4 ms·

I think that depends. Abuse and harassment was mentioned as a major factor that kept the company from selling in the past several months. If upper management is

I think that depends. Abuse and harassment was mentioned as a major factor that kept the company from selling in the past several months. If upper management isn't willing to give up the possibility of selling, fighting abuse would be an important goal, whether or not it's a cost center. That's not a given, and I agree with braythwayt above that assessing the company's commitment is the most important consideration, but there are strategic reasons they could prioritize it.

jerf 10y ago
Sorry, but... yes, that's a great example of the sort of rationalization one is tempted to do. Here's the business reality: On the balance sheet for the abuse team, there are only expenditures. The benefits don't show up on the balance sheet there; there are diffuse, spread throughout the company, and often future-biased (the abuse shut down today may prevent people from leaving next month). It's the same for IT at a bank, customer support staff anywhere, or accountants. No matter how important it may be, it's not revenue generating. And that makes a huge difference in future career prospects. Things that may impact revenue in a year is not important to a company becoming concerned it may not make it to that year. (In Twitter's case, while there will probably be a business entity called Twitter in a year, the thing that might not make it to next year is Twitter-the-unicorn-dream. Going into maintenance mode or being acquired at unfavorable terms, while better than going out of business entirely, is still a failure for the Twitter of today.) I say this as someone who is not really directly revenue generating myself; I'm moving ever more into risk mitigation and management. But the company I'm doing it in is not currently contracting and laying off, but growing. I've got my eye on my own situation, too.
- firebones 10y ago
  That's a twist on the kind of quarter-by-quarter thinking that leads companies like Twitter to optimize for the short term (protect the MAUs!) and neglect the work that has to be done for long term growth and value. Not disagreeing with the point that being employed in a cost center of a struggling company has risk. You always would prefer to be at the competitive edge if you can, and in a role that aligns with the company's main mission. I just suspect that in this case, the recent abandonment of Twitter buyout offers due to the abuse problem has now made curtailing abuse a top priority, and a much more important part of the company's ability to deliver value. Another example would be a company whistling past the graveyard with respect to security, seeing security as a non-revenue-generating cost center. All it takes to wake up the board to its importance is a major breach that affects the market cap. (Or take quality control in companies that deal with life-and-death systems.)
  - jerf 10y ago
    Security is actually the specific risk-mitigation regime I've been moving into, and that's part of why I'm not too worried about it as a career move. It seems to be able to pay well, which suggests that the corporate world does have some understanding that it is a necessity and not just a cost center. But only some.
- LordHumungous 10y ago
  Yeah but at Twitter everyone but the ads team is going to be a cost center. You could make the exact same argument about the operations team.

jerf 10y ago

Sorry, but... yes, that's a great example of the sort of rationalization one is tempted to do. Here's the business reality: On the balance sheet for the abuse team, there are only expenditures. The benefits don't show up on the balance sheet there; there are diffuse, spread throughout the company, and often future-biased (the abuse shut down today may prevent people from leaving next month). It's the same for IT at a bank, customer support staff anywhere, or accountants. No matter how important it may be, it's not revenue generating. And that makes a huge difference in future career prospects. Things that may impact revenue in a year is not important to a company becoming concerned it may not make it to that year. (In Twitter's case, while there will probably be a business entity called Twitter in a year, the thing that might not make it to next year is Twitter-the-unicorn-dream. Going into maintenance mode or being acquired at unfavorable terms, while better than going out of business entirely, is still a failure for the Twitter of today.) I say this as someone who is not really directly revenue generating myself; I'm moving ever more into risk mitigation and management. But the company I'm doing it in is not currently contracting and laying off, but growing. I've got my eye on my own situation, too.

firebones 10y ago
That's a twist on the kind of quarter-by-quarter thinking that leads companies like Twitter to optimize for the short term (protect the MAUs!) and neglect the work that has to be done for long term growth and value. Not disagreeing with the point that being employed in a cost center of a struggling company has risk. You always would prefer to be at the competitive edge if you can, and in a role that aligns with the company's main mission. I just suspect that in this case, the recent abandonment of Twitter buyout offers due to the abuse problem has now made curtailing abuse a top priority, and a much more important part of the company's ability to deliver value. Another example would be a company whistling past the graveyard with respect to security, seeing security as a non-revenue-generating cost center. All it takes to wake up the board to its importance is a major breach that affects the market cap. (Or take quality control in companies that deal with life-and-death systems.)
- jerf 10y ago
  Security is actually the specific risk-mitigation regime I've been moving into, and that's part of why I'm not too worried about it as a career move. It seems to be able to pay well, which suggests that the corporate world does have some understanding that it is a necessity and not just a cost center. But only some.
LordHumungous 10y ago
Yeah but at Twitter everyone but the ads team is going to be a cost center. You could make the exact same argument about the operations team.