Leadership Summit or Shareholder Priorities?
While researching another blog post comparing how other social media platforms allow user feedback while Nextdoor shuts it down (read it at NielFlamm.com/blog), I came across a post from CEO Nirav Tolia about a leadership summit in Napa Valley.
Curious, I asked ChatGPT what a summit like that might cost. Based on a typical Silicon Valley executive retreat, it is estimated to be around $500,000. It also noted that, relative to Nextdoor’s reported quarterly revenue of approximately $62 million, such spending would not necessarily be unusual.
Years ago, while working for a large global automotive manufacturer, I participated in a leadership summit held in San Diego during the off-season. There was one significant difference: the company was profitable and returning value to shareholders. When profit expectations were no longer met, those leadership summits stopped almost immediately.
Nextdoor has been in business for approximately 15 years. Shareholders have yet to see a dividend, and the company continues working toward sustained profitability.
Could the summit have been held at one of Nextdoor’s corporate offices instead? ChatGPT estimated a company office could have hosted a similar event for substantially less. If Dallas were an option—where Nextdoor has approved additional investment in office space—would that have been the more cost-conscious choice?
When people hear “Napa Valley leadership summit,” it’s easy to imagine world-class Cabernet, perhaps dinner at The French Laundry, and cigars while discussing AI. To be clear, I have no information suggesting any of those things occurred. They’re simply an illustration of the type of retreat many associate with Napa.
Meanwhile, today marks Day 32 since I requested the home insurance research report that Nextdoor encouraged people to request. Despite multiple follow-ups, I still haven’t received it.
Perhaps Jacob Chavis is simply busy. If so, I hope there’s eventually time for a brief reply to niel@nielflamm.com.
As shareholders, it’s reasonable to ask questions about spending, transparency, responsiveness, and accountability.
Would you support a luxury executive retreat if your company wasn’t meeting its profitability goals?
Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com.
Narratives Don't Build Great Companies. Execution Does.
While scrolling social media, I came across a Reel from entrepreneur and investor Michael Girdley discussing the rise and collapse of FTX and its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried.
Girdley has built, acquired, and operated businesses for years. His perspective comes from evaluating companies through the lens of operations, leadership, financial performance, and execution—not hype.
The Reel made me stop and think.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2186793178830723
Not because I believe Nextdoor is FTX.
I don't.
But I noticed patterns that every investor should pay attention to.
Both companies were built around compelling stories.
Both attracted significant outside investment.
Both had leaders who became the public face of the company, regularly appearing on podcasts and interviews to explain the vision.
A compelling narrative can attract users.
A compelling narrative can attract investors.
But eventually, every public company is judged by something much simpler:
Execution.
At FTX, the narrative eventually collided with reality. When investors, regulators, and journalists dug into the financials and governance, the story changed dramatically.
That is why transparency matters.
As a Nextdoor shareholder, I'm continuing to ask questions that any investor should ask.
Why has my request for a published study gone unanswered for more than a month?
Why are moderation decisions that appear similar producing very different outcomes?
Why are executive bonuses awarded while shareholders continue waiting for sustained profitability?
Why does leadership spend so much time discussing AI and future monetization while investors are still waiting for consistent financial results after more than 15 years?
None of those questions accuses anyone of wrongdoing.
They are governance questions.
They are shareholder questions.
And they deserve answers.
Nextdoor's stock has recently risen.
Markets can be optimistic.
Markets can also be wrong.
History has shown that stock price alone is not evidence of a healthy company.
The real test is whether the business fundamentals eventually justify the valuation.
As shareholders, our responsibility isn't to cheer every interview or podcast appearance.
It's to evaluate leadership based on measurable results, transparency, capital allocation, communication, and long-term value creation.
The lesson I took from Michael Girdley's discussion wasn't about FTX.
It was about remembering that every company eventually reaches the point where execution speaks louder than the story.
Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com.
Day 31: The Count Continues — Communication Is a Leadership Decision
Today marks Day 31 since I sent an email requesting the study and methodology referenced by the Nextdoor Communications team.
The email was sent to:
Jacob Chavis, Senior Manager of Customer Insights
Nirav Tolia, CEO
Investor Relations
Press Communications
I also requested a read receipt.
No read receipt.
No response.
No study.
No update.
There are several possible explanations:
Maybe the company doesn't use Microsoft Outlook.
Maybe everyone was out of the office.
Maybe the email was overlooked.
Or perhaps the organization uses a preview function and removes emails without triggering a read receipt.
I don't know.
What I do know is the outcome:
31 days without a response to a straightforward request for information.
And that leads to a bigger question:
If this is how communication is handled when a shareholder asks for a published research report, what happens when a user has a serious issue?
What happens when a paying advertiser needs support?
What happens when the company faces a real crisis?
Leadership is demonstrated during the easy moments and the difficult ones.
A simple response—yes, no, or an explanation—would have addressed this weeks ago.
Instead, the silence continues.
So the question becomes:
How high will this count go?
I will update immediately after receiving the study.
Until then, the clock continues.
Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com.
Day 29: Silence Speaks, But So Does Momentum
Today marks Day 29 since I requested the full methodology and report for a study published by the Nextdoor Communications team, with Jacob Chavis listed as the point of contact.
Twenty-nine days.
No report.
No methodology.
No response.
At this point, the report has become secondary.
The larger issue is communication and accountability.
Over the past several days, I've intentionally made the day count in my graphics larger and more prominent. Why? Because I want to draw attention to what I believe is unacceptable behavior. Every passing day without a response tells part of the story.
What has surprised me over these past 29 days is the response from others.
I've received more reactions, comments, messages, and engagement than I expected. Whether people agree with me or not, they're participating in the conversation.
That tells me this discussion resonates beyond one unanswered email.
It's about expectations.
When a company publishes research and identifies a contact person, it's reasonable to expect that questions receive a response.
When they don't, people notice.
I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it:
We tolerate what we allow.
I won’t allow this behavior to become normal.
This isn't about being difficult.
It's about expecting professionalism, accountability, and follow-through.
As a shareholder, I don't believe those expectations are unreasonable.
The conversation continues, and so does my commitment to documenting this experience.
Ironically, the silence has generated far more attention than a simple reply ever would have.
Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com
Day 28: Four Full Weeks Without a Response
Today marks Day 28.
Yes, Days 27 and 28 happened to fall on a Saturday and Sunday, but the bigger picture remains the same.
It has now been four full weeks since I requested the methodology and report for a study published by the Nextdoor Communications team that listed Jacob Chavis as the contact.
No report.
No methodology.
No acknowledgment.
Realistically, this should have taken a few business days at most. Even if the report couldn’t be shared, a one-line response explaining why would have demonstrated professionalism and respect.
Instead, silence has become the response.
I also remember keeping track of CEO Nirav Tolia’s public engagement. There was a stretch of more than a month—from around Thanksgiving until New Year’s Day—with little public communication. Today, much of the messaging centers around AI, transformation, and the future.
AI is important.
But AI isn’t a substitute for accountability.
As a shareholder, I’m more interested in hearing why leadership believes the company’s performance justifies executive compensation.
After reviewing the SEC filings, I found myself asking:
What is the rationale for awarding executive bonuses while the company continues to report losses?
Executive compensation should align with the creation of long-term shareholder value.
One metric often highlighted is Adjusted EBITDA.
Adjusted EBITDA can be a useful operational measure because it removes items such as interest expense, income taxes, depreciation, amortization, stock-based compensation, restructuring charges, and certain one-time or non-recurring expenses.
However, it is not the same as profitability or cash generation.
It does not fully reflect:
Interest expense on debt.
Income taxes.
Capital expenditures needed to operate and grow the business.
Depreciation and amortization of assets.
Stock-based compensation that dilutes shareholders.
Changes in working capital.
Free cash flow available to the business.
That’s why I prefer looking at the complete financial picture rather than one adjusted metric.
As investors, we should ask:
Are executives being rewarded for building lasting shareholder value?
Or are they being rewarded for meeting adjusted targets that don’t tell the entire financial story?
Four weeks without a response, and executive incentives tied to adjusted performance metrics leave me asking more questions than I receive answers.
Leadership is measured by results.
Communication is part of those results.
Join the discussion on NielFlamm.com