SeatGeek

Robert F. Higgins; Sarah  Mehta

Case | HBS Case Collection | October 2018

SeatGeek

Abstract

In late 2016, Russ D’Souza and Jack Groetzinger, co-founders of the online event ticketing platform SeatGeek, faced some difficult decisions. In the company’s seven-year history, SeatGeek had positioned itself primarily as an aggregator, facilitating ticket transactions between sellers and buyers on the “secondary ticket market.” But in early 2016, D’Souza and Groetzinger had decided to pursue the “primary ticket market”—contracting directly with the sports teams and venues that issued tickets to events, a space dominated by Ticketmaster. This move would require SeatGeek to confront Ticketmaster, an established incumbent, develop or acquire the back-end software necessary to enable primary market ticket sales, and establish partnerships with sports teams and event venues. Entering the primary market would also likely necessitate a Series D funding round.

Keywords: Event Ticketing; Sports Ticketing; Acquisition; Business Model; Decision Making; Cost vs Benefits; Market Platforms; Sports; Strategy; Technology; Mobile Technology; Technology Platform;

Language: English

Format: Print

19 pages

Educators

Citation:

Higgins, Robert F., and Sarah Mehta. "SeatGeek." Harvard Business School Case 819-013, October 2018.

Frustrated by an inability to convince existing venture capital firms to invest in companies led by women, people of color, and LGBT founders, Arlan Hamilton started her own firm, Backstage Capital, in 2015. Hamilton understood the untapped potential of companies run by underrepresented founders, a group historically excluded from venture capital funding, and was eager to demonstrate the significant returns on investment in such companies. This case explores Hamilton’s nontraditional VC background, and her mission to fund startups where at least one founder of the company identifies as a woman, person of color, or LGBT. Now, three years after its founding, Hamilton is considering launching both an accelerator and a fund that will invest exclusively in Black women.

Case | HBS Case Collection | March 2018 (Revised March 2019)

Gender and Free Speech at Google (A)

Nien-hê Hsieh, Martha J. Crawford and Sarah Mehta

In August 2017, Google fired James Damore, a 28-year-old software engineer who had been employed by the company since 2013. The move came after Damore penned an internal company memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” which posited that innate biological differences between men and women—as opposed to hiring biases, gender discrimination, or a hostile workforce—were at least partially responsible for the low numbers of women in tech. At the time, 20% of Google’s tech workforce, and 31% of its overall staff, was female. Damore also admonished Google for silencing opinions that challenged what he viewed as the company’s politically liberal belief system. Reactions to both the memo’s content and Google’s decision to fire Damore were swift and varied. Some praised the company for signaling intolerance of any marginalization of women. Others criticized Google for terminating an employee for a seemingly innocuous act of expression. Danielle Brown, Google’s new vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, hired just a few weeks before the memo was leaked to the public, must now advise Google’s top leadership team on dealing with the fallout.

Keywords: Free Speech; Representation; Diversity; Gender; Race; Human Resources; Employees; Employee Relationship Management; Recruitment; Selection and Staffing; Labor; Employment; Lawsuits and Litigation; Organizational Culture; Technology Industry; United States; California;

Citation:

Hsieh, Nien-hê, Martha J. Crawford, and Sarah Mehta. "Gender and Free Speech at Google (A)." Harvard Business School Case 318-085, March 2018. (Revised March 2019.) View Details

Cite View Details Educators Purchase

In the summer of 2018, San Francisco–based electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) maker JUUL Labs, was experiencing exponential growth. Sales of its JUUL e-cigarette had increased by 783% over the preceding year, projected revenues for 2018 topped $940 million, and the company had captured over 72% of the U.S. e-cigarette market. The company’s success had thrust it into the spotlight, and JUUL Labs found itself at the center of considerable controversy. Whereas the company’s stated goal was to provide tobacco smokers with a less harmful e-cigarette alternative, JUUL Labs’s products had proven widely popular with teenage high school students who had never smoked. Some advocacy groups and public policy makers speculated that the company had purposefully marketed its products to minors—an allegation JUUL Labs’s executives strongly denied. The company now faced an FDA probe and investigations by at least two state attorney generals. It needed a strategy to deal with its mounting regulatory and public relations problems.

Faculty & Research

SeatGeek

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author