7 ms·

I don't see it as unintended consequences of Soda Not Being Free. It's an attribution mistake, not entirely different from how SEM tends to get attribution for

I don't see it as unintended consequences of Soda Not Being Free. It's an attribution mistake, not entirely different from how SEM tends to get attribution for conversions it didn't really earn. The Elves leaving is unintended consequences of the company getting larger, and not finding a way to manage it in a way that retained top talent. The soda exposed it, but it was going to get exposed one way or another.

marcosdumay 4y ago
It's not attribution mistake, it's a proxy variable. Nobody ever though people left because of the soda.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  Or, if you prefer, it's one piece of evidence that is easy to measure.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    Right... and so consequently what is gained by hiding the evidence?
- cbsmith 4y ago
  As a proxy variable, it's a proxy for things that were already true, they just hadn't realized it yet. It's like how there's a lot of turnover after bonus season. The bonuses aren't the reason they're coming/going (though they're often shaped significantly by the real underlying reasons they're coming/going), but they do effect the timing of their coming and going... because that's the point where it becomes impossible to ignore the underlying reasons for the turnover.
rodgerd 4y ago
It's a general problem of being, as the Brits put it, "penny wise, pound foolish". Some bod in accounts can show an obvious change in the bottom line by cutting a cheap perk. The problems in retention, hiring, delivery are all someone else's problem and much harder to quantify.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  See, I think that's not getting it. Cutting the drinks isn't what cost them the people. It's just what caused the loss of people to be evident. Particularly since the organization had changed, it would have been unwise NOT to bring the perk policy in line with the rest of it.
the_af 4y ago
But that's exactly what the article states. It doesn't say they left because of the soda; it says it was a wake up call that made them realize it was no longer the company they liked and which they helped build.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  Yes, I'm in no position to contradict the narrative of the story, and so I'm not. I'm quibbling with the characterization of it being an "unintended consequence" that "launched an exodus". The changes had already happened. The exodus had already been launched. It's just no one had actually left yet. If anything, I'd argue the sodas were the unintended consequence, but the exodus, or at least the impetus for it, was very much intended.

marcosdumay 4y ago

It's not attribution mistake, it's a proxy variable. Nobody ever though people left because of the soda.

dsr_ 4y ago
Or, if you prefer, it's one piece of evidence that is easy to measure.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  Right... and so consequently what is gained by hiding the evidence?
cbsmith 4y ago
As a proxy variable, it's a proxy for things that were already true, they just hadn't realized it yet. It's like how there's a lot of turnover after bonus season. The bonuses aren't the reason they're coming/going (though they're often shaped significantly by the real underlying reasons they're coming/going), but they do effect the timing of their coming and going... because that's the point where it becomes impossible to ignore the underlying reasons for the turnover.

rodgerd 4y ago

It's a general problem of being, as the Brits put it, "penny wise, pound foolish". Some bod in accounts can show an obvious change in the bottom line by cutting a cheap perk. The problems in retention, hiring, delivery are all someone else's problem and much harder to quantify.

cbsmith 4y ago
See, I think that's not getting it. Cutting the drinks isn't what cost them the people. It's just what caused the loss of people to be evident. Particularly since the organization had changed, it would have been unwise NOT to bring the perk policy in line with the rest of it.

the_af 4y ago

But that's exactly what the article states. It doesn't say they left because of the soda; it says it was a wake up call that made them realize it was no longer the company they liked and which they helped build.

cbsmith 4y ago
Yes, I'm in no position to contradict the narrative of the story, and so I'm not. I'm quibbling with the characterization of it being an "unintended consequence" that "launched an exodus". The changes had already happened. The exodus had already been launched. It's just no one had actually left yet. If anything, I'd argue the sodas were the unintended consequence, but the exodus, or at least the impetus for it, was very much intended.