4 ms·

I've never understood why Digg required so many staff (~80) while competitors such as Reddit have < 10 people. Bringing their numbers down to a level more appro

by ajg1977 16y ago

I've never understood why Digg required so many staff (~80) while competitors such as Reddit have < 10 people. Bringing their numbers down to a level more appropriate for their product (and revenue opportunity) can only be a good thing.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Companies model themselves on archetypes people have in their minds. The management at Digg had an idea about the kind of company they wanted Digg to be and they built offices and hired employees to match that idea, even if it didn't quite fit the day-to-day reality of what operations at Digg required. (Companies do this all the time, it's a big reason why newspapers are dying and why so many VC funded dot-coms have gone bust, for example.)
wensing 16y ago
can only be a good thing Not really. What it could mean is a downward spiral, which is what's been happening in the newspaper biz. Fewer people can't do as much work, which means lower revenues, which means fewer people, which ... The deeper problem (in the newspaper example) is very few of the employees have skills that can be leveraged to increase output while reducing headcount. Newspapers are loaded with coal-shovelers. Fewer shovelers, less coal. If you've built your business on coal-shoveling and the value of coal drops, it's very hard to find a profitable kernel to retreat to.
- jamesteow 16y ago
  "Fewer people can't do as much work" In most cases that's true. However, it's also a possible and very feasible way to cut away the excesses and keep on-board core pieces that can compensate for the losses. For example, a company I used to work for had a massive layoff when the bubble burst in the early 2000s. They learned their lesson and had very gradual employee growth while they still continued on lucrative projects eventually expanding rapidly today.
- paresh97 16y ago
  thanks for you ==================== <a href="http://www.TopYields.nl http://www.TopYields.nl rel="dofollow">Top Dividend Yields</a>
lkrubner 16y ago
I recall, circa 2007, people were enamored of some the visualization tools that were coming out of Digg Labs. Most of the designers that I respected also respected the work being done at Digg, and I was often asked if I thought some of their visualization tools might become interfaces for data sources other than Digg. From this, I inferred that Digg wanted to be an idea lab, a kind of innovation factory, sort of like Google, constantly coming up with new ideas and services. So they staffed up in the hopes of becoming that kind of company. But they failed to pull it off.
- synack 16y ago
  Those visualizations were built by Stamen Design, a company that still creates really cool stuff today. http://stamen.com/ http://stamen.com/
  - elblanco 16y ago
    I always thought the stuff they made for dig was really great looking, but darned if I could ever find any utility in any of them.
- tieTYT 16y ago
  I just started my own blog and was asking a coworker how I could get it noticed. He suggested reddit. "That's a good idea. And Digg, too, huh?" "Don't even bother with Digg," he said, "There's no chance your article will get on the front page". "Well, it's worth a shot," I replied. He seemed to disagree. So, being the stubborn guy I am, I decided to post on both. Every time I post on reddit, I get at least 100 views from it. I've yet to notice a single view from posting on Digg. I don't really know what my point is. I guess this anecdote is another reason they're in trouble. If I have an interesting post (subjective), posting it on Digg will now be an afterthought to me.
PonyGumbo 16y ago
>Bringing their numbers down to a level more appropriate for their product (and revenue opportunity) can only be a good thing. It's necessary, at least. The problem with having multiple layoffs is that morale suffers across the board ("am I next?", etc), and the best talent often flees.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  Yeah, hopefully they've made a conservative income forecast and they won't have to lay off even more people. Better for everyone concerned to do it all in one fell swoop.
baq 16y ago
reddit has ~5 people and they _still_ have problems paying for themselves. i can't imagine who paid for digg's 80.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- dzlobin 16y ago
  Digg raised 40M in vc money, reddit raised 100K before they were acquired.
- rythie 16y ago
  Maybe with the $10+ million in revenue? http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/25/digg-to-lay-off-37-percentof-staff/#dsq-comment-header-89955071 http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/25/digg-to-lay-off-37-percento... [edit: search for Joe Stump's comment]
flannell 16y ago
All you need to know is right here on this DVD http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/ It's called Startup.com and shows the massive initial growth of Govworks web-site (300+ staff), but then things go South and their competitors catch them up and put them out of business. One of my favourite documentaries and gives good insight into the dot com bubble burst of 2000-2001.
- points 16y ago
  It's a great movie. Also really funny and surprising just how little time/mind share/effort they seemed to spend on the actual product and users of it. Of course that could have been in the editing.
  - tsotha 16y ago
    That was the dotcom bubble for ya. Everybody was swinging for the bleachers and using VC money to pay the bills. It made some sense - you had something brand new and the first-mover advantage was a big advantage. So the important thing was to take your idea to product and worry about self-sufficiency after you had customers. At some point you have to wean yourself off the VC money. Some of these companies were set up more to land investors than customers, and even though they understood, intellectually, in the long term the money had to come from the customer, it's not an easy shift.
sabat 16y ago
The other problem this creates: sure, you lay off the weaker people. But now the stronger people will recognize their potential fate as well, and so they'll be looking for new jobs.

by ajg1977 16y ago

InclinedPlane 16y ago

Companies model themselves on archetypes people have in their minds. The management at Digg had an idea about the kind of company they wanted Digg to be and they built offices and hired employees to match that idea, even if it didn't quite fit the day-to-day reality of what operations at Digg required. (Companies do this all the time, it's a big reason why newspapers are dying and why so many VC funded dot-coms have gone bust, for example.)

wensing 16y ago

can only be a good thing Not really. What it could mean is a downward spiral, which is what's been happening in the newspaper biz. Fewer people can't do as much work, which means lower revenues, which means fewer people, which ... The deeper problem (in the newspaper example) is very few of the employees have skills that can be leveraged to increase output while reducing headcount. Newspapers are loaded with coal-shovelers. Fewer shovelers, less coal. If you've built your business on coal-shoveling and the value of coal drops, it's very hard to find a profitable kernel to retreat to.

jamesteow 16y ago
"Fewer people can't do as much work" In most cases that's true. However, it's also a possible and very feasible way to cut away the excesses and keep on-board core pieces that can compensate for the losses. For example, a company I used to work for had a massive layoff when the bubble burst in the early 2000s. They learned their lesson and had very gradual employee growth while they still continued on lucrative projects eventually expanding rapidly today.
paresh97 16y ago
thanks for you ==================== <a href="http://www.TopYields.nl http://www.TopYields.nl rel="dofollow">Top Dividend Yields</a>

lkrubner 16y ago

I recall, circa 2007, people were enamored of some the visualization tools that were coming out of Digg Labs. Most of the designers that I respected also respected the work being done at Digg, and I was often asked if I thought some of their visualization tools might become interfaces for data sources other than Digg. From this, I inferred that Digg wanted to be an idea lab, a kind of innovation factory, sort of like Google, constantly coming up with new ideas and services. So they staffed up in the hopes of becoming that kind of company. But they failed to pull it off.

synack 16y ago
Those visualizations were built by Stamen Design, a company that still creates really cool stuff today. http://stamen.com/ http://stamen.com/
- elblanco 16y ago
  I always thought the stuff they made for dig was really great looking, but darned if I could ever find any utility in any of them.
tieTYT 16y ago
I just started my own blog and was asking a coworker how I could get it noticed. He suggested reddit. "That's a good idea. And Digg, too, huh?" "Don't even bother with Digg," he said, "There's no chance your article will get on the front page". "Well, it's worth a shot," I replied. He seemed to disagree. So, being the stubborn guy I am, I decided to post on both. Every time I post on reddit, I get at least 100 views from it. I've yet to notice a single view from posting on Digg. I don't really know what my point is. I guess this anecdote is another reason they're in trouble. If I have an interesting post (subjective), posting it on Digg will now be an afterthought to me.

PonyGumbo 16y ago

>Bringing their numbers down to a level more appropriate for their product (and revenue opportunity) can only be a good thing. It's necessary, at least. The problem with having multiple layoffs is that morale suffers across the board ("am I next?", etc), and the best talent often flees.

redthrowaway 16y ago
Yeah, hopefully they've made a conservative income forecast and they won't have to lay off even more people. Better for everyone concerned to do it all in one fell swoop.

baq 16y ago

reddit has ~5 people and they _still_ have problems paying for themselves. i can't imagine who paid for digg's 80.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dzlobin 16y ago
Digg raised 40M in vc money, reddit raised 100K before they were acquired.
rythie 16y ago
Maybe with the $10+ million in revenue? http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/25/digg-to-lay-off-37-percentof-staff/#dsq-comment-header-89955071 http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/25/digg-to-lay-off-37-percento... [edit: search for Joe Stump's comment]

flannell 16y ago

All you need to know is right here on this DVD http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/ It's called Startup.com and shows the massive initial growth of Govworks web-site (300+ staff), but then things go South and their competitors catch them up and put them out of business. One of my favourite documentaries and gives good insight into the dot com bubble burst of 2000-2001.

points 16y ago
It's a great movie. Also really funny and surprising just how little time/mind share/effort they seemed to spend on the actual product and users of it. Of course that could have been in the editing.
- tsotha 16y ago
  That was the dotcom bubble for ya. Everybody was swinging for the bleachers and using VC money to pay the bills. It made some sense - you had something brand new and the first-mover advantage was a big advantage. So the important thing was to take your idea to product and worry about self-sufficiency after you had customers. At some point you have to wean yourself off the VC money. Some of these companies were set up more to land investors than customers, and even though they understood, intellectually, in the long term the money had to come from the customer, it's not an easy shift.

sabat 16y ago

The other problem this creates: sure, you lay off the weaker people. But now the stronger people will recognize their potential fate as well, and so they'll be looking for new jobs.