How Amazon Is Disrupting MBA Recruiting

From my experience (I graduated in 2014 so maybe it changed), they were probably the only company that had more than one recruiting drive (ie. they did a round of FT recruiting along everyone else in the fall, but also did a huge recruiting push in Feb / March the following year). Although banking really isn't that popular at the moment, I would think that there isn't much overlap between people wanting to do banking vs. people interested in AMZ so I am a bit puzzled by that quote.

Hilarious

TrackBack:

Not enough to justify getting an MBA. Less than a 1st year IB analyst.

That's clearly false, unless you meant to say "associate" rather than analyst.

200K all in year 1?? What the heck is going on over there?

If this is true then it shouldn't be surprising that so many MBAs would gun for it. That's above the median-actually above the top 75th-for most non H or S schools.

Someone needs to work up a definitive comp guide to this place per position, as we've seen some wild swings in this thread alone. I missed the boat on Amazon as I heard it churned and burned through employees, but would have def. given it a look for these numbers.

Yankee Commodore:

Joined just to comment on this thread. Depends on the function, but roughly 200-225k total comp for the first year. If you PM me, I can give you specifics on my offer.

No; this is incorrect. That figure would only be for SDEs (software development engineers) and TPMs (technical product managers), not the standard post-MBA roles in finance, product, marketing, operations.

Sil:

This has come up a few times on WSO, but what is the rational your classmates gave for choosing EBs over BBs? I always felt like the resources and ability to market a variety of products to clients made BBs the preferred choice over EBs at the associate level, but I was only an analyst, not an associate, so I do not know from first hand experience.

I think it's two fold.

1) With the regulatory landscape and M&A market as it is now (6 banks on a deal at a time, but maybe 2 did any actual interesting work) lends itself to doing perceived "better" work at an EB over a BB. I have a buddy at a BB who told me, no joke, he spends 70% of his time on shit like credit memos that he wouldn't have to do if he was at an advisory only shop. On top of that, unless you are at GS/MS, you are almost definitely spending a significant amount of your time doing work around lending, likely more than you are around advisory and M&A. That doesn't happen at EBs and people tend to want to focus on the latter. And with the M&A pie continually shifting towards EBs, it just makes this more true.

2) The idea, whether true or not, that EBs treat you like an adult far sooner than BBs do. You are running your own processes sooner, having the ability to carve out your own path and career sooner, build your own business sooner, Etc. It lends itself to those that see themselves as more entrepreneurial or needing less help, with the upside being larger due to the fact that the pay disparity continues to widen. At the top EBs right, an associate out of business school might make as much as 100k-125k more than at a BB in the first 18 months. That gap widens the more senior you get and its not gradual. So you have a combination of greater responsibility quicker, more control over your career, and significantly better pay from the get go.

BBs are still seen as more of the "safe" choice, but the candidates who see themselves as more self sufficient tend to basically put GS/MS/top EBs above everyone else. At least, that was my take on it in my class.

Rufus1234:

AllDay_028:

As someone who recently graduated from a top school, I would echo the above. They are all over campus for everything from product management to finance to operations. For PM roles, it's still a popular sought after company because there are so few PM roles and a lot of people who want to do it. But it is still lower on the rung than the FB/MSFT/Apple/GOOG and other places like linkedin or even fintech companies like sofi. For industry agnostic people they also tend to prefer top apparel (Nike operations), CPG (Ab/Inbev), or Media (Sony) companies too. And for many its below start ups. For people that want banking, most get it from my school in some form, but the ones who didn't mostly ended up in some form of financial services still. And the few who went corporate went into the we'll known rotational programs. I would say I actually don't know that many people who went there from my school, as most tech people got better jobs.

I would counter the above that banking/consulting isn't as popular now as before. Banking is probably on the upswing again, with the most people wanting it since the crisis. It's just the landscape has changed and EBs are taking a ton of the top talent away from BBs. Consultants are everywhere, more people want to do it than there are slots, and that continues to be the case.

Interesting. I graduated within the last few years from a finance heavy program (Wharton/Columbia/Booth/MIT), and banking was seen as the last resort. I remember showing up to the campus building for first round interviews, and the people who were there for banking literally looked like they were at a family funeral. Out of my buddies who went into banking, only one actually likes it.

Consulting has always been popular and always will be, as they are the #1 MBA recruiting industry. No surprise there.

I do think Amazon is less prestigious than Google and Facebook, mainly because those two require more technical expertise and hence tougher interviews. Most PMs at Google and Facebook know how to code, for instance.

I think there's 3 main reasons why Amazon is not getting the cream of the crop at the top MBA programs.

- Prestige perception: fairly or unfairly, Amazon is still considered as a glorified online retail company. They are doing some amazing things, and Bezos is probably the best CEO in the country, but that is the perception. In contrast, Google/Facebook are seen as super sexy companies on the cutting edge (Facebook is retarded; the world will be a competition between Google and Amazon). Perception is reality, and MBAs are obsessed with prestige. - Compensation: this is a problem as well when compared to its rivals. Amazon is notoriously frugal, and it is reflected in all areas. The company has a MAXIMUM base salary cap of just $160K, with the rest of the compensation coming from your signing bonus and RSUs that vest over 4 years. Unlike other tech firms, however, where the vesting happens in equal increments, Amazon's vesting is backloaded. In the first year, 5% vests, 15% in the second year, and then 20% every 6 months in years 3 and 4. This is a way of "trapping" Amazon employees to staying long-term. For MBAs, many of whom are in debt and need cash right away, this proposition could be a deal breaker. Let's also not forget perks. At Amazon, there is no free food; even soft drinks are not free. And if you travel for work, Amazon will only pay for the cheapest coach flights, even for international flights. - Seattle. LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION. Did I mention location? Yeah, I think I did. The notion that location does not matter is one of the biggest lies out there. For single people, especially, it is absolutely critical and will have an effect on one's overall happiness. Let's consider the fact that graduates of top MBA programs flock to a handful of cities. In the HBS class of 2017, 23% went to NYC, 15% went to SF Bay Area, and 14% to Boston. Only 4% ended up in Seattle. So from a network and social standpoint, it's tough since most of your school friends won't be in Seattle with you. The city also lacks the diversity, urban dynamism, and energy of the others. It's essentially a glorified suburb and company town. And for single men, Seattle is probably the worst major U.S. city for dating. That matters. A LOT.

With Amazon I agree, it has a prestige perception problem. But it's not just the business, it's the recruiting. Any company that is recruiting heavily and makes it seem like they would take anyone at your MBA program takes a hit, because even at the top schools there are still a lot of morons. So when the top kids see it as easy to get a job there, it immediately makes them want to go a different direction. FB does a REALLY good job of acting like they are too good for MBAs, even the top ones, which of course makes people want to work there more. Pay is obviously an issue too, but lets be real, like 60% of people who go to top MBAs have the entirety of their lives paid for by their parents. I was one of a handful of people I knew paying out of my own pocket, with loans, for school.

Seattle is tough, at least google being in NYC helps them some, at least, IMO. But people are also generally ok with San Francisco (though, I don't get it, I think San Fran fucking sucks). But even with that, it seems that the other Seattle based companies are still seen as "better". I know people with both MSFT and Amazon offers and all of them took MSFT. But I think a lot of that goes back to the prior point.

B2Banker:

Good response. It's interesting that so many of your friends at BB are working on lending/credit memos. What group are they in?

The only groups that should really be touching credit related aspects are Lev Fin and perhaps industry coverage (on a high level) if the bank does not have dual coverage (corporate banking coverage that's the face of the bank AND investment banking coverage).

Most post MBA associates end up in industry coverage groups. That said, I have to admit I'm somewhat ignorant to how the work is divided between corporate banking and investment banking at the large BS banks (JPM/BAML/Citi) but those are where I hear these complaints regularly and the loudest.

I was regretting my decision to read these comments until I got to yours. Thank you, sir

Portland might be worse but more or less is the same thing.

You're sneering at the "bottom" of an Ivy League business school, which begs pointing out that there's not a single function the "higher ranked" classmates at a BB do that the "lower" classmates can't do.

Regarding COL, most MBAs, especially geared toward banking or consulting, end up in NYC, SF, Chicago, DC or Boston... how does the COL compare to the offers your other classmates received in the cities they received them in? See how that works, don't use bullshit national averages to compare packages in NYC and Seattle.

My point regarding time at Amazon is that the comp catches up and the same "exit opps" you claim to covet are being offered right out of the gate or within reach to those applying to Amazon, so a more accurate estimation would be that for your classmates that know what they want and don't want to work brutal hours...Amazon is an awesome choice. Why you're shitting on it is beyond me.

"Triggered" is labeling me easier than confronting an opposing idea?

I think you've just stated several reasons to hate Seattle that have zero impact on your day to day life there or working at Amazon. That also ignores those same qualities in most major metros. In terms of culture I think you're looking to work in a major metro, in a white collar job, in a client facing role and in relatively affluent circles, which is a very similar experience regardless of which city you're in. I've worked in major metros across several countries (and languages) and have found more common ground than differences in terms of views, beliefs and outlook. Leading me to believe that someone who can't find their niche or make a city their home would have difficulty doing so anywhere else.

Really depends on your drive and ambition. The handful of guys I know still in IB from our class are sort of stuck because moving as a 3rd year Associate would require taking big pay cuts-so they've been effectively golden handcuffed. Some of them are starting families now, too, which makes it even tougher, so will be interesting to see how they meet their time demands. But they're the exact people I expected to be in these spots, because they were your prototypical gunners/strivers. I imagine much of WSO has a similar makeup.

I probably wouldn't take another gig that gives me anxiety whenever my phone buzzes in the middle of the night. I don't mind crazy hours for interesting work, but not being able to control your schedule makes you feel as if you're always at the mercy of the work. Still, I'm in no position to complain and am saving a ton.

Longer term I'd probably head back to corporate for a more laid back role, preferably in a low COL, so that I can still afford material comforts while enjoying what's left of my "youth".

Rufus1234:

TheGrind:

Some of the perspectives on here are hilarious. Suggesting that $160K for a corporate gig is chump change and describing a 5 year path to mid six figures as if it were a life sentence. My medical resident cousin laughed when I showed her this.

What I find most interesting is the split between those who value time and those who value prestige. I'll offer a different take because I did the reverse of what most MBAs do-left a run of the mill corporate gig that I'd enjoyed the past 2 years to jump ship to an "elite" one. The money and perks are excellent, but I no longer have the time to do jack shit. The days all blur together, I get home with my synapses completely burned out, and I'm sprouting grey hairs all over the place. It's 4 fucking AM and I'm posting to this thread while waiting to join a call that starts on the other side of the planet. At my last gig I was dating strippers and visiting 2-3 countries a year.

I now understand why so many of my banking and consulting friends frequently sent me resumes at the last gig, and 2 years out, most have transitioned into Amazon-like corporate roles. A few have ended up at Amazon. Those vaunted exit opps do exist in Consulting, but mostly for people who manage to make it to higher levels before exiting.

Any gig that can start you off at 120-160, offers you great 5 year upside, and enables you to have a life outside of work is going to be highly coveted. No dog in this fight, just amusing to see folks trash what's turning out to be the most sought after company for MBAs because it's not considered selective enough.

Great post. You are one of WSO's invaluable posters.

I don't disagree with anything you said. After all, life is about cost-benefit tradeoffs. I agree that Amazon is highly appealing for people who crave a certain lifestyle. I certainly don't begrudge them that.

My main point was NOT that Amazon is a bad company to work at. I simply thought that the WSJ piece was a fluff piece, which is unusual given that WSJ writes really good articles. It gave off the impression that students at top MBA programs are really turning down MBB and other "elite" roles en masse to work at Amazon. It did not say this explicitly, but it was implied, and people who don't know much about the MBA recruiting landscape might have arrived at that conclusion. I simply wanted to correct that and point out that Amazon on the whole is not getting the top talent.

Also, a minor correction to one of your points. Making $500K/year at Amazon within 5 years of joining after MBA is pretty rare actually. The typical MBA, by that point, would be a L7 (senior manager), and on average will probably be pulling in the $250-$300K range once we take into account vested RSUs. My best friend graduated MBA in 2013 and recently made principal at a MBB consulting firm and including year-end bonus, will probably clear in the $400-$500K/range. Of course, he works hard, but it is worth mentioning that very few MBAs turn down MBB for Amazon. Not a single person at my school did.

No that important, but do you know what's the deal with titles at Amazon? I did some quick research on LinkedIn, and it seems like PM join as Senior Managers, and all the others (Retail/Ops/Finance) join as Managers and have to work up to becoming a Senior Manager?

Asking because am applying to B School and am interested in Amazon. Hopefully, HQ2 is in a better city. Some people might not care, but I do care about interacting with SJWs/Commies - which I hope to avoid.

Thanks,

"very few MBAs turn down MBB for Amazon" - I think you're overstating the crossover in people who apply to both companies. In my experience, people recruit for corporate jobs or consulting jobs, not both. Even when they do both, it's usually with a strong preference for one and the other is more of a backup.