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz and celebrity investors like Oprah Winfrey, Natalie Portman, and Jay-Z. According to PitchBook, the company was valued at around $2 billion at that time.
In 2019, the company generated about $200 million in revenue, which is almost double the year before. Figures for 2020 haven’t been released yet, but the company planned on doubling them again.
Although the numbers haven’t been made public, it isn’t a far-off stretch to say the company could have done just that. Demand for plant-based products has been high. In just the first week of March last year, Nielsen statistics showed the sales of oat milk were up 347.3%.
This rise is due to consumers seeking alternatives to animal products and healthier food options. Already, fast-food chains, casual, and upscale restaurants have entered the plant-based food sector by adding new plant-based items to their menus.
Burger King has its Impossible Whopper with a plant-based patty. Baskin-Robbins offers three vegan ice cream flavors. Starbucks also announced in December that it would now serve oat milk at all its locations nationwide starting in the spring.
Oatly already has a large following. As more health and environment-conscious consumers are willing to seek and pay for these types of products, it seems like their following will only continue to grow.
Opinion Editorials6 days ago
Declutter your quarantine workspace (and brain)
Opinion Editorials1 week ago
Minimalism doesn’t have to happen overnight
Business News18 hours ago
Everyone should have an interview escape plan
Business News2 weeks ago
Fake news? Well, what about fake reviews?
Opinion Editorials1 week ago
Online dating is evolving and maybe networking will too
Business Entrepreneur2 days ago
Small businesses must go digital to survive (and thrive)
Tech News18 hours ago
How to personalize your site for every visitor without learning code
Tech News1 week ago
4 ways startups prove their investment in upcoming technology trends