Yesterday Amy Schrier, founder and CEO of MISSION.tv, published an article on The Huffington Post entitled "Has a Woman Ever Created a Billion-Dollar Company?" Rather than posting a reply, I've written an open letter to her here.
Dear Amy,
I debated whether or not to respond to your article. And, I confess, as I was debating I considered posting a simple reply under a pseudonym. But since we know each other -- and since I never get away with duplicity -- I thought better of it, imagining some terrible future moment when you found out that the reply was mine and confronted me about my backhanded ways.
So, when I decided to respond, I decided to respond openly -- not easy, but hopefully better. The reason not easy: your article infuriated me -- a non-Buddhist response on my part, for sure. The reason hopefully better: perhaps it will spark constructive conversation on an important topic -- between us and others.
First -- you are mostly right -- there aren't many billion-dollar companies created by women, although there are a few -- and there are a number well on their way. Look outside of the tech world to fashion and beauty for two of note: Estée Lauder and Prada. And look to China and there are several. SOHO China, founded by Zhang Xin and Nine Dragons Paper, founded by Cheung Yan, are two of which I'm aware -- I know there are others.
As for up-and-comers -- one that comes to mind immediately: Spanx, founded by Sara Blakely -- her company is private, so it's hard to say exactly how large it is at this point, but it's safe to guess that Sara's grown it to at least $300 million since founding it in 2000. She started it with $5,000 and owns 100 percent -- no outside funding for her. Another: Net-a-Porter, founded by Natalie Massenet -- she is still at the helm after selling the company to Richemont last year for $530 million, pocketing $75 million in the process. And while it's also private, battery-maker Boston Power, founded by Christina Lampe-Onnerud, has raised over $350 million in VC funding since she started the company in 2005. So it too must be on the path to $1 billion.
Several of the women founder/CEO's I've named started their companies with their husbands. The press might have us believe that this diminishes the value of their accomplishments. Yet, as you noted, Google was founded by a team of two -- and, in fact, Apple and Microsoft had two founders as well. While those teams weren't spouses, it just happens that in these instances, they were. Who cares? One look at Miuccia's designs and Prada's balance sheet is all you need to know that the fact that Miuccia and Patrizio are married is an incidental side note to their success. Or, perhaps, it's integral to it.
Leaving all of that aside, ultimately the heart of what frustrates me about your article -- and the far too many articles like it -- is that it keeps the conversation about women's role in the world stuck in first gear. While two powerful women ably steer the course for Europe -- and the world -- through a perilous financial crisis (Thank you, Angela and Christine), run multiple countries in South America (See Brazil, Argentina, Costa Rica, and, until 2010, Chile), lead the New York Times (Welcome, Jill Abramson), win Nobel Peace Prizes (Respect, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Lymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman), become IPO billionaires (Hello, Sheryl Sandberg), pull down pay packages well in excess of their male peers (Check, Oracle's Safra Catz), again our attention is drawn -- erroneously, as it turns out -- to what hasn't yet happened in one segment of the universe, very, very narrowly defined. And to call, as a result, for affirmative action for women -- in 2012? It pains me -- so deeply.
It is challenging, to be sure, to look around and see few obvious role models. But exactly therein lies the opportunity. So, ultimately, my question is, again: Who cares? Does it matter whether or not someone has done it yet or not? The fact that someone hasn't done it exactly as you want it to be done -- and the fact that you think it can and should be done that way -- can fuel your own success.
Be the change you want to see in the world -- the woman who has the courage to defy the odds, exactly as the men you admire did. Knowing you -- you can. With your blinders on and your enthusiasm in gear, you can be the one inspiring others -- instead of focusing on discouraging glass half-empty scenarios and calling for preferential treatment, treatment that will without question give detractors powerful ammo to discredit the very hard work of those women around the world who are today successfully building and running the billion-dollar companies you want to see -- without any preferential treatment at all.
With love and hope,
Marian
Follow Marian Gibbon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MarianGibbon
I knew of Kay because of her role at Liz Claiborne--and had no idea about her earlier career--so inspiring. After stepping down from USA Network, she helped found Springboard Enterprises (http://www.springboardenterprises.org/), a great women's accelerator. In December she spoke at TEDxBayArea. Her talk was entitled Now, Women Have the Power to Change the Economy. Worth a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im2Oaxo3gkM.
Amy's post was also re-published by Women 2.0--another great resource for female entrepreneurs.
http://www.women2.org/has-a-woman-ever-created-a-billion-dollar-company/
We agree that it will be wonderful when more women are founding and leading more large, multi-billion dollar global enterprises.
And, while I don't think affirmative action is the way to get there (not so meritocratic!), I definitely think there is room for programs that help women acquire the skills and networks to successfully get the meeting and close the deal with angel investors and VC's.
I also think the media does all of us--women and men--such a disservice by telling the "There Aren't Enough Women" story over and over (and over!), rather than focusing on women like those I've mentioned who are at the $200 million to $1 billion stage--and growing.
I am rooting for you--your vision for MISSION.tv and the world it represents--is great.
Thank you for your gracious reply,
Marian