3 ms·

Which 60-70%? It seems crazy to think it's that simple unless you can a) articulate which employees contribute to revenue, and b) take into account the compensa

Which 60-70%? It seems crazy to think it's that simple unless you can a) articulate which employees contribute to revenue, and b) take into account the compensation/option-based expense. Make a mistake and you not only affect revenues (by cutting those contributing to revenue) but also cutting the ability to retain those remaining who actually do contribute to revenue. No doubt there's room for cuts, but 60-70% seems way on the high side.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> Which 60-70%? It seems crazy to think it's that simple Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it would be simple at all. Unfortunately I have no way to give you a good answer here. They have a disproportionately large amount of engineers and other staff compared to the product(s) they offer but without internal information regarding groups, compensations, etc there is no way I could ever begin to answer this as an outside. > No doubt there's room for cuts, but 60-70% seems way on the high side. I disagree. The best I can find Twitter currently has 2,900 - 3,000 employees (they had a high of 3,900 the best I can tell). What products and solutions do they have? Almost none with almost no evolution to show for the past 5+ years. They are extremely employee heavy. Granted I can't know for sure how their internals work but 900 employees should be able to not only run but to evolve the platform without issue, even including sales and marketing. Far more company have done much more with much less than that.