Entrepreneur Media executive resigns
March 7th, 2008, 5:00 am · 26 Comments · posted by Jan Norman
Rieva Lesonsky, a long-time national voice for small business, has resigned as senior vice president and editorial director at Entrepreneur Media in Irvine.
The parting is friendly, both sides say, and Lesonsky has agreed to stay at the publisher of Entrepreneur magazine and Entrepreneur.com until April 15.
Then she and former Entrepreneur colleague Marie Anton will start SMB Connects in Orange County. The new venture will promote small and mid-sized businesses to major corporations such as Dell, American Express and Bank of America that want to sell goods and services to smaller companies.
“After all these years, I’m going to walk the talk,” Lesonsky said. “I want to broaden out. Small and mid-sized business owners are not well represented. There are not a lot of advocates.”
Lesonsky was first hired at Entrepreneur in 1978 when the magazine was located in Los Angeles. She was laid off in 1980 and returned in 1983, rising to one of the top positions.
“”My dad was a business owner but I didn’t know anything about business; I was a journalism major,” she said. “I started there when no one knew what an entrepreneur was.”
During her tenure, she saw the rise of women business ownership and the birth of entrepreneurship academic programs on hundreds of college campuses.
“I have been a witness to that growth, and I hope I have played a small part in it,” she said.
“She has been with me since I bought the company in 1986,” said Entrepreneur Chairman Peter Shea. “We’ve made a lot of changes here as the magazine has grown up and the Web site has grown to one of the largest for entrepreneurs in the world with 4 million unique visitors a month. I’ve never been upset with any one who goes out and starts a business.”
The company has hired a New York search firm to find Lesonsky’s replacement. Shea said he doesn’t anticipate any immediate changes in the magazine or Web site “to alienate anyone.”
Lesonsky said she will continue to live in Irvine and her new venture will be located in the Irvine-Tustin area. It will have a proprietary database of the fastest growing U.S. businesses and will develop custom publishing products to enable major companies to reach carefully targeted groups of businesses.
Lesonsky has been honored by the U.S. Small Business Administration as small business media advocate and women in business advocate. She is on the list of 100 most influential journalists by Business News Reporter. She has been a spokesman for entrepreneurship on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” and other TV programs.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Hum, so now six people have left that company in the last two months including the Editor in Chief, the senior vice president, a managing editor and an executive editor (the architect of their most profitable issue). Not only that but the entire online staff has turnerd over in the last year? Sounds like people can’t get out of there fast enough.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Nepotism at its finest from the looks of it. There has to be a major problem if so many have left in such a short time.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I’m so excited to see Rieva making this change. She was Entrepreneu Magazne. Now, I just know whatever she does she will be wildly successful.
I didn’t know that Entrepreneur was having such turnover problems. What does the nepotism line mean? What’s going on over there?
Curious minds want to know.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Entrepreneur is definitely going downhill fast. With six employees leaving in the last two months that says something for the company, I am sure there will be more leaving soon. Upper management of Entrepreneur needs to look themselves in the mirror and figure out what is going on because obviously they are not treating their employees well. Major problem is exactly what is happening.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
The owner’s son took over and since then people who have been there for years are leaving. He’s driving out all of the people who made the company what it is… well, was.
March 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Peter Shea son is the type of guy who was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. He’s a hot shot that hasn’t a clue about the school of hard knocks, which is essential for any entrepreneur. Reiva is smart to leave while the magazine she helped to build is still at the top. It’s all down hill from here I’m afraid. Good Luck Reiva!
March 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Why the sudden exodus from Entrepreneur magazine? Perhaps it’s because of the federal trademark fraud cases that have been filed against them and their ridiculous efforts to own the word “entrepreneur.” Or perhaps Rieva left because her Hustler background was recently discovered and exposed. Entrepreneur mag’s problems aren’t at all surprising if you know their background…they were founded by Chase Revel, a serial con man and a convicted bank robber. Curious? Just Google Entrepreneur magazine trademark or Chase Revel.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Rieva’s history at Hustler has never been a secret. That’s a moronic comment.
The reason there’s a mass exodus from Entrepreneur is bad management and a horrible lack of respect for employees. Until the management realizes that its employees are the reason the company is as strong as it is–and start treating them with respect, offering decent benefits, and paying standard industry salaries–this will continue.
March 12th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
They are all leaving becuase the company is due to be sold.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Rieva’s Hustler background is definitely a secret to most ppl outside of Emag. This is by design. How would ppl outside of Emag know? Rieva’s bio even covers up her Hustler background. She deceptively refers to Hustler as “a major Los Angeles publishing corporation” instead of saying its actual name as she does the other co’s mentioned in her bio. And hasn’t Emag always been far more about the owners than its staff? That’s old news. Didn’t the current owner even have Emag pay for his car racing hobby for several years? (who knows what the IRS thinks of this use of co. funds) I’m sure he didn’t “sponsor” any expensive hobbies of Emag’s employees. Hasn’t Emag also wasted millions of dollars trying to prevent others from using the word entrepreneur, a generic word Emag didn’t even invent? Talk about a legally and morally flawed business strategy. Emag’s problems and arrogant business practices aren’t new, but they’ve apparently reached a boiling point so it’s becoming intolerable for ppl to put up with it anymore (at least those with other options). And many more probably would have jumped ship long ago if there were more magazines to work at in Southern California. If the conditions are so horrible, why else would ppl stay? Maybe it’s because no one likes change except a baby with a wet diaper. It seems like Emag’s search for a new editor might be comparable to the Oakland Raiders looking for a new head coach. It may look like a nice gig on paper but the highest quality candidates won’t be interested because they value their professional reputations far too much. And just like the Raiders, Emag’s problems will continue and new editors will come and go, until more forward-thinking ownership takes over.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
sheesh.
You guys sure do love to gossip.
It must be tiresome to know everything.
You should put all of that head knowledge to good use and write something positive that helps people instead of making know-it-all claims against companies and people you probably don’t even know.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Maybe you should get over your naivete and realize that the people writing these comments ARE the people working for the company. Sheesh.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
“Maybe it’s because no one likes change except a baby with a wet diaper.”
Then maybe it’s time to get your diaper changed, Scott.
Wahhhh, I can’t use the word Entrepreneur legally. WAhhhhhhhh!!!
March 12th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Everyone’s obviously entitled to their opinions, especially on a blog discussion based on why so many people are suddenly bailing a company. Also, despite your plea for positive writings about Emag, you noticeably weren’t able to offer any yourself. And it seems like the comments are coming from people who do know quite a bit about the people and company they’re talking about. Why else would they care or bother to make their comments?
March 13th, 2008 at 11:46 am
You’re right, I suppose I’m just an idealist who wishes that if these comments ARE coming from people within the company who are this unhappy, that they’d have the courage to deal with those things internally and voice their concerns to their management who actually has the power to change things, as opposed to leaving anonymous rants under fake names.
It seems to me that slandering an entire company and waging personal attacks on it’s employees does no good for anybody. If I was an employee there and hoped to work other places, I would want to be able to walk into other business proud to have Entrepreneur on my resume rather than ashamed to have been associated with a company after their name has been dragged through the mud. Why would current employees want to tarnish the reputation of a business that they are tied to?
March 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Barbara, idealist or not, you’re totally missing the point. People are venting anonymously because Emag’s mgmt has refused to listen to their concerns. And it doesn’t seem like people are taking cheap shots or making frivolous comments. They seem to be genuinely hoping that publicly voicing their criticisms will bring about changes internally-based attempts have been unsuccessful at doing. Why are you so supportive of the status quo and opposed to changes for the better at Emag? Would you rather have even more ppl quit out of frustration and see Emag go under? It seems you have a vested interest that’s seriously clouding your views. The future of well-run magazines are being seriously threatened by changes in the marketplace, and poorly-run mags are destined to be footnotes.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
These comments could be the basis for a reality tv show! It sounds like the people making the comments either work at entrepreneur (Emag?) or they used to work there. Did Scott work there? He sure seems pissed off about something. Did the owner not let him race his car or something? I have to read the comments a couple of times to figure things out. If the magazine is being sold, then one of the worst things the company can do is let their stars walk out the door. Normally companies pay people retention bonuses to hold onto them while selling it. A company is only as good as the people who work there every day. Sounds like the owner and his son forgot that principle. Good luck to everyone coming and going.
Is there anyone left to write the magazine? What happens to my subscription if there is no one there to even turn the lights out?
March 14th, 2008 at 11:34 am
DOE said: “The reason there’s a mass exodus from Entrepreneur is bad management and a horrible lack of respect for employees…
I hate to point out the obvious but six people leaving is not a mass exodus. The online department is like any other web business — high turnover is fairly industry standard stuff. Apparently Entrepreneur is not immune from the whole supply/demand thing…Also, it shouldn’t have to be pointed out that the “Editor in Chief, the senior vice president, a managing editor and an executive editor” ARE management. In being so, they are very much a part of the problem as much as the solution.
So can we get real for a second? If you’re a GOOD manager (or even a bright individual) then you know that there are two sides to every story. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately some people get emotionally attached to their jobs – it becomes who they are. And that’s when things get messy…especially if the employee has been at the company for a very long time.
Somehow a mutually beneficial relationship turns into the crack-pot notion that the company owes the employee something. If the company shows a horrible lack of respect for employees then it’s the employee’s prerogative to leave and find greener pastures. Who stays at a company for 20 years in this day and age? The people who have hung on are very foolish not to have recognized and ACCEPTED that the employee/employer relationship changed about 15 years ago when the Internet revolutionized how the world does business.
The bottom line is that companies must change in order to adapt and grow. Ask Rieva, she’ll even tell you that! She practically says it in her column every month. With radical changes comes attrition – that’s a fact – no matter what company it is. Good, bad or indifferent, those people who have been with company for years will soon learn that WHEREVER they ultimately land they will learn two major lessons: it’s a big bad world out there and Entrepreneur is no different than any other company and secondly, everybody is replaceable.
Good for Rieva that she’s moving on. It’s never too late. Never!
March 14th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
LINDA said: “The owner’s son took over and since then people who have been there for years are leaving. He’s driving out all of the people who made the company what it is… well, was.”
The owner’s son (shall we call him by his name? Ryan) has risen up through the company. That’s a fact. But even “Linda” and her buddies would agree that he didn’t exactly waltz in and take the corner office. He’s being groomed to take over the company not much unlike how it happens in other family businesses. Anybody who has worked for a family-owned business knows first-hand they are the anomaly on the scale of business types to work for. It’s a given that there will be dysfunction. It’s a family – is there any other explanation required!? When you work for a family-owned business, dealing with the family isn’t part of the landscape – it’s the entire landscape. Until it changes.
This “situation” at Entrepreneur is pretty basic. Ryan is the change agent in the company. Somebody has to do it if the company wants to survive this sea change in the magazine publishing/media industry. In being the owner’s son, Ryan is really the only one who CAN affect change – especially when it comes to the almost insurmountable task of bringing along a lot of employees who have been there for so long and feel they are a part of the Shea family. Problem is they’re not. Because the funny thing is, somewhere along the line in the past 5-7 years, the company actually turned into a powerhouse business that happens to be run by a family. It’s no longer just a family in business.
Apparently some of the employees believe that its success was built on their backs. Maybe so…there absolutely is something to be said for having loyal employees who help build a company. But I’m pretty sure they were getting paid the whole time, enjoyed the benefits and had the opportunity to leave at any time they felt it was no longer a good place to work. It was their choice to stay under the circumstances.
Is Ryan’s “rise to power” fair? No. But life isn’t fair. However there is such a thing as Karma… and Ryan will get wise. For his sake, hopefully sooner, rather than later. Pete knows something about Karma and hopefully he’ll pass some tidbits down to his son before it’s not too late.
Ryan’s young, that’s also a fact. He’s arrogant. That too is a fact. He epitomizes everything good and bad that comes with the Gen Y mentality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_…). They have ADD, think they know everything, don’t listen and are patronizing, which all-in-all makes them very poor leaders. But they have killer ideas, a lot of enthusiasm, know what they want and are tenacious enough to get it. Ryan is what every 40+ professional will have to deal with at some point in his/her career. He’s the new guard. So get used to it.
There is no doubt that he’s definitely left some dead bodies on the side of the road while implementing the changes. It’s been very, very unfortunate and difficult to watch really good people get caught in his crosshairs. And the way things are going, there will probably be more as the company metamorphoses. He’ll have to live with that. He won’t be able to hide behind his inexperience and youth for much longer and either people will follow him or not. At some point he will learn the hard way that for most people it’s not so much the message of change that’s rejected, as much as it’s the way in which the message is delivered.
But let’s not forget that change agents are always demonized by those who don’t agree with the changes being implemented. And those people will go someplace else, be dissatisfied, and blame everybody else because they can’t adapt. And they will have to live with that and stand in the unemployment line with all the others who don’t get it either.
So the moral to the story of this made for TV drama? Peter Shea still owns the company, and until Ryan has CEO behind his name, Pete is calling the shots and apparently approves of the changes. Mr. Scott Smith can attest to Pete’s shrewdness and anybody will tell you that Mr. Shea protects his interests – whether his son is involved or not. I’d say that’s the sign of a true entrepreneur.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
While many have made somewhat entertaining comments about Emag, most haven’t been very enlightening or original. Although the critical comments have had more specificity and more credibility than those trying to shower praise. And family-owned or not, bad mgmt is bad mgmt. History is replete with once strong co’s gone under due to succession failures. It’s one of the most written about aspects of business. So there’s no excuse for modern family-owned businesses to so fumble such a make it or break it hand-off (especially a company based on telling others how to better run their businesses!). Unfortunately, many ego-driven CEOs think they can mold their less than qualilfied offsprings into great leaders. If Peter was really that smart or cared about the future of Emag and its employees (or Ryan), he would make sure only the best qualified people took over Emag. He would not pick a successor according to their DNA. If Ryan wanted and was talented enough to run a magazine business, he has always had ample opportunity to do so. This is America, a country built on entrepreneurship. And someone in Ryan’s shoes has astronomically more resources and opportunities to make it on his own than the average joe. If he’s so qualified to run a magazine, why doesn’t he go start his own instead of trying to takeover daddy’s? Could you imagine how much worse our economy would be if our political and govt leaders were allowed to hand-off their jobs to their kids? As is painfully evident at Emag, trying to groom an unquallified kid to take over a business is a misguided effort that will tear apart a company from the inside out. What’s really funny are those who try to defend all that is Emag. They actually expect others to buy into their emotion-based sales pitches that the people who’ve recently left weren’t bad, but the new guard will make Emag a better company, even though its behaving like a blueblooded punk who got the job because of nepatism instead of his qualifications (do you really think whoever buys Emag will want Ryan in charge?). In other words, those who have been critical seem to specifically focus their comments, whereas those trying to stem the tide of criticism try to throw a nice warm blanket over everything, as if all is rosey at Emag. If anyone should be forced out of Emag, it’s the people who are trying to deceive others by preaching all’s great at Emag when that’s obviously not the case. While many good and innocent people may have worked at Emag, anyone who has actually researched Emag knows it’s a company founded and built on lies. I will surely get attacked for pointing that out, but as Upton Sinclair is quoted as saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” I support Emag for what it could and should be - a co. that truly cares about and supports small entrepreneurs - but criticize it for what it actually is - a company that behaves like an outdated 50s era company headed by an ego-maniac family. Unfortunately, unless Emag makes some drastic changes, it’s headed for an Enron-like scandal and meltdown, and many normally smart people will look back and say, “how come we didn’t see that coming?!” Genuinely interested in finding out the truth? Go to http://ttabvue.uspto.gov and search for cases using the word “entrepreneur” in the field labeled “All these words anywhere in a record.” Ignorance may be bliss, but it can also be devastatingly expensive.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Scott,
WOW my friend…you are way out of hand. ENRON type scandal? Are you for real… Enron was over 30 billion….yes 30 billion in damages not a small company like Entrepreneur and a so-so website… I don’t have one clue about this company ..the owners…etc..other than I searched for Entrepreneur to read a article on the site and came across this stupid blog. It is a mini drama like someone wrote…more like a high school drama… MOVE ON BUDDY!!! and get some serious help… I really mean that and I have new interest either way…I just think you need to check yourself when you go on to compare Entrepreneur to ENRON… You sound foolish and very bitter. Like a scorn ex-GF/BF.
PS.
I really hope that you guys figure this out and talk it out as this is very childish Scott. Man-up and tell everyone at least who you are.. People will respect you alot more….or just go away.
ET
March 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Em, I think Scott might be one of the few people going by his real name here actually, just check the link he gave on all the law suits.
And boy are there a lot of law suits this company has gotten itself into.
Wowweee, wow, wow, wow.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
For “accidentally” coming across this blog, “Emaunel” (sp) sure got all worked up trying to defend a company they supposedly knew nothing about. Yea, right. But that’s exactly the kind of reaction a whistle blower gets when exposing the wrong doings of an organization long run by bad and desperate people with so many skeletons in their closets (i.e. the U/North people in the Michael Clayton movie). Many people who are economically and emotionally tied to the organization will angrily and irrationally lash out and refuse to objectively look at the facts, no matter how overwhelming the facts may be. I never accused Emag as being as “successful” at generating wealth by defrauding people as Enron was or claimed that Chase Revel or Peter Shea were as notable or as educated as Enron’s Kenneth Lay (but I do believe that like in Lay’s case, a jury will rule that Revel and Shea are guilty of committing fraud and making false statements). What I said was that Emag is a company “founded and built on lies” that is “headed for an Enron-like scandal and meltdown.” Emaunel was noticeably unable to argue that Emag was not founded and built on lies. As Emaunel presumably already knows, even Emag’s own execs have admitted as much during sworn testimony. Hopefully innocent Emag employees will not be seriously or forever damaged by Emag’s misdeeds and potential demise. When Emag “lieutenants” such as Rieva even decide it’s time to give up and bail, that indicates to me that Enron-like problems are brewing at Emag.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Is this thing STILL going on? People need to say their piece and move on. Scott–you say the same crap over and over again. Emanuel–man up? Are you 12 years old? Jury is still out–can I get the cliff notes on your senior thesis?
If this is being written by people who work there, then who is doing the work? Has anyone left in the last week? Like I said before, this is reality TV. I’m waiting for more skeletons in the closet to come out. Does anyone have anything on Scott?
March 20th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Victor, or whatever your real name is, you too obviously refuse to put more research and less emotion into your comments. Although I do have to admit that you are right about at least one thing, I do have a tendency to say the same the things about Emag. Sorry about that. But you apparently didn’t know that’s what honest people do, they make consistently the same statements. Dishonest people on the other hand are notorious for not being able to keep their stories straight. That’s why I believe that Peter Shea is a poster boy for dishonesty. Have you seen how wildly different his claims are for Emag’s unique website visitors? Even after the NY Times twice reported that Emag got caught exaggerating its web numbers as being almost 8 million, when they were only around 2 million, Peter continues to claim that Emag’s web numbers are as high as 12 million unique visitors. Maybe Emag’s web traffic has increased by 600% in less than two years, but at this point, I don’t trust any of Emag’s web traffic claims. Who could if they knew Emag has a history of greatly exaggerating its web numbers? I’m not claiming to have any specific knowledge, but it seems to me that if Emag is greatly exaggerating its web traffic numbers (to get more advertisers or higher rates?), and if the entire online staff did turn over within the last year, then Emag’s website must be having serious problems and/or be losing gobs of money. And in my opinion anyone who gets upset at entrepreneurs trying to keep Emag from hijacking the word entrepreneur from the public domain, is obviously not an entrepreneur or knows much about entrepreneurs. I guarantee that teachers, journalists, engineers or scientists would be highly defiant if some magazine trademarked these words and started suing smaller co’s that used these words as part of their businesses.
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 am
Scott,
My name is Emaunel Passov Thompson is that ok! You even want to correct a person’s given name? What a JERK you are! I live in Surprise, Arizona and YES just came across the article.