4 ms·
Accenture isn't evidence of scale. It has revenue per employee of only $88k, nearly the lowest in the S&P 500, close to Starbucks and McDonald's, but with much
by jmalicki 9y ago
Accenture isn't evidence of scale.
It has revenue per employee of only $88k, nearly the lowest in the S&P 500, close to Starbucks and McDonald's, but with much higher paid employees. That's a complete clusterfuck of a business, and exactly why you don't want to do consulting.
https://priceonomics.com/which-companies-have-the-highest-revenue-per/ https://priceonomics.com/which-companies-have-the-highest-re...
Whereas Facebook has $2M of revenue per employee, and nearly $200k in profit per employee, which is more than Accenture's revenue per employee. There's not remotely a comparison.
- Retric 9y agoFacebook can't use 200,000 workers making that a meaningless comparison. Really, Facebook has more limited growth potential without becoming a different company as they can only make so much money from social media. On the other hand you can have 1,000,000 people working for you if you are simply managing work outsourced by others. Foxconn has 136.12 billion in revenue and 1.3 million workers. Facebook has 27.64 billion USD Revenue and plenty of profit but fewer ways to grow Revenue.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jmalicki 9y agoYou usually want to scale revenue, not costs....
- Retric 9y agoIdeally you scale costs to increase profit. If you could increase retinue from thin air then you're not actually scaling anything. But, in a scalable model you invest more in your leverage be that advertising or whatever and you get more revenue which assuming a good cost structure directly results in profit. Facebooks problem is they can't scale because they already own the market and there are profitable new customers available. If they spend more on advertising they simply get less profit because their costs go up without increasing revenue.