9 ms·

This is perhaps simply a good reminder that everyone has a price and nothing is set in stone. If you’re in a position of leadership, be humble and real. If you’

by dcow 5y ago

This is perhaps simply a good reminder that everyone has a price and nothing is set in stone. If you’re in a position of leadership, be humble and real. If you’re an employee, don’t be naive. The market has the last word.

amznbyebyebye 5y ago
The capitalism machine doesn’t care about your humility or integrity even- only that you obey the letter of the law. I learned that the hard way, work isn’t a religion with morals, it’s work and there are rules. Your second point however, “don’t be naive” agree 100%
- dcow 5y ago
  The first point is not about appeasing the machine… it’s about not overselling to your subordinate worker class because if they take the second point to heart they won’t buy it anyway. Just be honest and realistic and you’ll avoid looking like a crook, if you care. Maybe you don’t—you’re right such behavior is allowed in the rules.
- midasuni 5y ago
  > obey the letter of the law. Oh wait you’re serious. Let me laugh even harder. Breaking the law for a company is simple a cost of doing business. If that costs too ouch then the lobbying/bribe budget increases to cancel it out m, but most of the time it’s just a line of risk on the balance sheet.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    In other words, for companies, the law is a continuous function, where for individuals it's a discrete one. Where you and me have to ask ourselves, "do I break the law or not?", big companies ask themselves, "what is the optimal level of law breakage?".
    - tempestn 5y ago
      I'd argue it's not even quite that. Common law is not perfectly defined. So there aren't really levels of 'law breakage', but rather something more like, "what's the likelihood the potential legal costs of this outweigh the benefit?"
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      For some individuals it isn't even that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28543096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28543096
    - andrewingram 5y ago
      Or at least, which laws will someone go to jail for breaking vs us just getting slapped with a fine?
    - snowwrestler 5y ago
      I think it’s continuous for people too. Do we ever drive faster than the speed limit? Cross a street outside of a defined crosswalk? Do we voluntarily report all our out-of-state purchases on state taxes? If we sell something on Craigslist, do we always report that as income? I think a lot of people also have an optimal level of law breakage.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Selling some personal property at a loss (as is typical) is not income. The other examples are good ones.
        snowwrestler 5y ago
        People make money on Craigslist, selling services for example.
      - hellotomyrars 5y ago
        I agree there is a spectrum of compliance for your average person with the letter of the law and the reality of everyday life (and the meaningful consequence of breaking them). Jaywalking is very unlikely to have any meaningful impact to anyone, and mostly unlikely to be enforced. But the big thing that separates your everyday person and companies is that corporations will gladly and willfully break the law, even in cases where they weigh the risk (perhaps they have a legal argument about how it’s not actually breaking the law, but it’s probably paper thin) because it can often be more profitable to commit the crime. and pay whatever fine is imposed than not commit the crime in the first place. It is incredibly rare for anyone to go to jail or be prosecuted individually for corporate crimes, and so the risk to any particular individual is exceedingly low. I can’t really think of any reasonable example where I could commit a crime as an individual and come out the other side with a net positive, despite being caught/prosecuted. Corporations aren’t playing with the same deck, and their bad behavior is constantly rewarded. Sure, they can sometimes go over the line and tank the entire operation but that is far and away the exception instead of the rule.
touisteur 5y ago
And. Things and people can change their minds. Promises, absolutes or forevers should come with some kind of enforcing mechanism to be really, permanently trusted. And even then, beware of the penalty not being 'high enough'. But it's OK. It was very naive to say 'never' and it was a bit naive to take it at face value. As long as they paid their employees well and treated them with respect, and were clear of their prospects, I fail to see who is hurt here ? Except customers being now under the Intuit umbrella, that must hurt...
- kokey 5y ago
  I think what changed their mind was that the market changed. Mailchimp was run like a company that wanted to prevail in the market and not just grow and sell. That affected their strategy in a good way since it allowed them to spend time improving their services long term, but most importantly it prevented them from trying to grow aggressively for the sake of growing, which is a very very bad idea when it comes to sending bulk email. In the end what changed is that e-mail based marketing was on the decline, with other mediums taking over. There's a point where an industry that stops growing fast eventually consolidates and it tends to get absorbed by groups that has other revenue streams.
  - louisswiss 5y ago
    > In the end what changed is that e-mail based marketing was on the decline, with other mediums taking over. FWIW this is completely incorrect. Over the past 2 years other marketing channels have skyrocketed in cost (eg FB ads) and most brands/companies are now investing heavily into email marketing. It's a significant growth industry right now, more so than at any time since I've been involved with email marketing (since ~2010).
    - telesilla 5y ago
      Same experience for us. While we moved away from Mailchimp recently for Pardot, email marketing is huge growth area for us since the start of the pandemic. I think it's a combination of people seeking new solutions to this new world we live in, and understanding that if each email we send has a genuine value for who we send it to, they are very receptive. It's the opposite of spam, as we're asked more and more to please keep our customers up to date with the latest trends.
Barrin92 5y ago
feel compelled to shout out Jean-Baptiste Kempf (VLC) who refused to sell the project for 'several tens of millions' which makes me pretty confident that there's still people out there who will stick to their principles
- SergeAx 5y ago
  I am sure that MailChimp founders were sincere in their unwillingness to sell company. But 12 billions is 12 billions. I am sure that author of VLC would sell his product for much bigger money, the only problem that there's no one to offer him bigger money.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    >I am sure that author of VLC would sell his product for much bigger money, the only problem that there's no one to offer him bigger money. I don't know, having billions looks like a liability to me.
    - SergeAx 5y ago
      I don't think that we may classify big money as liability. Usually you cannot quickly get rid of your liability for free.
      - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
        https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/07/28/15-downsides-to-being-rich.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/07/28/15-downsides-to-b...
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      I’d be willing to risk that liability.
    - jacobr1 5y ago
      It is, but it also a liability you can afford to pay others to manage in detail.
magicalhippo 5y ago
Our largest competitor, who had 10x our revenue, got bought about 6 years ago by some huge international behemoth, which of course ran it into the ground over the course of a few years. Great for us, as we got almost all of their customers. I recently heard the story of how that happened. The original founders had no intention of selling out, and had signed a deal with the others that unless they were offered a well-defined but ridiculously high price, that the original founders could buy back the shares to take back control. Well, the multinational company offered the ridiculously high price, and the original founders had no chance to make a higher offer. So they lost "their baby", which is now just a pale shadow of what it once was. The founders got a lot of money of course, so not a sob story.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >The founders got a lot of money of course, so not a sob story. It must be disheartening though, to see something you created get run into the ground.
  - corobo 5y ago
    Am I the only one that would love that situation to be able to start a new thing on easy mode? You know a lot of the failures, you now have a massive network, you have a big wad of cash. Bust out the idea bin and make something else!
    - andi999 5y ago
      Having a lot of cash is not a good position to start a new product (your pivots will most likely be delayed due to that)
      - corobo 5y ago
        Ok fair enough I'd also definitely have to pass on dealing with that to an accountant but I more mean being able to work on it full time with no financial concern than chucking a milly after each idea Also to clarify on the seeming heartless I sort of see things as being diluted when others work on them -- in a good way! -- for each person that adds to your thing it goes from mine to our. Long enough and big enough and it's more other people's creativity than yours. Your baby is all grown up and ready to do it's own thing
wolverine876 5y ago
> The market has the last word. I think that's a bias of hindsight, something people say after seeing it happen in a particular situation. In other situations, principles, promises, and other factors have the last word.

by dcow 5y ago

amznbyebyebye 5y ago

The capitalism machine doesn’t care about your humility or integrity even- only that you obey the letter of the law. I learned that the hard way, work isn’t a religion with morals, it’s work and there are rules. Your second point however, “don’t be naive” agree 100%

dcow 5y ago
The first point is not about appeasing the machine… it’s about not overselling to your subordinate worker class because if they take the second point to heart they won’t buy it anyway. Just be honest and realistic and you’ll avoid looking like a crook, if you care. Maybe you don’t—you’re right such behavior is allowed in the rules.
midasuni 5y ago
> obey the letter of the law. Oh wait you’re serious. Let me laugh even harder. Breaking the law for a company is simple a cost of doing business. If that costs too ouch then the lobbying/bribe budget increases to cancel it out m, but most of the time it’s just a line of risk on the balance sheet.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  In other words, for companies, the law is a continuous function, where for individuals it's a discrete one. Where you and me have to ask ourselves, "do I break the law or not?", big companies ask themselves, "what is the optimal level of law breakage?".
  - tempestn 5y ago
    I'd argue it's not even quite that. Common law is not perfectly defined. So there aren't really levels of 'law breakage', but rather something more like, "what's the likelihood the potential legal costs of this outweigh the benefit?"
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    For some individuals it isn't even that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28543096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28543096
  - andrewingram 5y ago
    Or at least, which laws will someone go to jail for breaking vs us just getting slapped with a fine?
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    I think it’s continuous for people too. Do we ever drive faster than the speed limit? Cross a street outside of a defined crosswalk? Do we voluntarily report all our out-of-state purchases on state taxes? If we sell something on Craigslist, do we always report that as income? I think a lot of people also have an optimal level of law breakage.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Selling some personal property at a loss (as is typical) is not income. The other examples are good ones.
      - snowwrestler 5y ago
        People make money on Craigslist, selling services for example.
    - hellotomyrars 5y ago
      I agree there is a spectrum of compliance for your average person with the letter of the law and the reality of everyday life (and the meaningful consequence of breaking them). Jaywalking is very unlikely to have any meaningful impact to anyone, and mostly unlikely to be enforced. But the big thing that separates your everyday person and companies is that corporations will gladly and willfully break the law, even in cases where they weigh the risk (perhaps they have a legal argument about how it’s not actually breaking the law, but it’s probably paper thin) because it can often be more profitable to commit the crime. and pay whatever fine is imposed than not commit the crime in the first place. It is incredibly rare for anyone to go to jail or be prosecuted individually for corporate crimes, and so the risk to any particular individual is exceedingly low. I can’t really think of any reasonable example where I could commit a crime as an individual and come out the other side with a net positive, despite being caught/prosecuted. Corporations aren’t playing with the same deck, and their bad behavior is constantly rewarded. Sure, they can sometimes go over the line and tank the entire operation but that is far and away the exception instead of the rule.

touisteur 5y ago

And. Things and people can change their minds. Promises, absolutes or forevers should come with some kind of enforcing mechanism to be really, permanently trusted. And even then, beware of the penalty not being 'high enough'. But it's OK. It was very naive to say 'never' and it was a bit naive to take it at face value. As long as they paid their employees well and treated them with respect, and were clear of their prospects, I fail to see who is hurt here ? Except customers being now under the Intuit umbrella, that must hurt...

kokey 5y ago
I think what changed their mind was that the market changed. Mailchimp was run like a company that wanted to prevail in the market and not just grow and sell. That affected their strategy in a good way since it allowed them to spend time improving their services long term, but most importantly it prevented them from trying to grow aggressively for the sake of growing, which is a very very bad idea when it comes to sending bulk email. In the end what changed is that e-mail based marketing was on the decline, with other mediums taking over. There's a point where an industry that stops growing fast eventually consolidates and it tends to get absorbed by groups that has other revenue streams.
- louisswiss 5y ago
  > In the end what changed is that e-mail based marketing was on the decline, with other mediums taking over. FWIW this is completely incorrect. Over the past 2 years other marketing channels have skyrocketed in cost (eg FB ads) and most brands/companies are now investing heavily into email marketing. It's a significant growth industry right now, more so than at any time since I've been involved with email marketing (since ~2010).
  - telesilla 5y ago
    Same experience for us. While we moved away from Mailchimp recently for Pardot, email marketing is huge growth area for us since the start of the pandemic. I think it's a combination of people seeking new solutions to this new world we live in, and understanding that if each email we send has a genuine value for who we send it to, they are very receptive. It's the opposite of spam, as we're asked more and more to please keep our customers up to date with the latest trends.

Barrin92 5y ago

feel compelled to shout out Jean-Baptiste Kempf (VLC) who refused to sell the project for 'several tens of millions' which makes me pretty confident that there's still people out there who will stick to their principles

SergeAx 5y ago
I am sure that MailChimp founders were sincere in their unwillingness to sell company. But 12 billions is 12 billions. I am sure that author of VLC would sell his product for much bigger money, the only problem that there's no one to offer him bigger money.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >I am sure that author of VLC would sell his product for much bigger money, the only problem that there's no one to offer him bigger money. I don't know, having billions looks like a liability to me.
  - SergeAx 5y ago
    I don't think that we may classify big money as liability. Usually you cannot quickly get rid of your liability for free.
    - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
      https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/07/28/15-downsides-to-being-rich.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/07/28/15-downsides-to-b...
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I’d be willing to risk that liability.
  - jacobr1 5y ago
    It is, but it also a liability you can afford to pay others to manage in detail.

magicalhippo 5y ago

Our largest competitor, who had 10x our revenue, got bought about 6 years ago by some huge international behemoth, which of course ran it into the ground over the course of a few years. Great for us, as we got almost all of their customers. I recently heard the story of how that happened. The original founders had no intention of selling out, and had signed a deal with the others that unless they were offered a well-defined but ridiculously high price, that the original founders could buy back the shares to take back control. Well, the multinational company offered the ridiculously high price, and the original founders had no chance to make a higher offer. So they lost "their baby", which is now just a pale shadow of what it once was. The founders got a lot of money of course, so not a sob story.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>The founders got a lot of money of course, so not a sob story. It must be disheartening though, to see something you created get run into the ground.
- corobo 5y ago
  Am I the only one that would love that situation to be able to start a new thing on easy mode? You know a lot of the failures, you now have a massive network, you have a big wad of cash. Bust out the idea bin and make something else!
  - andi999 5y ago
    Having a lot of cash is not a good position to start a new product (your pivots will most likely be delayed due to that)
    - corobo 5y ago
      Ok fair enough I'd also definitely have to pass on dealing with that to an accountant but I more mean being able to work on it full time with no financial concern than chucking a milly after each idea Also to clarify on the seeming heartless I sort of see things as being diluted when others work on them -- in a good way! -- for each person that adds to your thing it goes from mine to our. Long enough and big enough and it's more other people's creativity than yours. Your baby is all grown up and ready to do it's own thing

wolverine876 5y ago

> The market has the last word. I think that's a bias of hindsight, something people say after seeing it happen in a particular situation. In other situations, principles, promises, and other factors have the last word.