Presuming that the video is recent, and as Groupon enters it's silent period, it's a good technique for a relatively newly minted CEO who doesn't have 20-30 years of experience dealing with public markets, taking companies public, and all of the legal guidance that they've received in that time.
If Andrew takes three or four companies public, he'll learn how to answer those questions without stepping over the line, but, for right now, with a multi-billion dollar IPO on the line - silence is golden.
Besides - he managed to get an applause out of the audience, so he had good timing as well.
[Edit: Agreed that a "no comment" would have been as effective, but nowhere near as entertaining. I also suspect that the interviewer knew they were not supposed to be asking these questions, so there was another bit of interplay taking place as well.]
I think a simple and direct "no comment, I can't talk about that right now" would have achieved a better result without all of the awkwardness of the "death stare" (and the, IMO, slightly creepy twitching).
Andrew is probably an awesome guy, but not knowing him other than as being the CEO of Groupon, those clips certainly don't give me a good first impression of him at all. He comes off a bit like the "quiet guy nobody suspected would be a killer until he murdered 20 people" in that video. Granted, I'm sure that was exactly the impact whoever edited these clips was going for, and thus you can't really blame the subject for it, but I'd advise him in the future to just go with ye olde "no comment".
He was actually one of warmer startup guys a year or so back as a TWIST guest (and groupon started as a http://www.thepoint.com, service for activists, philantropists..).
I imagine thinking about billons and getting to 7000 in workforce in such short time can change people, at least on the outside.
I figured as much, thus the caveat about the editing, but unfortunately these days if you're the public face of a company|country|state|whatever, it is better to avoid doing things which will make you look bad if you know for sure you're being videotaped and the situation can be edited for maximum out-of-context-ness.
From my point of view, I knew who Andrew Mason was, what he did, but had never seen him speak in public. Coming from that starting point, seeing this video gave me a bad personal first impression of him.
It is possible (perhaps likely) that whoever edited this clip didn't even mean for it to make Andrew Mason look creepy, but they had more context than the people who saw just the end result, so maybe this is also a warning to video editors as well.. always consider the impact your clips will have if viewed by someone that doesn't have the full context.
I don't think it's a techique, per se. (disclosure: I've worked with Andrew a bit). Andrew is an awesome guy and he's got a REALLY peculiar sense of humor. I'd wager that he was sitting at lunch someday talking with someone about the press and said: "Wouldn't it be funny if I did something a bit more creative than say 'no comment'?".
You gave more info than I gleaned off the site. All I saw were a few banners and a tagline.
Admittedly, I'm using a blackberry, so if it's video content like that, I'm not seeing it. The least the operators of that could have done was offer a transcript, or detect crappy browsers. Oh well.
*edit: I thought about, but failed to mention that a <video> tag would have been most helpful. And, why the downvotes?
There is no transcript to speak of: He's in an interview, the interviewer asks him a few questions, and he simply stares at her without a word. Not even an "I'm not going to answer that." She describes it as a "Death Ray" stare.
It's almost as if he's a contestant on a game show where he wins a billion dollars if he can remain silent no matter what someone else says.
p.s. You haven't missed anything. It's entertaining, but hardly Hacker News.
The focus of that page is a video. And while I do agree with you about providing transcripts generally, in this case it wouldn't have really helped you understand what happened as it is the body language that is important in this case, not what he says (or rather doesn't say).
If Andrew takes three or four companies public, he'll learn how to answer those questions without stepping over the line, but, for right now, with a multi-billion dollar IPO on the line - silence is golden.
Besides - he managed to get an applause out of the audience, so he had good timing as well.
[Edit: Agreed that a "no comment" would have been as effective, but nowhere near as entertaining. I also suspect that the interviewer knew they were not supposed to be asking these questions, so there was another bit of interplay taking place as well.]