Google’s Sergey Brin Admits He’s Hiring Workers Without Degrees

Whether it’s Nike’s Phil Knight, LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, or Google’s Sergey Brin, many of the world’s most influential business founders can trace part of their success back to Stanford University. Nestled in the foothills of Silicon Valley, the school has long functioned as a launchpad for tech’s elite. 

But the rise of artificial intelligence is challenging long-held assumptions about the value of higher education. As tech reshapes entry-level work and companies rethink traditional hiring pipelines, the payoff of a four-year degree – especially from elite institutions – is increasingly up for debate. 

Still, Brin (right) doesn’t regret his own academic path. Speaking to Stanford engineering students last month, he said his decision to study computer science was not driven by a fixation on credentials. 

“I chose computer science because I had a passion for it”, he said. “It was kind of a no-brainer for me. I guess you could say I was also lucky because I was also in such a transformative field”. 

Even in an era when AI can write code, Brin cautioned students against chasing – or abandoning – fields of study based solely on automation fears. 

“I wouldn’t go off and switch to comparative literature because you think the AI is good at coding”, he said. “The AI is probably even better at comparative literature, just to be perfectly honest anyway”. 

Brin met Google cofounder Larry Page in 1994 during his second year of graduate studies at Stanford. Together they developed PageRank, an algorithm they later renamed Google and would become a company in 1998. 

Google’s hiring practices today reflect how dramatically the industry has shifted. The tech giant is now embracing workers without college degrees. 

“In as much as we’ve hired a lot of academic stars, we’ve hired tons of people who don’t have bachelor’s degrees”, Brin said. “They just figure things out on their own in some weird corner”. 

Between 2017 and 2022, the share of job postings at Google requiring a degree dropped from 93% to 77%, according to analysis from the Burning Glass Institute. And Google aren't alone: companies including Microsoft, Apple, and Cisco have reduced degree requirements in recent years, signaling a broader industry shift toward skills-based hiring. 

That’s forcing a broader reckoning over what a degree actually signals and whether it’s still a reliable proxy for talent.

“I don’t think necessarily because you go to an Ivy League school or have great grades it means you’re going to be a great worker or great person”, said JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in 2024. For many roles, skills matter far more than credentials, he added: “If you look at skills of people, it is amazing how skilled people are in something, but it didn’t show up in their resume”.

Palantir CEO Alex Karp has made a similar case, despite holding three degrees (including a JD from Stanford). He’s been outspoken about the pressure young people face to pursue elite credentials – and dismissive of how much they matter once on the job. 

“If you did not go to school, or you went to a school that’s not that great, or you went to Harvard or Princeton or Yale, once you come to Palantir, you’re a Palantirian. No one cares about the other stuff”, Karp said during an earnings call last year. 

That mindset is spreading beyond Silicon Valley and Wall Street, according to Great Place to Work’s CEO Michael Bush. 

“Almost everyone is realizing that they’re missing out on great talent by having a degree requirement”, Bush told Fortune. “That snowball is just growing”. 

For Brin, the implications ultimately go beyond hiring. With credentials losing their gatekeeping power, he said universities themselves may need to evolve: “I just would rethink what it means to have a university”.

German Football Ditches Adidas for Nike

The decades-long kit supply tie-up between German football’s governing body, the German Football Association (German: Deutscher Fußball-Bund) and German sportswear giant Adidas, one of the most renowned technical deals in sport, will come to an end after the 2026 World Cup. 

Sportswear rivals Nike will take over as kit and equipment supplier to the DFB for the 2027-34 cycle. Nike will equip all German national representative sides and “promote German soccer in its entirety”, the DFB have announced. 

The annual value of the Nike-DFB deal will reportedly be at least €100 million ($108.1 million).

German teams have used Adidas products at all major FIFA World Cups dating back to 1954, but the DFB have said that Nike made “the best economic offer” for the cycle following on from the 2026 World Cup (to be held in Mexico, the US, and Canada). 

Of course lah, money can move mountains! And it's a Nike win over Adidas!

GlobalData Sport analyst Conrad Wiacek stated: “The German FA's decision to move away from Adidas shows that no deal in sport is safe. While tradition and long-standing relationships play a huge role, the reality is that more often than not, the biggest cheque will win".

Not surprisingly, the deal was criticized by German politicians, with German economy minister Robert Habeck saying he would have “liked a bit more local patriotism”, while Health Minister Karl Lauterbach called the decision “wrong”.

To quote King Solomon, "money answers all things"!

Nike Shoes Spotted in 400-year-old Painting

Fiona Foskett and her 23-year-old daughter Holly who paid a visit to the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, London, UK were left baffled by what appeared to be an iconic logo in a 400-year-old painting which is on loan from a private collection. 

 

“Portrait of Frederick Sluysken” was the work of Dutch master Ferdinand Bol (right) in the seventeenth century and it seems little Frederick was wearing some very modern shoes, LadBible reports. 

 

Of course, It would be nigh impossible for him to be wearing Nike shoes, considering the footwear brand was founded only in 1964 – unless time travel exists. 

 

The 57-year-old woman first laid her eyes on the swoosh: “I said to my daughter ‘hold on, is he wearing a pair of Nike trainers?’” 

 

She wondered, “Looking at the age, he must have got his hands on the first pair of Nike trainers ever made. Or is he actually a time traveler?” 

 

The oil on canvas painting which depicts the son of a wine merchant and the second cousin of artist Bol's wife has been dubbed “one of Bol's finest portraits” by the said gallery. The description of the artwork says: “The boy is elegantly attired in a grey suit and matching cloak, trimmed with shiny gold buttons and ribbon bows; his wide-brimmed hat is hooked over the back of a chair behind him”. 

 

However, I think we can all agree that, Nike or not, 8-year-old Frederick is one stylish chap.

Brands Go Woke

Whether you like it or not, major American brands are now increasingly partnering with transgender actors and influencers in their ad campaigns, with massive support from the LGBTQ community and its allies. It is said this is all about inclusivity.

 

Companies like Pantene, Gillette, Citi, and Adidas have all made headlines for hiring trans actors and pledging their support. The latest furore is over trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney who shared sponsored Instagram posts promoting “her” brand deals with Bud Light and Nike and "she" was fiercely shamed and slammed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Mulvaney found "her" posts flooded with aggressive comments and threats to boycott the said companies. Countless videos appeared online showing Bud Light beer being dumped into the trash and pouring it down the drain. Former Olympic champs, including swimmer Sharron Davies and decathlete Caitlyn Jenner, criticized the sponsorships and misgendered Mulvaney. Even singer Kid Rock used Bud Light cans for target practice, opening fire on them in protest.

 

Despite the backlash, advertising shows no sign of slowing down in trans representation and continues to symbolize allyship. 

 

I read in Time on April 08 that “transgender representation in advertising has come a long way over the decades since subtle, queer-coded messaging first began popping up 40 years ago and when marketers described it as “our little secret” in the 1990s. Estimates show that the global LGBTQ community has at least $3.7 trillion in purchasing power and data indicates that compared to generic ads, queer-inclusive ads can help consumers remember brands better, inspire higher-priced purchases and foster a more progressive company image”. 

 

It is reportedly, a smart business decision. A 2022 study by GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), on December 13 released data from their survey conducted in collaboration with global research center, The Edelman Trust Institute. It is a study that focused on Americans’ attitudes toward the LGBTQ community, and the data revealed strong support for businesses that publicly align themselves with and speak out on behalf of the LGBTQ community. 

 

According to the study, 53% of Americans expect CEOs to inform and shape conversations and policy debates about LGBTQ rights. 59% say that if businesses devoted significant resources to protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community, they could have a positive impact. 

 

Additionally, 18-34-year-olds are nearly twice as likely than the general population to say that protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community should be a top priority for brands when it comes to allocating money and resources. 

 

Furthermore, findings from the survey even claim that Americans are twice as likely to buy or use a brand if the brand publicly supports and demonstrates a commitment to expanding and protecting LGBTQ rights. 

 

Queer-rights activists have long understood that transgender and nonbinary people, along with people of color, consistently suffer the most discrimination within the queer community. For them, brands are part of the effort to promote cultural acceptance of queer identity. 

 

Still, the backlash targeted at Mulvaney as well as Bud Light and Nike is not expected to last too long. “When we see these social-media firestorms, a lot of times they’re very short in nature”, argued Beth Fossen, an assistant professor of marketing at Indiana University.

 

For good measure, she even added that some research has shown that in some instances, a practice known as “buycotting” – in which consumers purchase something they wouldn’t normally buy as a show of support in response to a boycott – outweighs the effects of boycotting campaigns.

 

What I can conclude is, shout and scream all you want – but it won’t make any difference. The US, it appears, has decided to go full woke.

McDonald's File 10 Trademarks for Metaverse

The world's largest fast-food restaurant chain want to establish a presence in the metaverse. 

McDonald's made 10 trademark applications to the US Patent and Trademark Office February 04 covering both McDonald's and McCafe. One of the trademarks was for "virtual food and beverage products" including NFTs, while another included "operating a virtual restaurant online featuring home delivery". Meaning users can walk in and order food – that will then be delivered to them in person and online. 

The trademarks would protect the idea of a McDonald's restaurant in the metaverse that can sell both virtual and real-world food, Josh Gerben, a trademark lawyer, wrote on Twitter. 

"You are hanging out in the metaverse and get hungry. You don't have to put down your headset. You walk into a McDonald's and place an order. It arrives at your door a little while later", he tweeted. 

It’s not just McDonald's but a number of other brands too are staking their claim to territory in the metaverse. 

Panera Bread filed for a trademark for a "Paneraverse" February 03 which includes NFTs, virtual entertainment services, and a virtual reward program. Nike have established a Metaverse Studio and have patented plans for virtual assets ranging from avatars to "cryptokicks", while Gucci, Crocs and others are also seeking staff to work on their metaverse offerings. 

For those who don’t know, the metaverse is an online world in which users' avatars meet, interact and explore a fast-growing network of virtual locations.

Facebook (now known as Meta) have already opened up its metaverse world, Horizon Worlds, and Microsoft plan to open up a metaverse version of their Teams app soon. 

Smaller companies can get in on the action too, by buying their own space on ready-made metaverse platforms such as Sandbox, Decentraland and Mirandus. Many are doing so now in order to stake their claim, before figuring out how to actually use this new technology for their benefit. 

At the moment the metaverse is mostly being used for gaming and socializing, as well as the odd work meeting. 

Metaverse's detractors claim it is no more than a marketing gimmick for many firms and say its useful applications are limited. 

Still, every brand that you can think will want to get into the metaverse anyway. I don’t think you can completely ignore a new technology that's coming.

#IsupportXinjiangcotton

On Monday, I had blogged about this malicious anti-China campaign about Xinjiang cotton that is a total lie. 

Rightly, anger is brewing in China over the international brands boycotting Xinjiang cotton, linking it to claims of slave labor. 

And fashion giant H&M was the first to come under fire. In October, the Swedish retailer had said on their official website that they did not source products from Xinjiang due to “reports on forced labor and discrimination of ethno-religious minorities” in the country's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. 

This statement came to light again last week, fueling Chinese netizens’ fury and who called on a boycott against the brand. 

The flame quickly spread to Burberry, Adidas, Nike and some others – as old statements they made in relation to the ban on Xinjiang cotton resurfaced. 

An online campaign on Sina Weibo came out in support of Xinjiang cotton – and as of two Fridays ago, #IsupportXinjiangcotton has already gained 4.2 billion views! 

Consumers everywhere should stand in solidarity with the Chinese and cold-shoulder H&M as well as other foolish brands that stupidly support the trumped-up story about Xinjiang cotton!

Attack on China: The Issue of Xinjiang Cotton

The spiteful West is at it again. It is targeting China and fabricates fiction about the country. 

This time, the issue is supposedly forced labor in the cotton fields in Northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. [FYI, Xinjiang is a major global hub for the cotton industry. It produces 85 percent of China's and 20 percent of the world's cotton]. 

Based on the manufactured lie, some international brands (e.g. H&M, Adidas and Nike) had taken upon themselves to believe in the falsehood and announced the ban on Xinjiang cotton in their production. 

In response, more than forty Chinese celebrities have rescinded endorsement contracts with these brands. 

Chinese consumers, too, are unhappy over the stand the brands took and expressed their dissatisfaction by boycotting their products. 

All of this is, of course, going to hurt these big brands. 

"And the ultimate brand value of these Western companies, measured in terms of their growth potential, could be cut in half over the next five years if they refuse to rectify their discriminations against China", Zhang Yi, CEO of Shenzhen-based iiMedia Research told China’s Global Times on Saturday. 

On Thursday, the day after Swedish clothing company H&M triggered a tsunami of condemnation by Chinese netizens over their ill-intended ban on Xinjiang cotton, the company, as well as others too which have adopted similar stances to H&M, saw share prices drop significantly. 

Germany-based Adidas, one of the most popular foreign clothing brands among Chinese consumers, saw their share price drop by more than 6 percent on Thursday. According to media reports, Adidas, together with US-based Nike, saw their market value drop by more than 70 billion yuan ($10.7 billion) on that day. And the market value of H&M also slumped by about 4.8 billion yuan. 

It serves these brands right for taking up an issue that has been politicized by hostile foreign governments and their media.

Brands are Social Distancing Too

During these trying Covid-19 times, it's not just people that are social distancing. Brands are doing it too.

McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Audi and Volkswagen are just a few of the corporate conglomerates that are interpreting "social distancing" with logo redesigns. They’re simple, yet effective messages on the importance of staying indoors.

Coca-Cola, the world’s most famous beverage has unveiled a billboard (in the albeit very deserted) Times Square in New York that urges “staying apart is the best way to stay united”. 

The billboard was created in partnership with Mercado McCann in Argentina and follows The Coca-Cola Foundation’s, the philanthropic arm of Coke, $20.5 million donation to help fight the virus.

Burger King are re-imaging their store signs in the US from “home of the Whopper” to a more simple message: “Stay home”.

The term has become popular because of the worldwide spread of the novel coronavirus. Social distancing means standing 2 meters (6 feet) apart from others in an effort to lower the risk of contracting the illness.

Liverpool Sub New Balance with Nike

Liverpool announced Tuesday that Nike are their new kit manufacturer from the 2020-21 season!

When it was initially reported that the Reds were seeking a considerably bigger deal when their agreement with New Balance ends, the belief was that this would come close to Manchester United‘s English-record £75 million-a-season contract with Adidas. 

But the base figure is actually lesser than the £45 million a season agreed with New Balance, with both the Times‘ Paul Joyce and The Athletic‘s James Pearce revealing it will be a guaranteed £30 million a season.

This seems low, but in addition to that Nike are offering 20 percent royalties for merchandise sales, reduced to five percent for footwear. 

Furthermore, they will be given “£2 million worth of licensed products per season plus a 19 percent discount on standard UK wholesale prices for additional products,” according to Pearce. 

Bonuses for winning the Champions League (£4m), reaching the final (£2m) and winning the Premier League (£2m) are also included. 

A conservative estimate places Liverpool’s projected earnings at around £70 million a season. 

But sports marketing expert Alan Seymour, who spoke to UK's Evening Standard, is predicting that the deal will be worth “in excess of £80 million and upwards to the £100 million value”.

In the US of A, Los Angeles prosecutors have announced criminal charges against Harvey Weinstein (left) on Monday, following the start of the disgraced movie mogul’s rape trial in New York. 

Weinstein was charged with raping one woman and sexually assaulting another in separate incidents over a two-day period in 2013. The felony charges include forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, sexual penetration by use of force and sexual battery by restraint. The victims have not been publicly identified.

The news of an LA case comes as Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to five counts in New York, including raping a woman in 2013 and forcing another woman to engage in oral sexual conduct in 2006. The most serious charge is predatory sexual assault, which carries a potential life sentence.

Detox Fashion

Credit: Trendstop

It’s time to detox! 

Let's commit to Greenpeace's "Detox My Fashon" campaign.

Around the world, an expanding movement of people are using their creativity, design skills and purchasing power to demand fashion without pollution. 

United by a shared belief that the clothes we wear should carry a story we can be proud of – activists, bloggers, fashionistas, designers, scientists and models have been pushing, persuading and proselytizing many big brands to commit to toxic-free fashion.

Since 2011, the environmental organization have been relentlessly shining a spotlight on the use of hazardous chemicals within the clothing industry. 

In fact, Greenpeace Germany have now published an update of the results in the form of a paper dubbed “Destination Zero: Seven years of Detoxing the clothing industry”. 

According to this report, a total of 80 major fashion brands have made progress in their pledge to remove hazardous chemicals from their production lines by the year 2020. 

They singled out fast-fashion companies such as Inditex (which owns the high street chain Zara), H&M, Benetton and Fast Retailing (which owns Uniqlo) as leading the way in the mission to reduce the use of chemicals that pollute the planet. 

But while these 80 companies that include major brands such as Adidas, Nike, Mango and Puma – they only make up 15 percent of the fashion industry as a whole, and Burberry and Valentino are the only two fashion labels from the luxury sector to have signed up to the pledge. 

Kirsten Brodde, Greenpeace Germany project lead of the Detox-my-Fashion campaign admits: “While we are extremely happy to see the progress of Detox companies towards cleaning up their supply chains, 85 percent of the textile industry is still not doing enough to eliminate hazardous chemicals and improve factory working conditions”. 

Still, we do need to recognize that there are already multiple initiatives put in place to clean up the fashion industry’s image and environmental impact have come to fruition over the past few years. 

Commendable efforts by PVH Group (which owns Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger) to reduce the waste generated by their brands, as well as a water economy programme launched by Gap Inc and recycled fashion collections launched by labels ranging from H&M to The North Face all make a difference. 

Sure, we still have a long way to go – but the successes achieved so far prove that when we work together, big businesses and big brands are compelled to stand up and deliver. For a better world. 

I support Detox Fashion! What about you?

Sneakers that Marry Fashion with Sports

A model presents a creation from the Dolce & Gabbana Autumn/Winter 2018 women collection during Milan Fashion Week in Milan, Italy, February 25, 2018

Luxury fashion and sports are coming together. And it looks as if they have become inseparable. 

Strange bedfellows alright but it is the in-thing now. And yielding big profits for those involved in the business. Already, both luxury groups and sports companies are looking to cash in on a booming market. 

Premium sneakers can start at around $400 but can easily go up as high as $3,000 for a pair of Christian Louboutin’s leather, crystal-embellished sneakers. 

And limited editions can even sell for well over $10,000, including the Chanel X Pharrell Hu Race Trail or Nike’s Air Jordan 3 Retro DJ Khaled Grateful. 

High-end brands such as Gucci, Prada and Balenciaga are increasingly looking to sneakers for growth, putting them in direct competition with sportswear giants like Nike, Puma and Adidas – and creating ever-more striking and swank designs. 

A Reuters report put global sales of sneakers – or trainers – to have expanded by 10 percent to 3.5 billion euros in 2017. 

For sure, sneakers are a big driver of the luxury shoe business – in fact, luxury sneakers represent the fashion industry’s fastest-growing segment. 

Bruce Pas, Men’s Fashion Director at US department store Neiman Marcus – a leading purveyor of the world's most unique luxury goods – trumpets: “It’s not really even a trend anymore – it’s become a category”. 

The rise of luxury sneakers is part of the growing influence of casual and streetwear in high-end fashion, where it is now acceptable to team sneakers with a tailored suit. 

Upmarket brands are tapping into street style to refresh their looks and young buyers are driving the shift. “Millennials” – born between the early 1980s and mid-90s – already represent a third of the luxury market, according to consultancy Bain & Co. 

It has been noted that even with intensifying competition, profits will remain very healthy. 

“There is (a) large space for prices moving up”, said Erwan Rambourg from HSBC. It seems that the ‘luxurization’ of sneakers can only impact margins positively. 

Designer footwear or luxury sneakers or couture sneakers or whatever we may wish to call them – they are a fast-growing market segment. 

Even for sportswear companies, like Adidas, fashion collaborations are not unusual. 

In fact, Adidas recognize that it is a way of expanding their company’s creative ecosystem and keeping consumers engaged and excited by the Adidas brand in a fast-moving market. “These days the pace has become so fast. People go to verticals, like H&M and Zara, and expect new products every month. Even with high fashion labels, it’s the cruise collection and pre-collections; every three months you get something new”, said Dirk Schönberger, creative director of Adidas’ sport style division. 

“We are a very commercial brand, so, of course, we have to deliver – at a minimum every week – something that excites the consumer. The verticals and the [speed of the] Internet have changed the way we do things”, he added. 

When a market opportunity presents itself, you can be sure marketing-driven companies will be in the thick of the action. It’s business, after all!

Logos That Are Just So Wrong

The Coca-Cola cursive, the Nike Swoosh, and Apple’s apple are great brands that have great logos. These logos convey the brand’s message to millions of people every day, just by being visible. And of course, they are an all-important part of businesses’s brand identity.

If a company is wanting to make an impression and grow in the marketplace, a logo is needed.

Sadly, not all companies quite get it right, and some – as shown by this thread on Quora – get it spectacularly wrong.

 A sample of five:

The Institute of Oriental Studies, University of Santa Catarina in Florianópolis, Brazil

Hey, it’s supposed to be a pagoda in front of the rising sun”, we hear the designers say.

Mont-sat

This Polish satellite looks particularly pleased with himself.

Office of Government Commerce, UK Government






Despite a reported outlay of £14,000 in design fees, this branch of the Treasury had to scrap its logo after someone pointed out what it looked like when rotated 90 degrees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Junior Jazz Dance Classes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This one might take a while to get. As one commenter noted on Quora: “Focus on the negative space”.

2012 London Olympics

Detractors said the London 2012 Olympics logo looked like a broken swastika. Iran even threatened to boycott the Games because they thought it spelled out the word ‘Zion’. The worst part: they spent £400,000 on the design.

Sometimes, I am tempted to give up on social media in order to reclaim my life!