Amazon tops LinkedIn’s list of best places to work, jobseeker priorities shift to workplace culture

There have been more than 171,000 people in the tech industry laid off so far this year, according to data tracked by layoffs.fyi, but those looking for work are not in a ‘beggars can’t be choosers’ mindset. According to new data from LinkedIn, people are gravitating to workplaces that align with their values, and their values include a range of factors like diversity and skills growth, not just how much money they’ll make.

The company today published its annual list of best places to work, where Amazon held on to the top spot, and Google owner Alphabet dropped from number two last year to number five this year. The interesting thing about the rankings, now in their eighth year, is that they provide a snapshot of how individuals’ priorities are changing.

Specifically, the rankings are based not just on practical assessments of — for example — what percentage of people were laid off, but also how companies scored on softer and cultural skills, which it said speak to how long a person is more likely to stay at a company.

So, along with factors like “company stability” (companies had to have less than 10% workforce layoffs in the past year to qualify), other details like growth and learning opportunities, equity in the workplace, and strong company culture, it said, are “of growing importance for job seekers as they prioritize organizations that align with their own values.” (The full list of eight factors: ability to advance, skills growth, company stability, external opportunity, company affinity, gender diversity, educational background and employee presence in the country.)

LinkedIn’s conclusion: this more rounded view of workplaces has become more of the norm when it comes to where people gravitate to work, and that’s been the case even in a tight labor market where hundreds of thousands of people are getting laid off due to worsening economic conditions.

In keeping with that conclusion, LinkedIn used the data to kick off a new tool it’s offering jobseekers when constructing their job searches.

They now will have a filter to look for workplaces that have policies and priorities in areas like diversity and inclusion (DEI), career growth and learning, work-life balance, social impact and environmental sustainability. Via LinkedIn Learning, the company is also offering some free courses to help users learn how to seek out those job opportunities more effectively.

LinkedIn itself and its owner Microsoft intentionally get left out of the rankings, but in addition to Amazon and Alphabet, just one other technology company made the top-10 list, Apple at number eight. Twitter, unsurprisingly, is not in the rankings at all, but nor are other biggies like Facebook owner Meta, Netflix and Samsung.

Tech-adjacent AT&T was number six, while tech management consultancy Thoughtworks was at number nine. Others in the top ten included banks (ironic given what’s been happening in the banking sector in the past few months), and two companies in the healthcare space, UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente. We’re publishing the basic full list below, and you can see the more detailed rankings and descriptions here.

The bigger message here is that LinkedIn continues to tweak its platform to remain relevant in the employment game, whatever rules that game may take.

LinkedIn, with 900 million registered users, has been a major hub for people looking for work in the so-called knowledge economy for decades at this point. In the last few years, it has made a number of efforts to be responsive to the socioeconomic wave that’s washed over us.

The Covid-19 pandemic saw LinkedIn add in tools to help employers indicate which jobs could be carried out remotely without a need for relocation to offices that were unlikely to be open anyway.

Then, the start of the layoffs tsunami saw a lot of people adopt LinkedIn’s “open to work” badge to flag quickly and visually to those browsing their profiles that they were happy to entertain job offers — a big shift away from the more discreet cues LinkedIn has built over the year to help users flag themselves to recruiters.

The big question is whether or not factors like cultural values are a sign of our times, or if these parameters will remain permanent priorities among jobseekers, changing the bigger picture for how recruiters can capture the best talent — and indeed what “talent” will look like — in the future.

  1. Amazon
  2. Wells Fargo
  3. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
  4. Bank of America
  5. Alphabet
  6. AT&T
  7. UnitedHealth Group
  8. Apple
  9. Thoughtworks
  10. Kaiser Permanente
  11. Boeing
  12. Verizon
  13. Comcast
  14. Citi
  15. Accenture
  16. IBM
  17. Lockheed Martin
  18. GE
  19. The Walt Disney Company
  20. Northrop Grumman
  21. UPS
  22. FedEx
  23. Dell Technologies
  24. Edwards Lifescience
  25. PwC
  26. Mastercard
  27. State Farm
  28. Lowe’s Companies
  29. Fidelity Investments
  30. Intel
  31. Oracle
  32. Deutsche Telekom
  33. Eli Lilly and Company
  34. EY
  35. Raytheon Technologies
  36. Capital One
  37. U.S. Bank
  38. Ford Motor Company
  39. PepsiCo
  40. Tetra Pak
  41. Bristol Myers Squibb
  42. Morgan Stanley
  43. Medtronic
  44. Delta Air Lines
  45. CFGI
  46. Siemens
  47. Vitesco Technologies
  48. Synchrony
  49. Atlassian
  50. Tata Consultancy Services

Amazon tops LinkedIn’s list of best places to work, jobseeker priorities shift to workplace culture by Ingrid Lunden originally published on TechCrunch

Are solo GPs screwed?

Entrepreneur Ankur Nagpal raised a $70 million venture fund last year, called Vibe Capital, from over 200 investors. But now, as the market shifts and LPs are less interested in venture capital, the Ocho founder is shrinking the fund side by roughly 43%, canceling capital calls, and, ultimately, sending back money that had already been wired to the fund.

The contraction, Nagpal told TechCrunch, occurred because he’s busy building his own startup and the funding environment has shifted to more realistic expectations: “What looked like a $10 billion outcome is now a $1 billion dollar outcome.” As a result, he says he’s more confident on returning a higher multiple if he’s investing from a smaller fund size.

His LPs were surprised but “super happy” to get the capital back, Nagpal said. Since announcing the cut, the founder says that five different solo GPs have messaged him asking for introductions to LPS who just got capital back. “I think the reality is a lot of these people who are getting money back are actually not going to allocate it to venture anymore.” One of Nagpal’s biggest investors is Tiger Global, which has become notorious for retreating from venture fund bets. His other investors, namely venture funds, will likely use the capital to bet on new startups out of their own fund, he said.

In Nagpal’s case, the move will let him put 90% of his time into his new startup. But he says others in the solo GP world are going through a rough time. Many are shrinking fund goals, extending fundraising timelines, teaming up with investors to avoid team risk or even going toward placement agents, once taboo in the world of fundraising, to help them close investors in exchange for a fee. “Even the ones who are taking it seriously are actually now trying to build a firm, so you’re kind of becoming the thing that you were trying to replace,” he said.

It’s a shift from the fund of fund mentality that felt commonplace last year, in which investment firms cut checks to early-stage, experimental investors to de-risk and even lead first checks into a generation of new startups. At the time, Tiger announced its $1 billion fund to back other funds but has since reneged. Alexis Ohanian and Katelin Holloway’s fund, 776, dedicated $10 million of its $500 million set of funds to back emerging fund managers. (The firm did not respond to requests for comment on an update of the fund allocation.) Other efforts, like Spearhead, a platform to turn founders into angel investors built by AngelList’s Naval Ravikant and Accomplice’s Jeff Fagnan, appear to no longer be active.

The history of solo GPs

Before solo GPs were in the spotlight, they were set aside. LPs weren’t giving lone venture capitalists meaningful capital, but as entrepreneurs with massive networks sought to formalize some of their angel investing operations, the deal sweetened. Add in the fact that platforms like AngelList made it easier and cheaper to set up a fund and handle all associated admin fees, and the jokes started rolling: Anyone with opinions and a following on Tech Twitter could start a fund.

Are solo GPs screwed? by Natasha Mascarenhas originally published on TechCrunch

Murmur gets a loud ask: reinvent closed door decisions

The conversation in startup land has shifted from building in public to, hey, maybe let’s just figure things out internally before we scream to the masses.

At least that’s what I’m gleaning from the growth story of Murmur, a startup that wants to make decision-making easier for private companies. Built by entrepreneur Aaron Dignan, Murmur launched its closed beta in 2021 with a vision to create a public forum of private work agreements so companies could scale remote policies faster.

Now Dignan is back, nearly two years later, to say that early-stage founders on Murmur’s beta had a separate-yet-related product request that has now taken priority: they want a better way to make collaborative decisions, no meeting required.

Murmur is currently working on a collaborative platform that helps companies make decisions in an open and feedback-oriented way. Employees and executives can go in and propose a change, make a work agreement around it and then ask for approvals with a deadline ticking in the background.

Image Credits: Murmur

It’s a smarter Google doc, meant to be built with a decision-making framework in mind — whether that be figuring out a way to productize the back-and-forth of a compromise, or optimize for more eyes before an agreement is set in stone. Fundamentally, the product is a bet on the idea that companies want a smarter way to work in a remote-first environment, one that factors in time zones as more than an inconvenience.

“People do not like to read and they do not like to write — you have to think about that when you build a product and that means that people are looking for a way to make decisions with less work,” Dignan said. While Murmur is still focused on transparency and public agreements, it’s also working on an artificial intelligence writer that will allow employees to whip up a proposal for, say, a four-day work week within minutes. Dignan also hinted at a Slack tool that will listen to conversations and, if someone writes the word “should” or “what if” in a channel, pop up a bot in a private DM that’ll ask if they want to make a proposal around the idea. While that certainly raised some questions for me around privacy, Dignan stressed that users will be able to choose which channels the feature pops up on and train it to be more thoughtful over time. The Slack feature is not available for general users right now, to be clear — only alpha users.

Murmur’s goal, and biggest challenge, is figuring out the right entry point for its product. Should it sell to decentralized autonomous organizations? Universities? Big Tech? Early-stage startups? Each potential customer has an entirely different goal and incentive structure around decisions. At this point, out of the 100 most active accounts on Murmur, less than a quarter would be considered tech companies, according to Dignan. Top customers include Adidas, Bitly and Philippine Space Agency.

Dignan thinks interest in a tool like Murmur boils down to how serious a company is about building inclusion and transparency into their remote work policies.

“It’s a weird cross-section where some people in the startup game have this mindset, but a lot don’t,” he said. “In general when we have tech founders on Murmur, they’re a second-time founder because they’ve been to the puppet show, they’ve seen the strings, they see how things go wrong at scale and how when you blitzscale, it gets even worse.” Dignan added that, when he’s talking to some founders, his message is that “this is going to seem like a little bit of overkill to you, but I promise, it’s not.”

While waiting for tech to hit a point where the weight of remote work is too much, Dignan doesn’t seem to be sweating his industry’s complacency. And neither do his investors.

Murmur’s broader product vision has helped it close an $8 million round co-led by Asymmetric and Greenfield, with participation from all the investors in its prior round, including Lerer Hippeau, SemperVirens, Human Ventures and Vitalize. For just a murmur, that’s a pretty loud sign of validation.

Murmur gets a loud ask: reinvent closed door decisions by Natasha Mascarenhas originally published on TechCrunch

Product ops drives product culture

When leadership pays attention to product ops, it makes it easier for every team to function and pays dividends as a result. Below, I’ll dive into the connections between product ops and product culture, why product ops is an effective lever to pull to shift product culture, and how to begin shaping your own product culture through product operations. [...] Read more »

The post Product ops drives product culture appeared first on Mind the Product.

Why an Atlanta-based Black influencer collective swapped their collab house for a studio

From Los Angeles to Silicon Valley, a trend emerged among social media influencers and startup founders alike: move into a mansion with ten or so collaborators, work day and night together to build fame and wealth, and hope that your new roommates do their dishes. But across the country in Atlanta, a fast-growing tech hub, a cohort of Black creators reimagined that idea. What if an influencer collective could be truly collaborative, rather than fodder for a depressing Netflix reality show?

A well-known influencer collective, Collab Crew (formerly known as Collab Crib) has had a turbulent few months since TechCrunch met them at VidCon. Founder Keith Dorsey stepped down to focus on his mental health, appointing Robert Dean III (@robiiiworld) to take the lead. Why the name change? Unfortunately, they’re no longer a “crib” — their Atlanta area house was sold, so they couldn’t renew their lease.

Now, Collab Crew is trying to make the most of the situation. Instead of living together outside of Atlanta in Fayetteville, Khamyra Sykes (@queenkhamyra), Chad Epps (@chadio), Kaelyn Kastle (@kaelynkastle), Tracy Billingsley (@traybills) and other collaborators are launching Collab Studio ATL. A few minutes away from downtown Atlanta, Collab Studio ATL describes itself as “a tech-based one-stop shop for content creators, HBCU students and young entrepreneurs to achieve their business goals.”

At just sixteen years old, Sykes has already been honored on the Forbes 30 under 30 list alongside fellow Collab Crew members Theo Wisseh and Kastle. But since she’s so young, she didn’t live in the collective’s house. Now, she’s excited to work out of the studio, which is more specifically dedicated to business than a house that doubles as a living space.

“My company Putta Crown On It has the opportunity to have a place to do classes, promotional shoots and more,” Sykes told TechCrunch via email. “I feel like the studio has the potential to be a great place for creators like me to thrive. The productivity at the studio is much better than the house for business and content.”

By moving away from the “influencer house” model, Collab Crew can also expand to include more BIPOC creators and entrepreneurs in the Georgia capital.

Currently, the studio is funded in part by partnerships with Monster Energy and Snap’s 523 program, which supports small content companies and creators from underrepresented groups. There is an application process and fee for members to join Collab Studio ATL, but the group hopes these costs will be subsidized by partners in the future — they say that the application process is more about assessing the needs about an entrepreneur or creator and what services they require from the space. The price of membership varies depending on what resources an applicant is looking for, whether that’s marketing, help connecting with potential brand partners or use of studio space.

At launch, members estimate that one-day access to the workspace will cost $25, while the use of the studio will range between $150 and $250 an hour. Depending on how often a member wants to book the studio, monthly memberships will range from $85 to $250.

Collab Studio ATL says the goal with its application process isn’t to turn people away, but to make sure that new members fit well within the community. They also plan to build a professional music studio and sound stage. At launch, the core Collab Crew members have welcomed in partners like filmmaker Jiron Griffin, creative director Elijah Brown and publicist Brandy Merriweather.

The group says they took inspiration from similar community-oriented tech incubators in Atlanta like the Russel Innovation Center for Entrepreneurs, PROPEL Center and Gathering Spot, but Collab Studio will focus more specifically on the entertainment industry.

Image Credits: Robiiiworld (Brandy Merriweather via BStarPR)

The new studio could help energize a cohort of creators that has found success despite serious hurdles.

Black influencers and startup founders alike face systemic barriers to their growth. In the same way that Black founders are unfairly overlooked in venture capital, Black content creators have had their work stolen and earn fewer brand deals than white creators, studies have shown.

In a documentary about the Collab Crew, Kastle even said she had dyed half of her hair pink because she felt that the TikTok algorithm was more likely to surface her videos when it saw brighter colors. Since the TikTok algorithm is so obfuscated, it’s difficult to confirm this particular claim, but it makes sense why Kastle worries about how she may be unjustly suppressed on platforms — as it’s happened before.

For example, in the midst of racial justice protests in summer 2020, posts on TikTok with hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter and #GeorgeFloyd appeared to have 0 views. TikTok later apologized for what it called a “technical glitch,” but Black creators have continued to voice concerns that they’re being suppressed on the platform. A year later, Ziggi Tyler showed in a TikTok video how TikTok’s creator marketplace wouldn’t let him say “Black lives matter,” but it would let him say “supporting white supremacy.” Once again, TikTok apologized. (The platform alleged that an error occurred because Tyler’s post also included the word “audience,” which contained the letters “die” — in combination with the word “Black,” this triggered TikTok’s automated content moderation).

We’ve got to work five times as hard just to get to the bare minimum on any platform,” said Dean, a 31-year-old filmmaker. He and his younger colleagues have all experienced the frustration of finding out that their white peers were earning more than them for the same work.

“I worked with one of my friends who just so happens to be white, and we were talking because we were both a part of the same campaign […] and they were clearly getting paid more than me,” said Epps, a 23-year-old with over 7 million TikTok followers. “It’s just very sad to me the fact that Black creators and the Black community are getting underrepresented and underpaid. But then again, it adds fuel to my fire to keep on pushing harder and harder.”

Image Credits: Queen Khamyra (Brandy Merriweather via BStarPR)

A recent report in The Washington Post supports claims that Black creators were underpaid. It found that Triller, a TikTok competitor, had specifically recruited Black creators as partners, yet failed to follow through on its commitments to pay them, the creators said. Because Triller withheld pay, some creators said they lost their homes and fell into debt — yet Triller still plans to go public via IPO in the fall, the report noted. As part of their deals, some creators — including members of Collab Crew — were supposed to get a financial stake in the company. But for now, it remains unclear whether that will come to fruition.

When asked about their reaction to the damning Triller investigation, Collab Crew emailed TechCrunch a statement, but declined to disclose if or how its members were impacted. Collab Crew did say they hope that creators who haven’t received the money they were promised can get paid.

“Executed collaboration, moral integrity, genuine ethical business practices and consistent investments into BIPOC creators and businesses could eventually level the divide,” their statement said.

The idea of “consistent investments” is key to the way that Collab Crew wants to run its studio, offering longterm support for its members to grow. Companies like TikTok, Meta, YouTube and Snapchat have launched programs that give funding and resources to select Black creators, and that fast capital is useful — but Dean thinks that inequality runs deeper on these platforms.

“Some of these programs are cool, but it’s like, what’s after that? Some of these white creators got set for just being right for the algorithm,” he told TechCrunch. “It’s hard for Black creators to even start YouTube, more than the average white creator.”

Whether living in the same house or working together in their new studio, Collab Crew has maintained the same strategy for getting Black creators the opportunities they deserve: collaboration and mutual support.

“We all teach each other […] We have strong platforms and we have weak platforms, but with all of us together, everybody will be great,” explained Sykes.

“Instead of like other groups, where it’s everybody for themselves, it’s really more like a team effort,” Dean said.

Pink Sauce went viral on TikTok. But then it exploded (literally).

Over the last month, a chef in Miami has been taking over TikTok with her signature product: pink sauce. Carly Pii, who uses the handle @chef.pii, posted a series of videos promoting her homemade condiment, drizzling egregious pools of deep magenta dressing atop gyros, fried chicken, french fries and tacos.

Notoriously close-lipped about what her sauce even tastes like, Pii spun the biggest internet mystery since cinnamon toast shrimp guy, earning herself internet fame (or infamy, depending on how you look at it).

Before pink sauce, Pii had fewer than 1,000 followers on TikTok, but now she’s racked up over 80,000 followers and 3 million likes. For anyone peddling a product on TikTok, going viral might seem like the dream — but for this TikToker, it’s become more of a nightmare.

“We didn’t get the opportunity like other small businesses to go through trial and error, to learn through our mistakes and recover from them,” Pii said in a live video last night, streaming on her TikTok and YouTube. “We didn’t have that opportunity because we blew up so fast. We went viral so fast.”

A recipe for disaster

“What would you do if y’all was in my shoes?” Pii said in her live video. “Would you just crawl in the corner and hide?”

A single mom with two children, Pii says she has been working as a private chef for four years. Before TikTok, she posted dozens of YouTube videos between 2018 and 2020, which ranged from mukbang videos to weight loss vlogs, in which she followed fad diets with dubious nutritional backing. The pink sauce debacle began about a month ago, when Pii shared her homemade, vibrant pink concoction on her small TikTok account. As the chef swiftly gained millions of views on the platform, far outpacing her years-old YouTube channel, she made the decision to bottle and sell pink sauce for $20 a bottle.

Pricing aside, her new followers noticed that some key details were missing: what does it taste like, what is it made out of, and why is it pink? She even touted its supposed health benefits without revealing the ingredients.

“Honestly, it has its own taste,” Pii said on TikTok. “If you want to taste it, buy it.”

The mystery has enraptured TikTokers, with the #pinksauce hashtag racking up over 80 million views. Many TikTokers wanted to root for Pii and watch a Black female creator succeed — but the roll-out of the sauce was so chaotic that it became hard for her fast-growing audience to give her the benefit of the doubt.

As she prepared to put pink sauce up for sale on her website, she still wouldn’t reveal the source of its colorful hue — and to make matters stranger, viewers noticed that in each video she posted, the shade and consistency of the sauce seemed to change.

viral tiktok pink sauce

Image Credits: @chef.pii on TikTok

“The color didn’t change, just the lighting,” she said in another TikTok. She later elaborated in her live video that the brighter pink sauce from her earlier videos was a prototype, not the product she was mailing out (make of that what you will).

When Pii finally revealed the ingredients of her pink sauce before putting it up for sale, we were left with even more questions than answers. According to a graphic on her website, the sauce got its pink coloring from dragonfruit, also known as pitaya, which grows naturally with a deep magenta pigment. Though the fruit has a mild taste, some testers described the sauce as a sweet ranch, which makes sense given the rest of the ingredients on her graphic: sunflower seed oil, honey, chili and garlic.

But then we get to the nutrition label. TikTokers pointed out that the nutrition facts simply don’t add up — if there were 444 one tablespoon servings in the bottle at 90 calories each, then there would be nearly 40,000 calories in the bottle, which doesn’t make mathematical sense.

“Our nutrition fact label had an error in it and now they’re trying to carry it along and say the nutrition is falsified because there’s a typo,” Pii told the Daily Dot. “No one will receive a bottle that has the messed up label. We had to redo everything pretty much. But business is business.”

But the serving size snafu wasn’t the only issue at play. Aside from the misspelling of “vinegar,” the nutrition label says that the product — which is sold unrefrigerated with no instructions on how to store it — contains milk. Once again, she didn’t clarify until making her live video that she is apparently using dried milk and pitaya, which are shelf-stable.

The most dramatic moment in the story of pink sauce came after the first shipments of pink sauce were delivered about two weeks ago in packaging that looks like a plastic bag. Sure enough, the pink sauce exploded in transit, creating a stinky mess.

Chef Pii acknowledged the damaged packages earlier this week and said that only 50 customers received the poorly packaged items. She said she is sending any affected customer who reaches out to her a new sauce, and now, shipments are being delivered in boxes (which, of course, are bright pink).

The tricky territory of creator food businesses

After exploding packages, faulty nutrition labels and general confusion about what people are even eating, Chef Pii is today’s “main character” of the internet, which is usually not a good thing.

“This is a small business that is just moving really, really fast,” Chef Pii said in an apology TikTok.

Going viral on TikTok is so normalized now that pink sauce’s temporary cultural ubiquity isn’t what makes it interesting. But this very public breakdown of a creator-run attempt at a food business reflects the larger struggles of both food startups and creator products alike.

At a certain point, the narrative of the pink sauce spun out beyond what Pii could control. A meme account with over 100,000 Twitter followers iterated on a meme of a picture of a hospital IV, adding the caption “DO NOT EAT THE PINK SAUCE FROM TIKTOK.” Posts like that inadvertently sparked rumors that people had gone to the hospital because of her sauce, but we haven’t seen any evidence to confirm that it’s true. One user posted a video on TikTok (their only upload) claiming to be at the hospital after eating the product, but TechCrunch hasn’t been able to verify these claims.

As questionable information spreads across TikTok like a game of telephone, it’s hard to distinguish fact from fiction — but it’s indisputably true that Pii made some mistakes. She owned up to printing incorrect nutrition labels and accidentally mailing out pink sauce in packaging that caused it to explode in transit. But is she an elaborate scammer, or is she a first-time entrepreneur making some big, public mistakes, then falling victim to the dark human desire to dunk on a common victim until they evaporate from the internet? Would the internet be so upset if a white man was the one behind the pink sauce? Who can say.

The pink sauce panic isn’t the first social media snafu of its kind. Earlier this year, a homemade $25 “sunflower soup” also went viral on TikTok to… pretty mixed reviews. Now, the sunflower soup creator’s TikTok account appears to have been deleted.

It makes sense that people are so hesitant about products like pink sauce when even startups backed by Bobby Flay and Gwyneth Paltrow have navigated the serious consequences that can arise when selling food.

Daily Harvest, a plant-based meal delivery service valued at over $1 billion, recently recalled its French Lentil and Leek Crumbles product after hundreds of customers reported severe sickness after eating it. Luke Pearson, an influencer who received a PR package from the company, had to have his gallbladder removed after suffering weeks of illness. Abigail Silverman, a digital creative director at Cosmopolitan who also received a PR package, posted a viral TikTok detailing her extensive medical issues and hospital visits since eating the lentils. Several customers on Reddit reported similar symptoms, sending them to the ER.

Really feels Theranos like. Where is their food made?? The farmers make the ingredients but who ACTUALLY MAKES AND PACKAGES THE FOOD??” one customer wrote on Reddit. This week, Daily Harvest announced that tara flour — which they say doesn’t appear in any of their other dishes — caused the problem.

Even if a startup isn’t sending people to the hospital, one false step might irreparably damage the company (and innocent consumers), making it even more difficult to operate companies around home-cooked food.

Last year, Andreessen Horowitz led the $20 million Series A round for Shef, a marketplace for home chefs. Shef is especially popular among customers from other countries who are eager to indulge in a taste of home from a chef who shares their heritage. Despite sending home cooks through a 150-step onboarding process, Shef must contend with the legal issues at play with their business. Each state has different cottage food laws, which regulate the sale of homemade foods. In states like California, the intricacies of the law can vary even down to the county. An e-commerce platform for independent chefs, Castiron also raised venture funding last year. Castiron emerged as many states have made it easier in the pandemic era to legally run independent food businesses, but the platform still has to be careful to make sure that its partners are following their local laws.

Small food businesses are even more challenging to operate as an independent creator, since TikTokers generally don’t have the luxury of venture funding to help them wade through such tricky legal and ethical territory. Some major social stars like MrBeast, Emma Chamberlain and the Green Brothers have launched their own ghost kitchens and coffee businesses, but these creators are established enough to have the resources to launch such businesses properly. An unknown chef in Miami isn’t as trustworthy.

Even when you remove the element of selling a product that people are putting into their actual bodies, we’ve watched some pretty memorable influencer business blow-ups on social media. Remember Caroline Calloway’s mason jar crisis? Now, startups like Cobalt and Pietra profit by helping creators launch their own products, but unfortunately, Calloway’s public disputes require more than just a business partner to solve.

Despite the targeted online vitriol, Pii isn’t giving up. She said that the product is in lab testing, made in a facility and follows FDA standards. Once it passes, she wants to try to put the product in stores. She also stated on her account that just this week, she was sending out over a thousand orders.

So, what’s the moral of the story here? Maybe artificial food coloring isn’t so bad after all.

Binance taps TikTok’s mostly silent superstar Khaby Lame to explain how crypto works

Khaby Lame is quite literally on top of the world (if TikTok follower counts are the world). After attending his first VidCon and surpassing Charli D’Amelio as the most followed TikToker, the Italian-Senegalese comedian signed on as an ambassador for Binance, the world’s largest platform for buying and selling cryptocurrencies. Just last week, Binance snagged a partnership with soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo, who wants to “change the NFT game.”

These high-profile partnerships come at a troubling time for crypto. In May, the popular cryptocurrency TerraUSD collapsed, meaning that anyone who had invested in the coin lost all of the money they put in. Then, in the face of a macroeconomic downturn, crypto companies like Coinbase, Crypto.com, BlockFi and Gemini have conducted layoffs, and the prices of top cryptocurrencies have dropped as much as 35% week over week. Basically, anyone who has invested in cryptocurrency is feeling a bit nervous right now, unless they’re so bullish that they’re unfazed by Bitcoin reaching a price of over $60,000 in November, then dropping to around $20,000 today. So it could be a bad look for creators to turn around and encourage their followers to check out Binance.

@khaby.lame

Having trouble starting your Web3journey? I want to introduce you @Binance Superhero!Tag your friends who need#lbinanceMan too 🤲🏿#web3 #learnfromkhaby #keepitsimple #NFA #ad Not trading advice. See website for riskwarnings.

♬ suono originale – Khabane lame

That hasn’t stopped Khaby Lame, though. Today, he posted a video to his followers — 145 million on TikTok and 78 million on Instagram —  in which he appears as a Binance-branded superhero, saving the day as a friend types “WTF is web3???” on “Boogle.”

Lame rose to internet stardom for his videos where he spoofs over-complicated life hacks and makes them simple. Without speaking, he flips open his hands as if to say, “Look, I fixed it.” Binance said in a press release that Lame will apply this TikTok format to videos about web3, trying to simplify complex concepts for his followers. That may be hard for him to accomplish in his videos, though, since he rarely speaks.

In a statement, Lame said, “I consider my followers as my family, and I am always looking for new challenges and interesting content to share with them. I’ve been curious about web3 for some time, and jumped at the chance to partner with a leader like Binance because it aligns perfectly with what I usually do: make complex stuff easy and fun for everyone!”

Lame has also weighed in on emerging (and potentially fleeting) technology by partnering with Meta to advertise the metaverse — he appeared in a video on the tech giant’s corporate accounts alongside Mark Zuckerberg.

As brand ambassadors, both Khaby Lame and Cristiano Ronaldo will make NFTs, which their fans can buy and trade.

Some companies like Pearpop — backed by The Chainsmokers, Alexis Ohanian, Mark Cuban and Snoop Dogg — think that web3 can power the future of the creator economy. But some veterans of the industry think that the space is too volatile to trust right now.

“I am very bearish on NFTs personally,” longtime YouTuber Hank Green said on stage at VidCon last week — but he joked that he could be wrong, since he thought YouTube would never support HD video. He later added, “I don’t want to sell someone something that might not be valuable.”

Fans’ trust in a creator can change drastically depending on the reputation of the brands they promote, but brand deals are virtually unavoidable for a creator looking to make reliable income. Especially on TikTok, where creator fund payouts are shrinking, creators aren’t being paid enough from the platform alone. With ambassadors like Lame and Ronaldo, Binance must be shelling out some serious cash, but for these stars, that payment comes at the cost of potential pushback and outrage down the road.

Snap will pay 25 Black creators $120k in a new accelerator program

On stage at VidCon, Snap announced its first accelerator program for emerging Black creators. Over the course of a year, Snap will pay 25 selected applicants $10,000 a month ($120,000 total) to help launch their careers, marking a $3 million total investment.

This program is part of Snap’s 523 initiative, which aims to support underrepresented creators. Snap is also enlisting Google Pixel, UNCMMN and Westbrook Media as partners.

“Black creators face unique systemic barriers across the creator industry — from disparities in compensation and attribution, to toxic experiences and more,” the company wrote in a press release. “We believe one of the ways we can help remove some of those barriers is to provide mentorship and financial resources to emerging Black creators in the early stages of their professional career.”

Of course, this program is also beneficial for Snap itself — they’re essentially making sure that 25 emerging creators have the funding and support to make it big, but they’ll do so as a Snap-first creator, focusing their efforts there perhaps more directly than on TikTok, Instagram Reels or YouTube Shorts.

Patreon also recently launched Pull Up, an incubator for creators of color, noting that BIPOC creators are paid 29% less than their white peers. These programs mark an industry-wide response to inequity in the creator economy. Last year, Black dancers on TikTok went on strike after their viral dances were consistently copied without credit, and in 2020, a TikTok “glitch” made it so that videos tagged #BlackLivesMatter and #GeorgeFloyd looked like they had 0 views.

Snap’s news comes at a time when the tides may be slowly changing. As of yesterday, Charli D’Amelio’s multi-year reign as the most followed TikToker has ended, with Senegalese-born Khaby Lame taking the throne with 142.7 million followers, compared to D’Amelio’s 142.3 million. Still, OkayPlayer noted earlier this year that Black creators were noticeably missing from Forbes’ highest-paid influencer list — D’Amelio sits at #1 with $17.5 million in yearly earnings, while her sister Dixie is bringing in $10 million.

Even as Black creators gain recognition on these platforms, follower numbers don’t always directly translate to money. The D’Amelio’s fortune doesn’t come from just posting videos — they have a Hulu reality show, a clothing line with Hollister, numerous brand deals and a Snap original show of their own. The D’Amelio sisters and their parents have also become venture capitalists themselves, investing in FaceTune maker Lightricks.

Aside from its 523 accelerator ecosystem, Snap also runs Yellow, a tech incubator that invests $150,000 into creative startups. Snap says that 7 out of 9 companies funded in 2021 have at least one BIPOC or woman founder, which unfortunately remains a rarity in tech.

How the myth of the ‘girlboss’ harms emerging women in tech

On Lafayette Street in SoHo, young, fashionable women lined up around the block to enter a minimalist, millennial oasis, the most perfect Instagram feed brought to life. Staff members glided around the store in pastel pink suits, each embodying the kind of girl that Glossier made us all want to be: beautiful, yet effortless.

“We want to inspire, but we also want to be realistic and show beauty in real life,” Glossier founder and CEO Emily Weiss said in a 2017 interview with Inc, just as the brand had reached what Weiss herself described as “cult status.” Even Chrissy Teigen and Reese Witherspoon wore Glossier’s signature Cloud Paint blush to the Oscars

We understood the irony of the message as we sampled their sheer, almost-not-there lipgloss, then looked into a mirror decorated with white vinyl letters in the bustling pop-up shop: you look good, our reflection told us. Glossier affirmed our inherent beauty, then reminded us that we can be even more beautiful if we buy their “Boy Brow” pomade, which sold one tube every 32 seconds by 2018.

Glossier’s commoditized feminism aside, it’s no easy task to launch a $1.8 billion company in the brutally competitive beauty industry, especially one with such broad appeal. After all, Glossier’s founder and CEO Emily Weiss is very, very far from the first entrepreneur to profit off of our desire to look good. And who cares? That Cloud Paint is pretty magical, if we’re being honest. Like with many consumer brands geared toward women, we buy in not just because of the marketing, but because of the product itself.

Glossier founder Emily Weiss speaks at TechCrunch Disrupt in 2018

Glossier founder Emily Weiss speaks at TechCrunch Disrupt in 2018 Image Credits: TechCrunch

But as Weiss steps down from her current role and prepares for maternity leave, her success and subsequently typical choice to become her company’s board chairperson has been co-opted as the end of the “girlboss” era.

What even is a ”girlboss” anymore? Once a vaguely aspirational term of praise reserved only for affluent white women, the moniker now reflects the maddening contradiction of workplace feminism: we know that it’s not enough to just be a woman in power, and that what we do with that power matters far more than simply wielding it. Yet women founders and CEOs remain frustratingly rare as Silicon Valley’s glass ceiling persists, almost impenetrable – venture capitalists (only 13% of whom are women in the U.S.) allocate 98% of their funding to startups helmed by men. It’s no wonder, then, how we’ve ended up with the paradox of the “girlboss.” 

The making (and unraveling) of the ‘girlboss’ myth

Nasty Gal CEO Sophia Amoruso is credited with coining the term in the title of her 2014 memoir, “#Girlboss,” which chronicled her rags-to-riches success and was adapted into a Netflix show. The following year, she stepped down as CEO, and by 2016, her company filed for bankruptcy and was purchased by Boohoo. Then, Amoruso started a company called Girlboss that was likened to “Linkedin for Women.” She stepped down from that company in 2020.

“Girlboss” originally gained popularity beyond Amoruso’s book as a form of praise, according to Kirsten Green, co-founder and investor at Forerunner Ventures. Green has spent her career bankrolling the companies that define what’s cool, including Glossier, Outdoor Voices and Away, whose founders are often cited as the archetypal examples of “girlbosses.”

“I truly believe the ‘girlboss’ term was created to celebrate an emerging wave of female leaders – which is still rare in business, and was even rarer around 10 years ago when the phrase was popularized,” Green told TechCrunch in an email. 

The term itself, though, hasn’t aged nearly as well as Green’s portfolio. Years later, even Amoruso herself has expressed discomfort with the phrase.

“It’s not a compliment. It’s more of a mockery,” said Isa Watson, founder and CEO of social media app Squad. Watson, who holds an MBA from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has raised $4.5 million for her app, placing Squad in the mere 0.34% of companies funded last year with a Black woman founder.

The idea of the “girlboss” today is shrouded in privilege. Since its debut, the term has come to represent a small cohort of white, affluent millennial women who rise up into positions of power, preach the gospel of feminism, then ultimately fumble the millenial pink ball and fall from grace when it turns out that their politics just aren’t that transformative.

“[The term “girlboss”] feels disconnected from reality, which is that there are very few women that have had this label applied to them,” said Sruti Bharat, who most recently worked as interim CEO at All Raise, a venture fund supporting women and non-binary founders. “They all seem to have slightly similar journeys, like they run consumer brands, maybe [have] slightly problematic racial politics, and some kind of takedown piece [is written about them]. That’s like the PR trope.”

Unlike the glowy skin depicted on Glossier’s Instagram, the reputation of its founder and CEO Emily Weiss is not without blemishes. Glossier’s management has faced well-deserved scrutiny for failing to support members of its retail staff, leaving them to endure racist treatment from customers. (Following the complaints, Weiss issued a public apology, and Glossier donated $1 million – half to organizations fighting racial injustice, and half to Black-owned beauty businesses). 

Then, when the pandemic hit, Glossier laid off all of its retail employees and shut down its physical stores. But just a year later, the beauty brand raised an $80 million Series E round at a $1.8 billion valuation to open up permanent retail stores in Seattle, Los Angeles and London, capitalizing on the dewy fairytale of its Manhattan flagship store.

Mandela SH Dixon, All Raise's recently appointed CEO

Mandela SH Dixon, All Raise’s current CEO Image Credits: All Raise

Early this year, the company slashed staff yet again. Glossier laid off one-third of its corporate employees, mostly on its tech team, as Weiss admitted to staff that the company got “distracted” from its core beauty business and got ahead of itself with hiring. Weiss’ recent departure from the CEO role, along with that of her CMO from the company altogether, only amplified the scrutiny – fairly or not.

Although a select few white women have been able to rise through the ranks of startup success, tech leadership is far from reflecting the populations its products serve. Even All Raise, which was founded with the explicit mission of supporting diverse founders, just recently appointed a Black woman, Mandela Schumacher-Hodge Dixon, as its long-term CEO. Dixon is setting out to broaden the nonprofit’s definition of inclusion after it was helmed by its white, female founder Pam Kostka for three years.  

‘They’re not collecting stats on that’

“The end of the girlboss era? What does that even mean?” asked Rosie Nguyen in a conversation with TechCrunch. Nguyen is founder and CMO of Fanhouse, a creator platform that just raised $25 million from Andreessen Horowitz. 

Despite the prevalence of the “girlboss” in pop culture, the reality on the ground for women entrepreneurs has played out much differently. Less than 2% of venture capital funding went to all-female founding teams in 2021, marking a five-year low. 

There’s a disconnect between the evolution of feminism in the outside world, juxtaposed with the frustratingly slow rate at which Silicon Valley realizes that a woman CEO shouldn’t be a novelty. Outside of work, women fight for an intersectional feminism that’s trans-inclusive, uplifts people of color and advocates for disability rights. But in startup culture, just being a woman in and of itself is seen as subversive.

“As a female founder, it kind of stops there, because that’s impressive enough to people, but I’m like, well actually, I’m also a Vietnamese immigrant,” said Nguyen. “I was born in Vietnam. I’m Southeast Asian. Like, do you know any Vietnamese immigrant female founders in a Series A startup? I don’t know, maybe I’m the only one, but they’re not collecting stats on that… Or, alright, I’m queer, I’m bisexual, but right now, everything is so white and male that anything else is already impressive to people.”  

The confusion around what “girlboss” actually means stems from its application to a broad range of poor management decisions, from the ignorance Weiss displayed about racism in Glossier stores (unfortunately, this is rather common amongst white CEOs) to the dangerous, life-threatening fraud perpetrated by Theranos’ Elizabeth Holmes. 

The “girlboss” stereotype poisons the image of the woman CEO as more and more companies run by white men earn the overwhelming majority venture funding. And of course, those startups are by no means innocent when it comes to bad management.

“If you look at someone like Adam Neumann and WeWork for example, he was covered [in the media] in a very flattering light until the very moment when it all came tumbling down,” said Watson. “I mean, there’s a number of things that went wrong throughout the course of his tenure that were never brought up. And so when you have female founders that have simple management missteps, I just feel like they’re brutalized by the media, and the culture is anxiety-inducing.”

As it is, very few women founders even have the chance to ascend to the top of their field, and those who do are largely white women who come from privileged backgrounds. The female entrepreneurs who succeed by traditional measures are vilified as “girlbosses,” while women of color seem to be left out of the discourse entirely. That’s part of why Bharat, a woman of color with South Asian heritage, says she has never identified with the term.

If Weiss, the founder who built a makeup brand that’s been hailed as the next generation’s Estee Lauder, who pioneered the blueprint for several DTC brands that came after hers, is portrayed as a failure for taking maternity leave and switching executive roles at the company she created simply because she’s a woman, that doesn’t bode well for underrepresented founders without Weiss’s advantages. 

“I think it’s like second- or third-wave feminism, like ‘lean in,” Nguyen said, referencing the catch phrase of controversial, longtime Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg, who just stepped down. “It’s the whole concept of feminism as like, why aren’t more billionaires women? It became laughable to people because the point is not having more female billionaires, the point is having less income inequality.”

The pitfalls of corporatized feminism

While the women who have been branded as archetypal “girlbosses” have largely failed to deliver on the promise of empowering women through selling makeup (or suitcases, or athletic gear), it’s worth examining why they’re even expected to do so in the first place.

“Just because a woman has been oppressed, or has been marginalized, or treated differently, doesn’t mean that she is also aware of how to fix it, or how to speak about it or is not perpetuating it herself. We’re always advocating for women to be icons … but the reality of that is it takes actual advocacy work and movement building and policy,” Bharat said.

The bar is higher for women entrepreneurs not only in terms of financial results they’re expected to deliver (cough cough, Elon Musk), or the thin margin of error they’re afforded, but also in terms of what their job description implicitly includes. The industry doesn’t look to white male founders to serve as perfect advocates for social justice issues. Indeed, the reality of our economic system is that it’s not their job, and whether we like it or not, corporate feminism isn’t going to save us from difficult ethical dilemmas either.

“I really feel for some of these leaders who are trying to learn as they are very much in the public eye,” Bharat said. “There’s very little room for error for women, and I’m not saying there weren’t mistakes. There definitely have been, but the room to recover is completely limited.”

The “Girlboss” label harms all women because it’s a reductive stereotype that detracts from the conversation around real issues in corporate culture and society. It’s a distraction that uses emerging women founders as a scapegoat for systemic issues instead of opening up a productive discussion on how we can reform workplaces to function better for all people, particularly members of marginalized communities.

By conflating all management mistakes as equal, we lose sight of each individual issue we’re trying to remedy – and by calling Weiss a “girlboss,” we risk discouraging women in leadership roles from taking risks, learning and growing. We also perpetuate the erasure of women of color in tech.

This isn’t the end of the woman founder and CEO. Instead, let’s make it the end of unrealistic expectations for women who run companies, and the hollow, corporatized feminism that comes as a result.