4 ms·

> We let a lot of good people go and doubled down on generating the advertising dollars we needed to stay alive. And then > We even took all of our employees

> We let a lot of good people go and doubled down on generating the advertising dollars we needed to stay alive. And then > We even took all of our employees to Hawaii to celebrate This is an interesting juxtaposition within the same paragraph. I hope I'm not out of line for reading this as, "Let's celebrate our thriftiness that led to people becoming suddenly unemployed by splurging on an extravagant vacation!"

hemantv 8y ago
Those happened at completely different times. First was hard time where they had to let go people. Second was for people who stayed and worked hard to make it profitable.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  > Those happened at completely different times. The article stated a 2 month difference toward profitability, and provided no other frame of reference for the (immediate? eventual?) Hawaii getaway. They do mention at "the end of the year" but there is no information stated about when this 6 month "get out of the tailspin" process began in the [calendar/fiscal] year, so that's non-helpful. Without additional context, that's a single digit number of pay cycles between, "Surprise! You're laid off to save the company" to "We can afford a lifestyle of excess". I mean, I would hope that it didn't go down this way, and the paragraph was just written awkwardly. If the author wants to make that clearer, I'd be happy to listen. But as that blurb stands now, it reads as a casual dismissal of the "good people" let go at best, and a slap in their face at worst, which isn't a good look.
  - mockingbirdy 8y ago
    I think I've learned something. Very eye-opening. > 1. staff up > 2. let your employees go > 3. profit > 4. give tips on the internet that you shouldn't staff up > 5. stop to look into a mirror because you don't have any integrity whatsoever I hope he just forgot to mention that there was a <minimum time to let it seem reasonable and humane> duration between the firing and the holiday.
ender341341 8y ago
I took it as after laying people off they were able to actually make money and a year later they were making enough to do extravagant events. With the limited context it doesn't sound the best. With different framing it's more reasonable but I probably wouldn't have included it in the article.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  > and a year later I'm not sure I see where this "year later" is derived from in the article. This is what the relevant section of the article says as I read it now: After 4 months of failed pitches (in a process we organized poorly) the only option we had left was to cut expenses and break even (here is how to organize a good process). We let a lot of good people go and doubled down on generating the advertising dollars we needed to stay alive. Within 2 months we went from burning $250k a month to making $100k a month and we ended the year at $8m in revenue and $1m in profit (Suhail, co-founder of Mixpanel, describes that tactic in a great tweet). We even took all of our employees to Hawaii to celebrate Starting at some point in time, they spent 4 months failing then 2 months in correction, then ended the year profitable and celebrated. If t0 was in late June, the delta between the 6-month ordeal and the celebration would have been zero. If t0 was in early January, it would've been six months. (Plus/minus a month depending on calendar/fiscal year.)
  - pdpi 8y ago
    given the phrasing I’m working on the assumption that they didn’t end up >$250k net income/profit (not clear what the $100k number refers to) soon after getting in the black. Given that they were in the red before, they still had some losses to work through before they could start building towards that $1M profit. The one year timeline sounds about right
    - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
      Okay, I think your analysis is reasonable. I still wish the article was more clear about the timeline.
ben509 8y ago
Even without the context, it's different for a startup to let people go, though, as it's well understood as the risk of working for a startup.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  Well understood by whom? - Founders? - Venture Capitalists? - Startup Employees? - Internet commenters from all over the world? - All of the Above?
  - mockingbirdy 8y ago
    Cynical 4chan users and people without integrity, especially. Only the latter are able to write about success and corporate holidays in the same paragraph they write about how they fired many people only a few months before.
  - patejam 8y ago
    It should be understood by the employees. I joined a Big-whatever company because of the stability. If I was going to join a small startup, I'd be aware of the instability. That doesn't mean it isn't bad to lay people off in a startup; it's horrible. And it means the founders did something wrong (hired too many people, didn't have a good business model, etc). But it should be understood that the entire company can disappear in 6 months if its a new startup.
    - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
      > It should be understood by the employees. I agree. > I joined a Big-whatever company because of the stability. If I was going to join a small startup, I'd be aware of the instability. I concur with your reasoning. > That doesn't mean it isn't bad to lay people off in a startup; it's horrible. And it means the founders did something wrong (hired too many people, didn't have a good business model, etc). 100% > But it should be understood that the entire company can disappear in 6 months if its a new startup. That's fair. But just because something should be understood, doesn't mean it necessarily is understood by all parties. Assuming "ought implies is" is how a lot of dangerous mistakes happen.
mwseibel 8y ago
Letting people go didn’t get us to profitable. Massively increasing the ad inventory did.
- CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
  If you have time, do you think you could edit the article to make the intent of that paragraph a little more clear? Right now it reads a bit tone-deaf, and the timeline is ambiguous.

hemantv 8y ago

Those happened at completely different times. First was hard time where they had to let go people. Second was for people who stayed and worked hard to make it profitable.

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
> Those happened at completely different times. The article stated a 2 month difference toward profitability, and provided no other frame of reference for the (immediate? eventual?) Hawaii getaway. They do mention at "the end of the year" but there is no information stated about when this 6 month "get out of the tailspin" process began in the [calendar/fiscal] year, so that's non-helpful. Without additional context, that's a single digit number of pay cycles between, "Surprise! You're laid off to save the company" to "We can afford a lifestyle of excess". I mean, I would hope that it didn't go down this way, and the paragraph was just written awkwardly. If the author wants to make that clearer, I'd be happy to listen. But as that blurb stands now, it reads as a casual dismissal of the "good people" let go at best, and a slap in their face at worst, which isn't a good look.
- mockingbirdy 8y ago
  I think I've learned something. Very eye-opening. > 1. staff up > 2. let your employees go > 3. profit > 4. give tips on the internet that you shouldn't staff up > 5. stop to look into a mirror because you don't have any integrity whatsoever I hope he just forgot to mention that there was a <minimum time to let it seem reasonable and humane> duration between the firing and the holiday.

ender341341 8y ago

I took it as after laying people off they were able to actually make money and a year later they were making enough to do extravagant events. With the limited context it doesn't sound the best. With different framing it's more reasonable but I probably wouldn't have included it in the article.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
> and a year later I'm not sure I see where this "year later" is derived from in the article. This is what the relevant section of the article says as I read it now: After 4 months of failed pitches (in a process we organized poorly) the only option we had left was to cut expenses and break even (here is how to organize a good process). We let a lot of good people go and doubled down on generating the advertising dollars we needed to stay alive. Within 2 months we went from burning $250k a month to making $100k a month and we ended the year at $8m in revenue and $1m in profit (Suhail, co-founder of Mixpanel, describes that tactic in a great tweet). We even took all of our employees to Hawaii to celebrate Starting at some point in time, they spent 4 months failing then 2 months in correction, then ended the year profitable and celebrated. If t0 was in late June, the delta between the 6-month ordeal and the celebration would have been zero. If t0 was in early January, it would've been six months. (Plus/minus a month depending on calendar/fiscal year.)
- pdpi 8y ago
  given the phrasing I’m working on the assumption that they didn’t end up >$250k net income/profit (not clear what the $100k number refers to) soon after getting in the black. Given that they were in the red before, they still had some losses to work through before they could start building towards that $1M profit. The one year timeline sounds about right
  - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
    Okay, I think your analysis is reasonable. I still wish the article was more clear about the timeline.

ben509 8y ago

Even without the context, it's different for a startup to let people go, though, as it's well understood as the risk of working for a startup.

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
Well understood by whom? - Founders? - Venture Capitalists? - Startup Employees? - Internet commenters from all over the world? - All of the Above?
- mockingbirdy 8y ago
  Cynical 4chan users and people without integrity, especially. Only the latter are able to write about success and corporate holidays in the same paragraph they write about how they fired many people only a few months before.
- patejam 8y ago
  It should be understood by the employees. I joined a Big-whatever company because of the stability. If I was going to join a small startup, I'd be aware of the instability. That doesn't mean it isn't bad to lay people off in a startup; it's horrible. And it means the founders did something wrong (hired too many people, didn't have a good business model, etc). But it should be understood that the entire company can disappear in 6 months if its a new startup.
  - CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
    > It should be understood by the employees. I agree. > I joined a Big-whatever company because of the stability. If I was going to join a small startup, I'd be aware of the instability. I concur with your reasoning. > That doesn't mean it isn't bad to lay people off in a startup; it's horrible. And it means the founders did something wrong (hired too many people, didn't have a good business model, etc). 100% > But it should be understood that the entire company can disappear in 6 months if its a new startup. That's fair. But just because something should be understood, doesn't mean it necessarily is understood by all parties. Assuming "ought implies is" is how a lot of dangerous mistakes happen.

mwseibel 8y ago

Letting people go didn’t get us to profitable. Massively increasing the ad inventory did.

CiPHPerCoder 8y ago
If you have time, do you think you could edit the article to make the intent of that paragraph a little more clear? Right now it reads a bit tone-deaf, and the timeline is ambiguous.