7 ms·

Honest non snarky question, why does it take 1,400 employees to sell mail order glasses, which are essentially a quasi-commodity product? What are all those emp

by astura 8y ago

Honest non snarky question, why does it take 1,400 employees to sell mail order glasses, which are essentially a quasi-commodity product? What are all those employees doing? And since TFA says that balloons are put on the new hire's desk it implies these are all desk jobs, implying they probably outsource their manufacturing to factories in China. I ask because I worked at a company that sold machinery at scale (which is much more complicated than glasses, which don't require novel engineering). We did all our physical manufacturing in-house, we had a manufacturing floor on the other side of the wall from the cubicles. We had somewhere between 250-275 employees to run the entire shop, that's manufacturing, engineering, software (embedded and application), marketing, IT, sales, logistics... Not sure if we outsourced our cleaning crew or not. I wouldn't expect a mail order glasses company to have more than 500 employees.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
darkstar999 8y ago
Check out their job listings to get an idea. https://www.warbyparker.com/jobs https://www.warbyparker.com/jobs They have a bunch of retail locations. Software. Accounting. R&D. Marketing. Logistics.
manacit 8y ago
They're not just mail order - the article wasn't clear, but perhaps that 1,400 number includes all of the people that work at their retail stores: https://www.warbyparker.com/retail https://www.warbyparker.com/retail There are certainly enough of them that I'd imagine it bumps the numbers up quite a bit.
- astura 8y ago
  Okay, I didn't realize they had retail stores, that makes more sense then.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
whitepoplar 8y ago
This is going to sound really insensitive, but I've noticed that trendy VC-backed startups often hire people that they believe are smart, but who often turn out to be entitled and ineffective, and thus the company needs to hire more employees than is typical to get the job done. I think there's also a tendency for people not spending their own money to chase absolute outcomes rather than Pareto outcomes. e.g. if an 85% solution costs $n, startups often spend $10n on the 100% solution. My guess is that if you're a founder spending your own money, you'd pick the 85% solution.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- freehunter 8y ago
  On the other hand, what is a startup if not an experiment? Especially a VC-backed startup. Hiring non-traditional employees in non-traditional ways (compared to enterprise companies), playing around with headcount and job roles in non-traditional ways, and seeking non-traditional ways of doing business. Many of them fail, but the ones who succeed often change the way business is done in multiple industries. Every startup is an experiment in doing business a different way. If they went with the 85% solution or hired off-the-shelf employees, they'd just be another small business. There's nothing wrong with being another small business, but startups are so drastically different that we came up with an entirely different term to talk about small businesses who do things in wildly non-traditional ways with the hope that those non-traditional tactics will lead to unprecedented success. We call them startups.
- conductr 8y ago
  Ineffectiveness in this sense is leaderships fault. They hired without vision for why the role was needed, what’s expected, and established accountability. Combine that with a culture where you’re expected to be real friends with everyone results in a lot of people sitting around drinking coffee and playing ping pong.
owyn 8y ago
I can't say this is the case here, but Warby Parker does have like a hundred retail outlets now. Frequently (as with Apple) journalists will just report the total number of employees including retail employees without breaking it down into categories. This obviously throws off a lot of weird numbers if not accounted for, which is part of what "public relations" is all about. According to wikipedia they do manufacture their glasses in house now, and there are apparently 150 employees in that factory.
- teddyaltman 8y ago
  This is a big part of their growing numbers. They used to be a small, direct-to-consumer digital brand. But after early adopters bought glasses, they needed to get more eyes on their product so they started with small showrooms in NYC. Now they've expanded more and more. I think the margins on the glasses are still good so they're not over expanding but they definitely need more employees in this stage of the company.
detaro 8y ago
Without knowing the details of what your example did: You probably didn't have 75+ retail locations, didn't need to do the kind of marketing effort a quick-growing consumer/fashion brand requires, might have needed less customer support (due to having fewer, larger customers, unless you did very custom things), had less logistics overhead than a company that ships frames to people to try on and return. They also do parts of the production chain in-house.
- astura 8y ago
  I didn't realize they had retail locations, the employee count makes much more sense when you're running retail locations. I thought they were just a mail order company. I think what really threw me off was "welcome balloons on desks" which heavily implies (at least to me) all of employees have desk jobs.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    This thread exemplifies why employee count isn't suitable as even a rough indicator of corporate performance.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      What is? Revenue per employee or net profit per employee?
      - quickthrower2 8y ago
        Profit? Cashflow?
      - izzydata 8y ago
        Average salary excluding executives.
        Spivak 8y ago
        Average with a blacklist seems like it's just a worse median.
stcredzero 8y ago
Honest non snarky question, why does it take 1,400 employees to sell mail order glasses, which are essentially a quasi-commodity product? Ideally, a whole lot of them would be brilliant people working on improving design, improving support, and improving the supply chain. Most likely, a lot of them are working on or administering the retail storefronts, which in 2018 is a somewhat a marketing function. Also more likely: A lot of them are working on marketing. The incentives of the investors and customers don't quite align. This misalignment vector generally expresses itself through the Marketing, PR, and legal teams.
seppin 8y ago
> Honest non snarky question, why does it take 1,400 employees to sell mail order glasses, Because before technology fucked the labour balance of the global economy, this is how industry worked.

by astura 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

darkstar999 8y ago

Check out their job listings to get an idea. https://www.warbyparker.com/jobs https://www.warbyparker.com/jobs They have a bunch of retail locations. Software. Accounting. R&D. Marketing. Logistics.

manacit 8y ago

They're not just mail order - the article wasn't clear, but perhaps that 1,400 number includes all of the people that work at their retail stores: https://www.warbyparker.com/retail https://www.warbyparker.com/retail There are certainly enough of them that I'd imagine it bumps the numbers up quite a bit.

astura 8y ago
Okay, I didn't realize they had retail stores, that makes more sense then.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

whitepoplar 8y ago

This is going to sound really insensitive, but I've noticed that trendy VC-backed startups often hire people that they believe are smart, but who often turn out to be entitled and ineffective, and thus the company needs to hire more employees than is typical to get the job done. I think there's also a tendency for people not spending their own money to chase absolute outcomes rather than Pareto outcomes. e.g. if an 85% solution costs $n, startups often spend $10n on the 100% solution. My guess is that if you're a founder spending your own money, you'd pick the 85% solution.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
freehunter 8y ago
On the other hand, what is a startup if not an experiment? Especially a VC-backed startup. Hiring non-traditional employees in non-traditional ways (compared to enterprise companies), playing around with headcount and job roles in non-traditional ways, and seeking non-traditional ways of doing business. Many of them fail, but the ones who succeed often change the way business is done in multiple industries. Every startup is an experiment in doing business a different way. If they went with the 85% solution or hired off-the-shelf employees, they'd just be another small business. There's nothing wrong with being another small business, but startups are so drastically different that we came up with an entirely different term to talk about small businesses who do things in wildly non-traditional ways with the hope that those non-traditional tactics will lead to unprecedented success. We call them startups.
conductr 8y ago
Ineffectiveness in this sense is leaderships fault. They hired without vision for why the role was needed, what’s expected, and established accountability. Combine that with a culture where you’re expected to be real friends with everyone results in a lot of people sitting around drinking coffee and playing ping pong.

owyn 8y ago

I can't say this is the case here, but Warby Parker does have like a hundred retail outlets now. Frequently (as with Apple) journalists will just report the total number of employees including retail employees without breaking it down into categories. This obviously throws off a lot of weird numbers if not accounted for, which is part of what "public relations" is all about. According to wikipedia they do manufacture their glasses in house now, and there are apparently 150 employees in that factory.

teddyaltman 8y ago
This is a big part of their growing numbers. They used to be a small, direct-to-consumer digital brand. But after early adopters bought glasses, they needed to get more eyes on their product so they started with small showrooms in NYC. Now they've expanded more and more. I think the margins on the glasses are still good so they're not over expanding but they definitely need more employees in this stage of the company.

detaro 8y ago

Without knowing the details of what your example did: You probably didn't have 75+ retail locations, didn't need to do the kind of marketing effort a quick-growing consumer/fashion brand requires, might have needed less customer support (due to having fewer, larger customers, unless you did very custom things), had less logistics overhead than a company that ships frames to people to try on and return. They also do parts of the production chain in-house.

astura 8y ago
I didn't realize they had retail locations, the employee count makes much more sense when you're running retail locations. I thought they were just a mail order company. I think what really threw me off was "welcome balloons on desks" which heavily implies (at least to me) all of employees have desk jobs.
- weberc2 8y ago
  This thread exemplifies why employee count isn't suitable as even a rough indicator of corporate performance.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    What is? Revenue per employee or net profit per employee?
    - quickthrower2 8y ago
      Profit? Cashflow?
    - izzydata 8y ago
      Average salary excluding executives.
      - Spivak 8y ago
        Average with a blacklist seems like it's just a worse median.

stcredzero 8y ago

Honest non snarky question, why does it take 1,400 employees to sell mail order glasses, which are essentially a quasi-commodity product? Ideally, a whole lot of them would be brilliant people working on improving design, improving support, and improving the supply chain. Most likely, a lot of them are working on or administering the retail storefronts, which in 2018 is a somewhat a marketing function. Also more likely: A lot of them are working on marketing. The incentives of the investors and customers don't quite align. This misalignment vector generally expresses itself through the Marketing, PR, and legal teams.

seppin 8y ago

> Honest non snarky question, why does it take 1,400 employees to sell mail order glasses, Because before technology fucked the labour balance of the global economy, this is how industry worked.