The Vergecast - The toxic work environment at Away

Episode Date: December 17, 2019

Verge editor-in-chief Nilay Patel talks Verge news reporter Zoe Schiffer about the concerning work conditions at luggage startup Away and the details from the Verge investigation. Further reading: Former Away employees describe a toxic work environment Away replaces CEO Steph Korey after Verge investigation The Away scandal is a moment of reckoning for Slack Here’s the leaked memo in which Away tells employees not to fave The Verge’s investigation Away’s new CEO was going to be second in command — until a toxic workplace story blew up Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Retool. Too many companies run critical operations on duct taped spreadsheets, Slack workflows, and whatever else they could cobble together. Not because they want to, but because building internal tools means weeks of waiting on someone else's backlog. That's where Retool comes in. Build custom internal tools just by describing what you need. Prompts something like,

Build Me a Revenue Dashboard on our Salesforce data. And Retool actually builds it on your company's data, in your cloud with enterprise security built in. Go to retool.com slash Verchcast. We all need to retool how we build software. What's up, y'all. I'm Skyler Diggins, seven-time WMBA All-Star, Olympic gold medalist, and mom. And I'm Cassidy Hubbard, host and reporter for nearly 20 years,

covering the biggest names and stories in sports and mom. And this is Am Mom, a community for athletes, game changers, and moms of all kinds. dropping May 14th. Tap in with us. Hey everybody. It's now off on the Vergecast. On this week's interview episode,

Verge reporter Zoe Schiffer joins us to talk about her series of reports on away, the luggage company. You're probably aware of a way if you listen to the Vergeaster, read the Verge. It is a hip new luggage startup.

They have some cultural problems inside the company. Zoe reported on them. Their CEO, Steph Corey, stepped aside for a new CEO, and then Zoe has some more reports on what it's like inside the retail stores that company.

So we talked about where the story came from. There's a lot of weird conspiracy theories about that floating around, but we talked about how she reported that story where it came from, specifically how Away's culture was shaped by the use of Slack, which is of particular interest to us. We obviously run a Slack-based workplace. Slack is taking over the workplace. It's competitor Microsoft Teams, also taking over workplaces.

What does chat software do to a company? That's something we talked about a lot. We talked about what it takes to start a startup. That's something that a lot of people have been reacting to with the Away story. And we talked a lot about how people are reacting to it and what it means for our workplaces and what it means for startups. A great conversation, Zoe is a terrific reporter. She's new to our team. I'm so happy she's here.

So it was a really fun conversation. She's also so deep in this world. She knows so much. Check it out, Zoe Schiffer on the Vergecast. Zoe Schiffer, welcome to the Vergecast. Thank you so much for having me. Thanks for Jan. This is your first one with us, right?

Yes, this is the inaugural cast for me. You are new to the Verge. You're making a huge splash here in, like, my name. month five or something with your reporting on Away. So obviously you had the big story about the company culture, their use of Slack. Steph Corey stepped down after that came out. There's a new CEO. He was the CEO of Lulu Lemon, all those changes. But you've got a new story today about the conditions of Away's retail stores. Tell me about that. Yeah, absolutely. And to be clear, it's month three. So I appreciate that you think I've been here for that long. But the latest away story

is really about how the corporate culture has trickled down to OAA's front lines. And I'm focused on two teams in particular, the team that deals with product, the monogramming artists and the retail employees. The monogramming artists have complained about paint thinners and fumes. They're in a room without any ventilation. The company, in July, moved them from the company headquarters to this outpost that they said would be better set up for them to paint the luggage. You know, they're kind of stenciling these like initials on. to each piece of luggage, which is kind of a claim to fame of a way, is that they're all hand-done, and they look really nice.

But unfortunately, for the artists, the room was not set up for them at all. There wasn't ventilation. There was not working heat. And so as it got colder, they're essentially just trapped in this space, huffing chemicals, in their own words, in a way that they felt was really dangerous. People were getting eye irritations and coughs, rampant headaches all the time. People were throwing up in the bathrooms, and they were talking about it really openly on slack. but they felt like they were being utterly ignored.

That is ridiculous. It's pretty unfortunate. The Slack conversations that we've seen, some of which we published in the new article, is really this sad conversation between all the artists kind of day after day saying, like, are you guys feeling dizzy? I'm feeling really dizzy. We have headaches, but Away was doing things like sending them desk fans. They sent them fingerless gloves, but they weren't actually fixing the underlying problem.

Why weren't they fixing it? Is it just too expensive? So the company hasn't responded yet about why. it's taken them so long to fix the issue. I know from the monogramming artist's perspective, they just didn't feel like the company wanted to spend more money on them. They had kind of said, you know, we got you this new space. Can you stop complaining? It was the feeling that they were getting, at least. It felt like they were kind of trying to implement these Band-Aid solutions to get them to shut up, but they weren't actually interested in and, you know, helping them. There were other

things like, I mean, basically people just felt kind of out of sight, out of mind. They used to be invited to company-wide events. And when they moved to the new space. O.A. said, you know, oh, you'll get your own holiday party this year, aka you're not invited two hours, but full-time monogramming artists could come to both. And then, you know, a week before the event, they saw that the Google Calendar invite had just disappeared from their calendars. And when they asked about it, corporate was like, oh, we think it's better if you just, you know, go to yours. So there wasn't, there just wasn't a lot of communication between the two sides, which is kind of ironic because the company prides itself on very transparent,

and open communication. So that was just kind of the monogramming part. Their experiences on the monogramming team are really mirrored by the retail employees' experiences, which is basically that all around the world as, you know, away is expanding their opening new retail locations. Retail employees are running into all of these issues with like the physical environment that they're working in. They talked about not having heat in the store in New York and winter and it being, you know, they could see their breath in the stores. In summer, the air conditioning broke and it wasn't fixed for the entire summer. And so customers were coming in and like fully sweating while trying to shop for luggage. And I mean, not to mention what was going on for the employees themselves in

the store. The company was supposed to deliver them water, drinking water every week and they weren't. So people were just running out in the middle of the shift to grab water for the cleaning employees because, you know, the cleaning people just like looked really thirsty and the retail employees felt bad for them. I mean, it was like a tough environment. Were they reporting all the stuff in this very public slack situation? They were talking about it. Yeah. They felt like they would kind of complain about stuff that was going on and they also say that there just wasn't a lot of organization. They were never sure who to speak to. And when they brought it up, they were kind of given these Band-Aid solutions.

You know, for a long time, the retail stores didn't have bank accounts. And so cash was just piling up at the stores. I have this anecdote in the story that a retail store in LA couldn't close the safe one night because cash was just like spewing out of it. And they had been asking for bank accounts for months. And then when they actually got bank accounts, which, you know, had taken quite a long time, O'I. I didn't want to pay for an art. armored truck to pick up the cash. So they had to walk it, you know, to the nearest branch, the nearest bank every week. And they would have just cash in essentially a tote bag that they were kind of carting back and forth between the store and the bank.

So what strikes me about this is that running a store is a fairly solved problem, right? Like people know how to do it. They know how to account for it. They know how to handle the cash that a retail store generates every single day. They know how to get it into a a bank. Is this just a startup not accepting the known solution and trying to reinvent the wheel, or were they just completely asleep at the switch? I think that they really didn't understand what opening a retail store would entail. I mean, one thing that I tried to ask every source I talked to, and you know, some people are on the record for this piece, is like, was this abnormal given your previous retail experience? Most everyone I talked to you had had multiple retail jobs,

and every single person said this was extremely abnormal. It was so much more disorganized than what I experienced before. There were no processes in place. There was management who'd never worked retail themselves, and so they really didn't understand what we were going through. And a lot of the things that corporate has talked about and implemented, like, you know, auditing the stores through secret shoppers and stuff, which were supposed to kind of do quality control worldwide in all these locations,

actually just created this situation where retail employees felt, really surveilled, like the corporate employees on Slack. This seems so backwards because one of the themes with direct-to-consumer brands like away, and we'll talk about it a little bit more, but their cost curves are rising, right? Like, Instagram ads are getting really expensive. Facebook ads are getting really expensive. Their whole thing is they don't have all these big carrying costs. They can ship you a high-quality product at a low price.

But like opening and running a store is expensive. And it seems like they were just cutting corners on the basics to do it as cheaply as possible while still having this image of really high quality. Is that sort of what you think was driving or is like sheer ignorance? No, to me it really seems like they were pouring money into advertising. Like that was the bet they were making. They were saying, we're going to make this brand look really, really sexy on social media. And the result is that there wasn't a lot of money left over to get the heater working in the store in New York

or get a bank account in LA. There wasn't time to do those things. It's just funny. There are hundreds if not thousands of luggage stores in every single. city, right? And like, you can just get somebody who managed a luggage store well to come in and do it for you. And they just didn't, it didn't seem like they did it or they didn't empower those people. Yeah, I mean, I think that there were, I mean, there are other things that are like funny little quirks about like a startup running a retail location, which is that like at the store in New York, you know, they wanted to have cold brew on tap, which would be like a cool thing. You walk into the store, you get a cold brew, you shop for luggage. And it created this kind of like massive rodent infestation where there was, I know. One night, one of the store managers who's in the piece got a call at 5 a.m. because the alarm had been tripped up. And when she looked at the security camera footage, it was a mouse. and they moved the cold brute keg at one point and there was a dead mouse under it.

There were just these things that she was like, I've worked in Soho for a long time, I've worked in New York for a long time. I've just never experienced this. We need an exterminator, but it was like months before they actually got someone in there. It just time went by because everyone at corporate was dealing with a whole bunch of other stuff. One other thing that I think is kind of interesting to mention is that, I mean, kind of in this vein of corporate culture trickling down to the front lines, when in the first piece I talked about how the customer experience team was really struggling in 2018 with the volume of calls they were

getting. And at one point, the executives just decided to temporarily shut down the customer experience phone line because they were missing so many calls and they felt like it was embarrassing, just like shut it off. But what happened is that people started calling the store in New York incessantly. And so these retail employees are trying to manage customers who are in front of them in person while answering the phones and dealing with issues that they have no idea how to solve and they're frantically slacking corporate being like, hey, what do I do about this? And they're just getting zero response from corporate. And it was like all of these actions that they were taking were having these massive ripple effects kind of globally to all the people

in the stores and on the front lines. What kind of customer support does a luggage customer need? I think this is one of those things I just don't understand about a way. Like, I am not needy with my suitcase seller. Like I don't call to me a lot, I guess. You know, like the North Face has never heard for me about a backpack or whatever. Like, what were they asking for? I mean, it was all happening around the holidays. So I think one interesting thing is, like, away was really, in my mind, at least selling to people who didn't necessarily need a new suitcase. They were getting one because they kind of bought into the brand or they were giving it as a present because they'd bought into the brand. And so a couple of things were happening. If they were giving it as a

present and the present was going to be late, people were like totally irate and furious. Another thing that retail employees talk about a lot is that the bags would break frequently. They break, they would scratch, the wheels, something would happen with them. And so they were like having to deal with a lot of repairs. I mean, they were told, you know, to kind of be like, oh, this never happens. We'll get it fixed right away. But kind of back channel talking to me, they would be like, it happened every day. I mean, that is one of those things where there's, I guess there's not a lot of review sites for luggage. There's not a lot of like market signals about the quality of luggage. So away, like, operates in a little bit of a vacuum. Yeah. I mean, I know. And people, some people really

I don't have no way back myself, so I can't speak to it. But yeah, I think it's like they really elevate the people who love the product. Those are the people who they're posting their Instagrams and they're retweeting their tweets and stuff. And those voices are loud and they're heard. And then the people they're not, they're trying to do damage control. They're saying, you know, we'll fix it for free. We'll send you a new one.

And so people are kind of like mollified in this way. It's so funny because what I always think about, I mean, we obviously review lots of tech products. And one thing that actually gives like a little bit of comfort to me in operating your review program is if something's wrong and we say it's wrong and everybody yells at us. Like the camera on the iPhone isn't as good as they say it is, which is a thing that I've written. Like eventually it just outs itself. Like they can't spin out of it, right? Like eventually people get the product.

They start using it and the truth is out there whether or not early reviews got it right or wrong. Like I'd like to be more right than wrong. But there's just a part in the back of my head that's always like, eventually people are going to find out. Eventually, the process are slower. It's fast. Here, it seems like they manage to hide that if all these people are coming to the store and saying, my wheels are broken or whatever. They manage to somehow suppress that from coming out by elevating all these other happy customers in their marketing. Yeah. And I mean, it's a difficult thing to report, right?

Because I don't know what normal is for a suitcase. Like, I would be pissed if my suitcase broke the first time. I used it, but, you know, if that happens to one and every 15 or 20 customers, it's kind of hard to tell if it's a pattern. If it's normal, a lot of people only upgrade their suitcase like a few times in their life. So it's like it might not seem like a red flag until you start to, yeah, get someone kind of reporting it out and saying like, wait, is this, you know, if every single bag is getting like scratched beyond repair the first time we use it, is this an issue with like how they're making the bags. So let's talk about the, you said your new story is about how. the sort of corporate culture bled into the actual working conditions of the company. Let's talk about that corporate culture and where it came from, which is really the subject of your first

piece. Why were they using Slack in this way? I think that it was really missed by a lot of people who picked up the story and ran with it. It was like the story took on a life of its own. But the heart of it is that no one was allowed to communicate privately, that they all had to do everything publicly in Slack. What was the root of that decision? Yeah. So it was something that Steph Corey and Jen Rubio, the co-founders, talked about really openly. They said it was a strategic decision they'd made to make the culture more transparent and more inclusive. They said that at times, you know, women and people of color would be left out of critical conversations when they took place of her email, and Slack was a way to ensure that that never happened. But in reality, employees say it kind of did the opposite. Minority employees in

particular, who were a massive part of my first article, talked about how they felt like they couldn't make even minor mistakes because they would just get a eviscerated on public Slack channels, and the entire company would watch as they were kind of taken down in these very brutal ways. And so when they tried to form their private Slack channel to talk about some of these issues, to talk about some of like the workplace toxicity that they were experiencing, six of them were fired because the company felt like they'd been prejudiced towards, you know, managers or others at the company. Yeah, one of the things that I have noticed over and over again is we have like moved from different chat platforms over the year. is that there's always a point at which you just have to stop typing in chat or Slack or whatever and be like, let's get on the phone. And that usually changes the entire dynamic of the conversation. I think that's what most people do.

I'm just very curious why that never seemed to be happening in a way. Yeah, I mean, it was really discouraged. I've seen the companies the Slack handbook that they give all new employees with how they direct people, how to speak. And one of the things that jumped out to me in that is, that they said, you know, if you direct message someone, don't be surprised if they say, hey, I'll respond to you in a public channel. And then they, like, post your message and respond to it right there.

That is, like, insane. Which the company was not embarrassed about at all. They were like, this is the way we do things. And I was like, this is wild. I mean, I can't even imagine, especially because you're hiring people one to two years out of school who have, like, no idea what's normal. And then all of a sudden, they're just like, like, okay, I guess this is what's happening. Feedback is a spectator's board at this company, and I've got to participate. So it's weird because every little, like, Slack doesn't have rules. It doesn't guide your behavior.

And so you have to impose your own sort of norms and rules and culture onto Slack, which is not, I don't think people talk about it. I think Slack's own blog has done the most talking about it, right? There's not like some body of literature. There's not, I don't know, college courses or management courses and, like, chat software should be used in this way. Like, it's not. It's new, do you think this story is a shift in how people are going to start to think about this chat? Like, particularly because you've got screenshots, which are damning, right? They are the story in many respects. Do you think a lot of people are going to rethink how they use the software? I don't know, because I thought that after, you know, the Gawker hip chats were read in deposition

during the trial against Hulk Hogan, which ultimately culminated in Gawker being bankrupted, essentially. You know, I don't know if anyone remembers that, but they read the office-wide chats back and forth between the journalists that were like incredibly inappropriate and hilarious. And at that point, I thought like, oh, no one's ever going to use chat again. Like, that was horrific. You know, it was so embarrassing to see your like private communications aired in front of the entire world. But I don't think it actually changed that much. I mean, I think one interesting thing is that there's a lot of executives who look at this behavior and say like, well, that's crazy. I would never do that. but then they're actually participating in it at their own companies.

They maybe just aren't as aware. It's one thing that I've been hearing a lot from employees. And I think the response to the article on Twitter has been really split between workers being like, this is terrible, we are treated like trash, and people should be held to account. And venture capitalists and executives saying, like, this is part of the hustle. This is how you grow a high-powered company. So that's the other piece of the puzzle, which I have found. utterly fascinating is that split in reaction. There's the people who do the work who are saying

you treat us like crap, especially on these chat platforms, and then the notion that in order to have high standards, to drive your company, to grow your business, to deal with all the crap that entailed being a founder, you have to behave in this way. Is that as black and white of a split is it seems like, or is there a lot of, are there people saying stuff in the gray area? It seemed pretty split. I was pretty shocked with the response. Overwhelmingly, I think it was overwhelmingly slanted towards workers being very happy and excited that this stuff was coming to light. People who in all different industries at all different companies feel like it's an underreported story that they are treated like trash by executives all the time and no one seems to care. And finally, they felt like they had a voice. We heard that over and over again. capitalists and executives felt often that it was either not a big deal, the stuff that she was saying and how she was saying it, or it was overblown, or it was an unfortunate byproduct of, you know, trying to grow a company that was just part of it. I think a lot of venture capitalists

felt like Corey was something they would want, someone they would want on their team. Is that kind of sort of undercut by the fact that she was so quickly removed in favor of this new guy? You definitely heard that conversation quiet down. I think the VCs were really out in force defending her in the first couple days and kind of trashing the article and saying it was overblown. It wasn't fair. It was a hit piece. I heard that over and over and over again. And then when she sat down, it kind of went silent. And they started to say, okay, no, you were played. Away was planning this the entire time. They wanted to use you to help push her out so they could like bring a new leadership. Which, you know, it's just baffling to me. But here we are.

That is like the most galaxy brain thinking in the world. By the way, first of all, if any company would like to expose its own toxic workplace in order to make an executive change. Like, call me, like, sure? Slide into my DMs. That seems like maybe you should clean your own house first before letting us do it for you. I thought

that that particular reaction that you got played or that we got played, what struck me about it the most is that you have to just assume everyone is so much smarter and capable of predicting what will happen than any

other person in history, right? That we, like, the verge will do exactly what you expect when you tell us this story, that people will react the way that they reacted, that it will hit this cultural note that seems to be so resonant, that Seth Corey will agree to step down as a result. Like, you just have to assume so many things will happen that actually rarely happen. And that is, it's such a. mistake of, what's the phrase? It's such a mistake of hindsight.

Like all that makes sense if you're looking back, none of it is even remotely rational if you're looking ahead. Yeah, I mean, I had a moment when I saw it where I was like, wow, I wonder if those people who were with me at the bar at 2 a.m. and who were like crying, literal tears were being like paid by the company. And I certainly hope they were being paid more than $40,000 a year to do that. Because like, that is insane. But of course, yeah, when you've spent like months and months getting people to trust you

and talk and you've like met them on multiple occasions in person and texted with them on every platform possible. Like there's just, yeah, there's not a doubt in your mind that this was not at all planned, especially because so many of the people felt incredibly burned by the company. These were not employees who were like in contact with the organization for the most part anymore. They had real beef based on what had happened. And we're willing to talk about it after they felt.

like they trusted me. Support for this show comes from Shopify. Starting something new isn't just hard. It can be really scary too. So much work goes into this thing that you're not entirely sure will even work. But here's a better thought. What if it did all work?

What if your instincts were actually right all along? Shopify wants to help you get there. They're the commerce platform behind millions of businesses worldwide and nearly 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from established brands like Allbirds and Hines to companies just getting started. Their design tools make it simple to create the exact online presence you're envisioning with hundreds of ready-to-use templates available. And with built-in marketing tools, you can launch full email and social campaigns in just a few clicks.

So you can connect with customers wherever they are. It's time to turn those what-ifs into with Shopify today. You can sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify dot com slash vergecast. You can go to Shopify.com slash vergecast. That's Shopify. dot com slash vergecast.

Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. If you're a small business owner, you know that every hire counts, but time and resources are limited. Finding, connecting with, and screening the right candidates takes up valuable time you could be giving to your customers.

That's where LinkedIn Hiring Pro comes in. It's building. built to be your hiring partner, helping you find the right candidates faster. That way you can hire with confidence without turning it into another full-time job. Hiring Pro streamlines the entire process from drafting your job to shortlisting candidates and conducting AI-powered interviews for initial screenings. Its updated conversational interface lets you describe what you need in plain language. Nearly 60% of hirers find a candidate to interview within a week.

With Hiring Pro, you spend less time searching and more time connecting with the right talent. And instead of getting buried in resumes, you get a focus shortlist that actually moves your hiring forward. Join the 2.7 million small businesses using LinkedIn to hire. Get started by posting your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash track. Terms and conditions apply. You've brought up how little some of these people made a couple of times now. I think it's $40,000. There's also a split here in how hard the founders are expected to work and how hard the employees are expected to work.

And it seems like part of this reaction is everyone at a startup signs up to work this hard. But the reward for that is nowhere near the same, right? Yeah, no. I mean, I think that that is part of it. There's two things that makes me think of. One, it's that you can put in really nice policies that are supposed to enable work-life benefits. balance and all of those good things. But if you see executives modeling the behavior of being there until 3 a.m., it's really hard for you to not stay until that time as well. Similarly, if they're

working Christmas, Thanksgiving, and New Year's, you're probably going to feel like you have to do the same. At a way, it wasn't even that flexible. It was like a literal mandate. But I think at a lot of companies, the executive behavior kind of sets the tone for the rest of the organization. The other part of it that I was thinking after this piece came out is that I think employees used to be willing to put up with a lot more bullshit, for lack of a better word, because of the promise of a big payout later on. It was like the stock was going to make them, you know, it was going to be life-changing money. And I think part of the cultural shift is that we're seeing these IPOs not go as planned and people are not willing to put up with years and years of abuse because they're not

sure that the payout will be as big. I think all the people who worked out, we work, probably expected a very different outcome from what actually occurred. Or they don't have equity in the first place. I mean, your $40,000 front-line customer support person is not going to be a millionaire if a way sells itself to Samson. No, they're not. Yeah. But I think that's real. And the reason I'm kind of pushing on it is that seems to be the part of the founder VC criticism that they were just blind to. That, yeah, maybe your founder who's trying to make something out of nothing and they're going to be a millionaire, maybe that person needs to be insane. driven and that feedback needs to be harsh and like I have a lot of sympathy for going from zero to one. That stuff is really hard. But your person who's just like solving your FedEx shipping problem for your suitcase, they're not going to get the return on that investment at all. And I don't think

that makes any sense. No, I feel that. I mean, I think that's where the company mission comes in. The mission and values have to sound so good. You have to get people so hyped up about the mission of the organization that they're willing to put in those hours. And I think that's what these companies do really masterfully. You know, if you looked at OAA's branding, it was like a travel and lifestyle company. It wasn't just hawking luggage. It was doing so much more than that. And I think that that's in some ways weaponized to get people kind of bought into the

idea of what the company could be and make them feel like it's really worthwhile to pour all of their time into it. But this brings into another kind of big question, which is that OA is a suitcase company. And we are mostly a tech and science website. And yet this felt like our story. so completely. I don't think we ever asked ourselves, like, why are we covering a suitcase company? There's something about this company in particular where they took the language of the tech industry, they took the money of the tech industry, they're deeply related into the tech industry,

but they make a plastic box. Right? And like, we didn't talk about it, and certainly it is absolutely a verge story, but why do you think it felt so connected to the tech industry when the product is so old, like so traditional? That's part of what's really fascinating to me about this story and why I kind of look at these brands in particular. It's not the first time I've written about the direct-to-consumer industry because there are this whole host of companies that are treated like tech companies even though they are not at all. I think like the Warby Parker, Outdoor Voices, Glossier, like what they are selling is literally makeup, workout gear, etc. But they're really treated like startups and they talk about themselves like startups and they have investments that look like startups. away was worth $1.4 billion. And I think part of that is the way that they, kind of the bet that they make in terms of where they spend money, they pour a ton of money into Facebook and Instagram advertising. They have really sexy websites. The models look very good, very young, very millennial focused. They all kind of look the same all of these places. I mean, if you look at the website, it's like they've taken the playbook and copied it again and again. And I think it works. It's also what makes the disparity so difficult.

It's like if you're pouring all of your resources into advertising, you might not have a lot left over to actually pay employees a living wage, to give them paid holidays, to give them good benefits. And those kinds of things, I think, are obviously more important to the people at your organization, but they're a lot less interesting to talk about in the media. I think there's just another piece of it, which this might be, it's the end of the decade. You know, like the decade of disruption is like winding to a close. And the idea that Samsonite and Travel Pro are brands that need to be disrupted, at one point sounded good, right? Like, we're going to disrupt the travel industry by building a better suitcase with a battery in it. At one point, I think in the sort of cultural conversation around startups, that sounded like a tech pitch. Like, here's this old industry and I'll fix it with like better marketing.

or honestly putting a battery in the bag. So I don't have in a waste suitcase, and I know people are religious about it, and I've never quite understood it. But that, to me, it seems like that moment is over, right? The reality of what these companies make and sell seems to be superseding the pitch to investors at the beginning. Yeah, I don't know. I would be surprised if it's actually over,

although I think that some of the shine has worn off a little bit. I think where, as consumers a little savier about what these companies are actually doing, And we're a little more immune to like the very, very lofty language. I think that, you know, when you looked at WeWork's website or you listened it on one of their earnings calls, like you would literally have no idea what the company actually did because it sounded like it was saving the world single-handedly. And I think that we're a little more suspicious of that kind of thing now. But whether companies are going to stop trying to do it, I don't know. Do you ever see that there's like a, it's embarrassing that I even know this, but there's like a pitch deck meme?

I don't know how else you would describe it where it's like, Pistachios are a $1.4 billion industry and no one has ever tried to disrupt it. And it's like it was just a template that we would see, particularly when startups have come to us, like, here's this old thing. We can make more money with a new thing and like computers are in the middle of it somewhere. Trust us. And at the end, it's like, oh, you're a real estate company. You're a suitcase company. You sell makeup.

Right? Like they are classic kinds of companies. But the thread that connects most of them, not we work, but most of the companies you're describing is that they are direct consumer brands. Yeah. And they seem like they have their own unique kind of economics. They are spending a lot on marketing. They're spending a lot on customer acquisition.

As you have spent more time investing in the workplace cultures of these, it just, I keep thinking like, no one's writing the expose about Samsonite, right? Which is also like they also like make a lot of products. They ship them people. They break. They have all the same problems. But they're just like a bigger, older, traditional company that probably outsources its customer support or whatever.

What about these direct-to-consumer brands made them like this, made them work that run this hard? I think there's actually a crucial difference, which is that Samsonite hasn't made a promise to customers that they should love the brand for all of these reasons. They haven't said, like, we created a brand persona that is supposed to be your friend, creating an excellent customer experience that is supposed to get you to, you know, feel really good about your purchase in all of these different ways. You know, many people didn't need a new suitcase. You only need, like, one. but you get it because you're buying, you're kind of virtue signaling with your purchase. You're saying, like, I am part of this group.

I am in the know. And you would see other people at the airport who also had it. And you all kind of like, you know, you'd done it together. It was a thing, which sounds totally ridiculous. But I do feel like it's true. It was like you're, I mean, Glossier does this too. You're really like part of their community when you buy the makeup. And I think that because there's such a closer link

between the companies and the customers, and that's kind of like the crucial difference about why they are, quote, unquote, like, disrupting the industry. It's a lot further of a fall for them when it turns out they're treating people like trash. Samsonite never made that same promise. And so, one, no one cares. And then two, if it comes out, it's like, okay, well, yeah, they treated people poorly. We never expected so much different. I don't know the names of anybody who works at Samsonite. Like, I don't know their CEO is.

I don't know who they're in. I, like, it's funny how much I've considered luggage since the story came out. Because it's just, like, this invisible, I don't know, is there like a Elizabeth Toomey out there who, like, makes the bag? Like, I have no idea. I hope there is. I hope she's doing great. But that, like, those brands, they just sell you a product and they, all of the effort is, like, once the transaction's over, they hope you really like it. So you buy another one or you tell a friend. They're not doing Instagram shoots. Right. They're not buying tons and tons Facebook ads in the hope to convert people to a lifestyle.

But was that happening at a way? Like, at some point, that is untenable, right? Like, you just have to sell people more suitcases. Like, how are they thinking about making their community so big to be worth $1.4 billion? I mean, that's the other thing with a lot of these direct-to-consumer brands is that they do think of themselves like startups. So it's not just about the suitcases. We know that away is planning big things, which I can't talk about yet. But, um, Scoop Schiffer is on the case.

Their, uh, their end-all be-all is not just luggage. And we know from Glacier, it's like they started with, um, a website that just talked about what makeup people were wearing. Then they launched their own makeup line. Then the makeup line launched this like party makeup line. It's like they, they want to take over bigger and bigger parts of the market because that's what startups do. They want to ingratiate themselves into like every facet of your travel life or of your getting ready world. And they do that really. successfully by creating this attachment between the customer and the company. So then when they want to sell you, you know, like body lotion in terms of glossier,

you're like, okay, well, I've always been buying it from Trader Joe's, but I guess now I'll switch to get this more expensive lotion online because, you know, I'm part of this whole thing. Do you think that to enter a space like that where you are selling a mission where you are selling a lifestyle to people, where you're trying to build a community of brand loyalists where your goal space. When you're trying to operate at that level, do you need this personality? Like, Mike Isaac was on the show a few months ago

and he just written his Uber book. And the thesis of the Uber book is Uber would not exist but for this asshole, right? And the entire book is like very much a meditation on how much of a jerk you really need to be. You've now been reporting on another CEO who seems to have aggressive tendencies towards our staff, who seems to be driven by a much bigger vision,

than just telling suitcases. Do you think you need that personality to make something for nothing? It's an interesting question. I definitely think you need to be pretty fanatical. You need to be really passionate and dedicated. I like to think that they're not mutually exclusive, that you can be a high-powered CEO

and not treat people poorly. But I think, of course, if you're starting a company and it's going to grow to like $1.4 billion, you are going to work all the time, and you're not going to have days off, and you're going to have to get people really, really hyped, up about it. But I think that you can also be cognizant of the fact that this is your dream. It's not the person shipping your FedEx packages dream. They are doing it for a paycheck. And so do you really

need to use the language of like, we are a family to dupe them into working all the time? Or can you just treat them humanely ask for in a way that you get their respect by treating them with respect? And when you ask them to work on a holiday, you pay them for that time. Like those kinds of things, in my mind, go a lot longer towards getting people bought into the overall vision and making them feel like they're okay working towards your vision than just using kind of the company values to say, we're in it together. If I'm staying here, you have to stay here, too. Allow me to be a ruthless capitalist. That's like mostly my role here. It's cheaper to lead with the mission, right? It's cheaper to get the buy-in. It's way more expensive to pay for

more customer service associates. Do you think the cost evens out in the long run, though? I think it does. I mean, I think that what we're seeing in this circumstance is like, yeah, they cut costs. They didn't hire enough people for the customer experience team. They didn't pay people overtime for a long time. But like, look how that worked out. In the short term, obviously, it's cheaper to use the company values as your like payment method. But it's kind of ridiculous when you look at it over the long term. Like, it's expensive to hire and fire people. But at these startups, really high turnover is just like part of the game. I think if you stepped back and you said, like, what would it look like to actually try and retain talent?

You would make a different bet. And like, what would it look like if our customer service team had institutional knowledge of every holiday season? Actually, yeah. I mean, it's not like people aren't going to work. People's complaints, especially out of way, weren't like we don't want to work hard. It was like we want to be compensated for our time. We don't want to be spoken to. Like, we are small children being taught a, you know, lesson by our teacher.

What do you make it? So that's another one of these criticisms of your people. that to me felt very disconnected from what was in the piece, the notion that just like millennials are soft, right? And this is what workplaces are like, and you got to toughen up to make a buck kit. Like, what did you make of that in the context of what you had been hearing? I mean, I've always felt like that's ridiculous. I just, it's just not what I see with my demographic and my friends. Like, it's none of us, and when I say us, it's like people who are in human beings.

Well, no, I mean, part of the reason that I'm interested in these types of stories is that the customer experience-level people are like my peers. And it's like I'm not connected to the investors and the executives of these organizations. I'm connected to the people who are my age, who are working these jobs out of school and who aren't getting paid a lot. And so their stories are interesting to me. What I have seen from the people I've reported on from my sources is that they're down to like work their asses off. They're down to work really late hours and to put in the time and to put in the energy and the work. What they don't want is to feel like at the end of the day that they were tricked and duped and that they were kind of told something was other than what it was.

I mean, part of the issue is that people come in feeling like the company is going to feel different because it tells them it feels different here. The company culture is like one of the biggest things about this organization. You're buying into a mission. We are a family. Like they use this language to get people hyped up. And then the reality is that, no, it's just like a startup and you have to work all the time. And people kind of are mean sometimes, et cetera, et cetera.

If you'd set that up from the beginning, I think it would be different. No one goes to Wall Street and then it's like, I have to work at a bank for a long time. It's like, you expect that. Or, you know, people who go into consulting. It's like my friends who went to like McKinsey or something aren't like, and then I have to travel. It's like, well, you have to travel, but you're getting paid, what, $350,000 a year? Like, you're fine with that for five years. So I think you've got to make, you know, one of those calls.

I definitely know people who made a lot of money who went to work for the bank and are like, no, I have to work for the bank. But it happens. Fair, fair. But they're like crying tears of pure gold. Right, exactly. Must be nice. The other piece of it that I want to try to connect with the tech industry is, let's pick on Google, right?

Google's like going through this moment where its workforce is saying this company is broken. We need to fix it. They're obviously firing people for being critics of Google. They were a startup at one point. They famously had a broken early company culture, just a ton of issues. But the mission they were selling was actually somewhat more real, right? It was somewhat more tangible.

We're going to organize all of the world's information is actually like a world-changing thing that Google accomplished. But like that same question of do you need to be that forceful personality? Do you need to cut many corners in how you design your organization and your culture, which Google absolutely did, is mitigated by a different mission or of a different caliber? of mission? Because I honestly struggle with it. I think Google really, really screwed up their early culture, and they're paying a heavy, heavy price for it now. But that's a long timeline to

pay out that price, right? A lot of people got rich along the way. A lot of people who recruited in that mission got rich along the way. Like, Google did IPO. So I wonder, you're talking about the cohort that you identify with. They're not getting it from a way, but they might be getting it from another startup that actually has a tech-focused mission

that might change the world on the scale of Google. Do you think that changes the equation? I'm honestly asking. Yeah, I mean, I think if you truly believe in what the company is doing, it's a lot easier to sacrifice some of your well-being to try and make that happen. Like, if you think the company is changing the world, maybe it's okay to, like, put in all the hours, even if you're not really getting compensated for it. Because you really think that, like, and, you know, these people are recruiting people just out of school who are in a, like, pretty idealistic phase of life. It's like they want to feel like their work matters and has meaning. The tough thing for a company, like, a way is that they have.

have extremely talented people coming out of like the best schools in the country with the best pedigrees. And it's like you're not going to be recruiting from like the business school at Harvard or Stanford. If you're just like, we hawk luggage. You kind of have to present it as something other than what it is. And they've successfully done that. And so that's, yeah, that's kind of the tough piece is that if you inherently have a great mission, like good on you, I think that that's probably a lot easier to get people hyped about. And if you, If you don't, and I think that when, you know, the work days are tough as they inevitably are at any organization, people are able to put up with it a little more. When you don't, and then you kind of do what away did, which is present your company as something other than what it is, then the tough work days become that much tougher because people are feeling like they were tricked.

So I want to switch back to Slack for one second, and I want to ask you a question. And maybe this is going to go sideways on me. But you joined our company. Our company runs on Slack. we have a lot of like, I mean, honestly, the entire verge runs on Slack. Like, that's where most of the action is every day. Do you think that's bad? Like, not at the verge in general, but like in the world is the use of Slack, the way it skyrockets,

the way that people use what is very much an enterprise messaging product controlled by their company, monitored by their company, subject to discovery laws in lawsuits, the way that we use it. Do you think it's appropriate? Do you think it needs to change? It's an interesting question. I mean, I think it does a lot of good. Like, I can't even imagine how the verge would run if it weren't for Slack. Before Slack, we ran an IRC, and before IRC ran an AOL Instant Messenger.

Like, it's in the DNA. Yeah, it had to be that because I think the speed at which a lot of companies are running requires a kind of instant messaging back and forth, whichever platform it's running on. You know, my experience of Slack at the verge has been interesting because I basically ignore it all day when I'm actually working. I remember day two when I started, I went home and said to my partner, like, my brain just feels like a slower human brain than all of my coworkers. Like the speed at which people talk is mind boggling to me. And I like literally can't keep up so I don't even try. But the other thing is that like when I'm trying to actually work, I can't, I just like cannot pay attention to it.

And my work or the stuff that I really like to do are these longer form pieces. And so they kind of require tunnel vision for a little while. I don't think that any technology, well, I wouldn't say. I was going to say I don't think any technology is inherently bad, but that's not true. I don't think that Slack is inherently bad. I actually think one of the big shifts we all need to make is to let go the idea that most technologies are inherently neutral. Yeah, no, it's true.

I regretted it as soon as I started saying. Well, I mean, like I get it. It's been rhetorical, and yes, some technologies are inherently bad. Fine. But I think it would be better if we thought of all technologies is inherently costly. Right? And Slack exerts a cost on every organization. Like, I see it in hours. Like, it is easier for us to chat about something and pretend to have made a choice in Slack or make a decision in Slack than do actually talk about it and actually make a decision and actually follow up. But we make many more of those decisions, those like half decisions all day long. And so that's a price that we pay. And it has some benefit and has some cost. But we haven't really ever, this is the most rigorously I've ever talked about it.

it's because we're talking about a way, right? Like, that restructuring of how companies think about their workplace tool has not yet occurred. Yeah, I completely agree. I mean, I still think it's better than the alternative. Like, I would not want to go to a world where we just use email or we only have meetings in person. One, because that's impossible. Everyone's too distributed all over the world. And two, because it's a time suck.

Like, it's annoying to go back and forth on email like 15 times to come to a decision. But at the same time, I think that there's a really important piece of this that was lost it away, which is that you kind of do need all of them. There are some meetings that should only happen in person. There are some conversations that are much easier to have over email and that you kind of want that record of to be able to just go back and really easily reference. And when you're imposing too many rules on how people can communicate, I think you get to a place where your stated reason for imposing those rules looks really, really different from the reality on the ground when people are kind of living under them. So what do you think

happens next for a way. It's the first thing the new guy does, like, banned slack. What do you think that first move looks like? I don't know. I would imagine that they would relax the rules a bit. You know, one thing that has come out of this is, like, what does it mean to have a safe space to talk about a toxic work culture at work? Because one of the problems that O'Away ran into is that when employees created a private channel to kind of air some of their grievances, they were summarily fired without, like, any conversation whatsoever. So, So, yes, if I were him, I would make it safe for employees to speak privately about what's going on. I feel like that that is a basic human right that should be applied to any company,

that you shouldn't be so scared of your employees that you literally will not let them speak privately. I think that there's going to have to be a lot of work done to kind of relax the culture around harsh feedback because it is so endemic to the company. I would have a really hard time imagining that executives are going to continue speaking, extremely harshly to those under them, probably because they're so traumatized from this article that it's horrific to think about what could be screenshotsed. But the other way that this could go is that there's just a lot more surveillance of employee activity on these platforms. I still have people leaking me stuff, and I'm like, I have to imagine that at this point

the company is really, really watching who's taking screenshots. And so ideally it doesn't go that way, but we really don't know yet. Can Slack tell if you've taken a screenshot? That seems like a nuclear feature for them to add. They can tell based on the activity. This was something that actually was brought to my attention after the article came out. Based on the emoji reactions and the activity log on Slack, they can tell who took a certain screenshot. And in fact, there's like a funny anecdote that came out.

After the article broke, a few employees were kind of coming out with their own experiences on Twitter and saying, this happened to me, this happened to me. One of the things that someone said, this guy Nate, had said publicly that that Corey had posted an article in Slack and the whole team had emoji reacted to it except him. And later she followed up with him, having gone through all of the emojis and said like, hey, you didn't react. I thought that that article would be particularly important for you. And he was kind of like, wow. Wow. That is an enormous combination of weird and creepy things leading to like one side. Subtweet in person?

An incredible sub tweet. All right. What's next on this story and what other things are you looking at? Yeah, I have, my DMs are quite full right now with other employees coming forward with their own stories. I am really interested in these companies that present a really different image than what's actually going on internally. And I think I'm excited to kind of keep diving into these subcultures of the tech industry and saying like, where is. the marketing, kind of obfuscating what's actually going on? And what do the lowest-level employees at these places have to say? Because they're often the people who are treated the worst.

And if people want to reach out to you, where can they find you? You can find me on Twitter at Zoe Schiffer. Z-O-E-S-C-H-I-F-F-E-R. Excellent. All right. Thank you so much, Zoe. It was really great to have you on. We'll have you back soon. Thank you so much. All right, my thanks to Zoe Schiffer. She's got a lot more reporting on startups like this coming. Check her out. She's on Twitter at Zoe Schiffer. We'll back later this week for the chat show, and then we're off for the holidays.

So check us on Friday, and we'll see you again with more interview episodes into the new year.