Craigslist vs eBay: It's war
- 14 May 08, 08:54 GMT
When Jim Buckmaster, Craigslist's incredibly laid-back CEO, dropped into the 91热爆 earlier this year, we briefly discussed the stake held in the classified listings site by eBay.
Not a problem, was Jim's line, they don't try to influence the way we do business. Which seemed pretty relaxed of eBay, since shows no sign of wanting to maximise profits or indeed of worrying at all about shareholder value.
Wow, how things have changed. First eBay slapped a lawsuit on Craigslist, accusing its executives of actions that "unfairly diluted eBay's economic interest by more than 10%", and excluding eBay representatives from company meetings. Now with its own lawsuit, charging eBay with this extraordinary :
"Unlawful and unfair competition, misappropriation of proprietary information, deceptive passing-off, business interference, false advertising, phishing attacks, free-riding, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and breaches of fiduciary duty."
Phew - at least they left out grand theft auto and jaywalking.
The real cause of the conflict is eBay's decision to start the vigorous promotion of something called . It's a classified ads site now operating in many countries, including the US. So eBay has parked its tanks on the lawn of a company in which it has a major shareholding.
What's more, the lawsuit alleges that eBay chose as the director to sit on Craigslist's board an executive who was involved in Kijiji, and tried to exploit its access to confidential information about the company in its promotion of Kijiji.
Whatever the truth behind this unsavoury corporate battle - and you can be sure eBay will have a very different version of events - one thing is clear. There are two contrasting cultures in Silicon Valley - the laid-back, "let's try this and see if it works, but hey, dude, we're having fun" spirit of Craigslist, and the serious, shareholder-value driven ethos of the likes of eBay and just about everyone else.
Putting the two together was always bound to lead to an explosion at some stage.
The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Comment number 1.
At 14th May 2008, JimConnolly wrote:Hello Rory,
This always seemed like an unusual 'marriage.' To be honest, when I first heard about it I thought it was a joke.
It wasn't!
What you have here are two very different (but very successful) companies; each with their own corporate agenda.
In my experience, this always causes conflict; as the differing 'corporate cultures' and egos pull in different directions.
Great news for the Lawyers and us bloggers of course!
Jim Connolly
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 14th May 2008, kop_some_moo wrote:Come on Rory. Lets get real here. Craigslist isnt some kind of laid back, we dont care if we make money, we dont care how much we are worth, kind of business. Its a business with lawyers and accountants.
The PR people like to float that hippy image of Craigslist, but the company is worth over a billion dollars for heavens sake! No company in SV or anywhere else for that matter is 'laid back' when they have such a valuation.
These guys want Ebay out because they now have some remorse over the deal. Why did they let them in in the first place? Because they thought it would make them more money.
Ebay is suffering generally and Craigslist is sticking it to them. Craigslist isnt some reluctant chiiled out hero in the current dotcom space.
They are an aggressive, passionate web property that makes a profit.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 14th May 2008, major_grooves wrote:Quote: "These guys want Ebay out because they now have some remorse over the deal. Why did they let them in in the first place? Because they thought it would make them more money."
I thought it was because a former Craigslist director sold his stake to Ebay, rather than Craigslist deciding Ebay might be a nice investor.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 28th May 2008, jaywalia wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 28th May 2008, jaywalia wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 14th Oct 2008, nikhil710 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 14th Apr 2009, hindlist wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)