6 ms·

Its really sad for those 50 employees who had to lose their jobs due to incompetence of Medium's executives and its business model. Its due to a deeply embedde

Its really sad for those 50 employees who had to lose their jobs due to incompetence of Medium's executives and its business model. Its due to a deeply embedded business philosophy where CEOs and other business people try to create bigger companies, and not necessarily better companies. Sometimes they are able to trigger a mushroom growth, but most of the times they fail. But due to survivor bias, they create a few more wannabe CEOs who again trey to create bigger and not better companies, and the cycle repeats. Medium currently had a full fledged Sales, Support, HR and even a big ass operations dept. And 2 or 3 offices across United States. Their operations & other business depts were quite big in head count, even rivaling local oracle offices(which usually have about 1000+ employees). I can't necessarily say whether they had inefficiencies in their company structure, but they certainly over hired. Even disheartening thing is that they might have already dried up most of their cash, and still don't know how to run a business. Executives are currently playing a dangerous game of "Let's see if we can raise more" and "We'll think of something".

bdcravens 10y ago
> Its really sad for those 50 employees who had to lose their jobs due to incompetence of Medium's executives and its business model. Isn't it worth considering that those 50 employees should have never been hired, but only were due to incompetence of Medium's executives and its business model?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nkozyra 10y ago
  Sure, but it seems excessive to blame them twice ;)
- itsdrewmiller 10y ago
  Those aren't mutually exclusive - Medium overhired but it is sad for the people who didn't make that decision but lost their job because of it.
- brongondwana 10y ago
  There's opportunity costs for those employees for having taken that job rather than another option that may have been on the table at the time. Or having taken on additional responsibilities (loan, started a family, etc) based on having the job. Getting a job that shouldn't have existed and then losing it again isn't zero sum.
  - eropple 10y ago
    Agreed. In my experience, being out of a job six months after starting a new one is a net negative. I can spin a longer break between jobs a lot better than that.
    - paulcole 10y ago
      just leave it off your resume
      - eropple 10y ago
        Right, but then you're getting into the areas where talking about, say, a 12 month gap (4 months looking, 8 months working, then canned) instead of perhaps a 5 or a 6 month gap. It can be done, but it looks awkward, and it really sucks.
shostack 10y ago
Another concern is the growth and profit expectations that will come with more funding (beyond current expectations) and the lack of leverage they will have if they can raise more. I'm not sure there are many companies such a scenario has worked out well for, but I'd love to dig into examples if people have any. And working out well can mean different things for investors vs employees vs customers vs free users vs readers. I would expect the interests to become less aligned the more investment they take on without being profitable (see Evernote's recent moves and resulting user backlash).
dohertyjf 10y ago
> I can't necessarily say whether they had inefficiencies in their company structure, but they certainly over hired. Yep, we are seeing this time and time again with startups in the Bay Area who went on a landgrab for talent a few years ago and now realize they can't support them as the VC money dried up. I actually wonder if Medium was trying to raise more and they were unable to, therefore they have to do this and are trying to spin it positively. I respect Ev a lot. He revolutionized blogging and publishing on the web. And I want Medium to do well. And maybe I'm too cynical about the startup and SV world (I moved away from SF in October), but this smells of the same old same old to me.
- username223 10y ago
  > I respect Ev a lot. He revolutionized blogging and publishing on the web. Serious questions: why and how? I both write a blog and read blogs. I have never had any desire to move my blog to Medium, and ask myself "is it really worth it?" before clicking on any Medium link.
  - peterarmstrong 10y ago
    Blogger and Twitter.
    - username223 10y ago
      Blogger was just another LiveJournal, BlogSpot, or WordPress (StudlyCaps IntEntional). Twitter (i.e. "public SMS") has very little to do with blogging.
  - intoverflow2 10y ago
    >Serious questions: why and how? Branding
SerLava 10y ago
>Medium currently had a full fledged Sales, Support, HR and even a big ass operations dept. And 2 or 3 offices across United States. Their operations & other business depts were quite big in head count, even rivaling local oracle offices Holy shit, sorry if I'm coming in to this discussion late and empty handed but isn't Medium basically a fucking blog?
- stevula 10y ago
  It's really a blogging platform. I can see why they would need a large sales and customer support department. Whether it was too big, I have no idea.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    It's way to big. This company could be run successfully with ~30-40 people.
- untog 10y ago
  It's a publishing platform, which sold itself to some smaller publications for use as their public facing site (like The Awl). It intended to make money through advertising. So sales and support is hardly out of the question. But at the size it grew to? No.
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  it's exactly that, an easier wordpress as a service with a cool, officially sounding domain name and one fixed theme better than competitors of the time but fading out of fashion fast.
jmknoll 10y ago
"So, we are shifting our resources and attention to defining a new model for writers and creators to be rewarded, based on the value they’re creating for people. And toward building a transformational product for curious humans who want to get smarter about the world every day. It is too soon to say exactly what this will look like. This strategy is more focused but also less proven." In so many words, "We'll think of something."
- type0 10y ago
  > In so many words, "We'll think of something." Maybe they would try to get acquihired
  - ascorbic 10y ago
    Companies that raised $123 million don't get acquihired.
    - gph 10y ago
      Why not? That's a genuine question, not trying to be a smartass. Would a company that raised that much money not be worth its value to be acquired? Edit: Looks like Instagram had raised 50m before being acquihired. Definitely a much different situation than this one, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that a company which raised 100+ million would be acquihired.
      - demystified 10y ago
        I would not consider Instagram being "acquihired". See definition from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acqui-hiring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acqui-hiring): "...the process of acquiring a company to recruit its employees, without necessarily showing an interest in its products and services—or their continued operation"
      - ascorbic 10y ago
        Because acquihires are at much, much lower valuations than that. You'd be relying on the investors agreeing to basically write off their investment.

bdcravens 10y ago

> Its really sad for those 50 employees who had to lose their jobs due to incompetence of Medium's executives and its business model. Isn't it worth considering that those 50 employees should have never been hired, but only were due to incompetence of Medium's executives and its business model?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nkozyra 10y ago
Sure, but it seems excessive to blame them twice ;)
itsdrewmiller 10y ago
Those aren't mutually exclusive - Medium overhired but it is sad for the people who didn't make that decision but lost their job because of it.
brongondwana 10y ago
There's opportunity costs for those employees for having taken that job rather than another option that may have been on the table at the time. Or having taken on additional responsibilities (loan, started a family, etc) based on having the job. Getting a job that shouldn't have existed and then losing it again isn't zero sum.
- eropple 10y ago
  Agreed. In my experience, being out of a job six months after starting a new one is a net negative. I can spin a longer break between jobs a lot better than that.
  - paulcole 10y ago
    just leave it off your resume
    - eropple 10y ago
      Right, but then you're getting into the areas where talking about, say, a 12 month gap (4 months looking, 8 months working, then canned) instead of perhaps a 5 or a 6 month gap. It can be done, but it looks awkward, and it really sucks.

shostack 10y ago

Another concern is the growth and profit expectations that will come with more funding (beyond current expectations) and the lack of leverage they will have if they can raise more. I'm not sure there are many companies such a scenario has worked out well for, but I'd love to dig into examples if people have any. And working out well can mean different things for investors vs employees vs customers vs free users vs readers. I would expect the interests to become less aligned the more investment they take on without being profitable (see Evernote's recent moves and resulting user backlash).

dohertyjf 10y ago

> I can't necessarily say whether they had inefficiencies in their company structure, but they certainly over hired. Yep, we are seeing this time and time again with startups in the Bay Area who went on a landgrab for talent a few years ago and now realize they can't support them as the VC money dried up. I actually wonder if Medium was trying to raise more and they were unable to, therefore they have to do this and are trying to spin it positively. I respect Ev a lot. He revolutionized blogging and publishing on the web. And I want Medium to do well. And maybe I'm too cynical about the startup and SV world (I moved away from SF in October), but this smells of the same old same old to me.

username223 10y ago
> I respect Ev a lot. He revolutionized blogging and publishing on the web. Serious questions: why and how? I both write a blog and read blogs. I have never had any desire to move my blog to Medium, and ask myself "is it really worth it?" before clicking on any Medium link.
- peterarmstrong 10y ago
  Blogger and Twitter.
  - username223 10y ago
    Blogger was just another LiveJournal, BlogSpot, or WordPress (StudlyCaps IntEntional). Twitter (i.e. "public SMS") has very little to do with blogging.
- intoverflow2 10y ago
  >Serious questions: why and how? Branding

SerLava 10y ago

>Medium currently had a full fledged Sales, Support, HR and even a big ass operations dept. And 2 or 3 offices across United States. Their operations & other business depts were quite big in head count, even rivaling local oracle offices Holy shit, sorry if I'm coming in to this discussion late and empty handed but isn't Medium basically a fucking blog?

stevula 10y ago
It's really a blogging platform. I can see why they would need a large sales and customer support department. Whether it was too big, I have no idea.
- ProAm 10y ago
  It's way to big. This company could be run successfully with ~30-40 people.
untog 10y ago
It's a publishing platform, which sold itself to some smaller publications for use as their public facing site (like The Awl). It intended to make money through advertising. So sales and support is hardly out of the question. But at the size it grew to? No.
LoSboccacc 10y ago
it's exactly that, an easier wordpress as a service with a cool, officially sounding domain name and one fixed theme better than competitors of the time but fading out of fashion fast.

jmknoll 10y ago

"So, we are shifting our resources and attention to defining a new model for writers and creators to be rewarded, based on the value they’re creating for people. And toward building a transformational product for curious humans who want to get smarter about the world every day. It is too soon to say exactly what this will look like. This strategy is more focused but also less proven." In so many words, "We'll think of something."

type0 10y ago
> In so many words, "We'll think of something." Maybe they would try to get acquihired
- ascorbic 10y ago
  Companies that raised $123 million don't get acquihired.
  - gph 10y ago
    Why not? That's a genuine question, not trying to be a smartass. Would a company that raised that much money not be worth its value to be acquired? Edit: Looks like Instagram had raised 50m before being acquihired. Definitely a much different situation than this one, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that a company which raised 100+ million would be acquihired.
    - demystified 10y ago
      I would not consider Instagram being "acquihired". See definition from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acqui-hiring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acqui-hiring): "...the process of acquiring a company to recruit its employees, without necessarily showing an interest in its products and services—or their continued operation"
    - ascorbic 10y ago
      Because acquihires are at much, much lower valuations than that. You'd be relying on the investors agreeing to basically write off their investment.