6 ms·

> Considering they exceeded all analyst expectations for revenue and profits in the last quarter, it's safe to say that some of their effort is working. > The

by eunoia 4y ago

> Considering they exceeded all analyst expectations for revenue and profits in the last quarter, it's safe to say that some of their effort is working. > The fact that they also decided that 8K out of the 25K+ employees hired during the pandemic were redundant Kinda odd how you attribute them "beating the street" more to Mathew McConaughey's presence than the work output of 8 thousand employees. Can you elaborate on why this is so clear to you?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deltree7 4y ago
They have better metrics than random anti-corporate HNer who is typically clueless about accounting, marketing, lead-gen?
- mola 4y ago
  Don't you think that the ppl deciding to hire like crazies just to fire a year later should be accountable for that? They're clearly making bad decisions. It's just that someone else is expected to pay for them.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Those might be bad decisions for the employees, but those might be good decisions for the company. Basically, scoop up talent while you can, then cut the lowest performers. It's basically the last step in a thorough interview process.
    - wootland 4y ago
      If you've ever worked somewhere where there's been layoffs, you'll know that of the remaining employees, all of the best people immediately start looking for jobs elsewhere. If management is so incompetent that they overhired or underperformed bad enough to lay people off, the writing is on the wall to jump ship. It can take years to repair the motivational and cultural damage caused by a layoff. Especially when paired with "soft" layoff behavior like mandating RTO and "performance" management.
      - deltree7 4y ago
        Where is this magical "elsewhere" part where there would be no layoffs? It's mind-boggling that we have raised a generation of people who are absolutely clueless about "Cost-of-Capital". It is worse than people not understanding democracy
        wootland 4y ago
        > Where is this magical "elsewhere" part where there would be no layoffs? Any company with competent management. That includes not cargo culting layoffs while turning a blind eye to the damage they cause to a company. > It's mind-boggling that we have raised a generation of people who are absolutely clueless about "Cost-of-Capital". It is worse than people not understanding democracy What's mind-boggling is that people think the cost savings from a layoff happens in a vacuum. There are definitely repercussions in terms of loss of productivity, increased employee churn, brand damage, increased difficulty hiring in the future, loss of operational knowledge... Layoff are a sign of mismanagement. That has nothing to do with the "cost-of-capital".
        deltree7 4y ago
        So you have never created a bug in your life? Made a mistake? Your statement is as naive as "A Production Bug / Latency is a sign of Incompetent Software Developer" Should we fire you as soon as you hit the first bug? BTW, You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Cost of Capital Tomorrow if your salary is cut by 50%, would you cut-down on extra expenses? Is that a sign of mismanagement from you?
        ztrww 4y ago
        > Tomorrow if your salary is cut by 50%, would you cut-down on extra expenses? Is that a sign of mismanagement from you? if you knowingly and willfully put yourself into a situation which resulted in your salary being cut by 50% then yes
        4y ago
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      That's not what Salesforce did. They cut longterm and high-performing employees, and we still have freshly hired randoms who know nothing.
  - grog_tremor 4y ago
    Speaking here as an employee that was affected by layoffs in one of those companies that hired like crazy during the pandemic. I see no problems in their behavior. The insane rate of hiring was useful to give a good boost to my salary in a couple of years. Here's to hoping they go back at hiring like crazy again.
  - deltree7 4y ago
    How many financially bad decisions you made in 2022? Did you buy real-estate in 20/21 when the mortgate rates were 2%? If you didn't that's a terrible decision. Did you take responsibility and fire yourself as the primary bread-winner for your family? Why not? Did you buy any high-growth tech stocks in 2021? If you did, that was a terrible decision. Any idiot can arm-chair hindsight decisions
    - thwayunion 4y ago
      > Did you buy real-estate in 20/21 when the mortgate rates were 2%? If you didn't that's a terrible decision. Meh. Securing financing in 20/21 was great but buying in 20/21 was kind of terrible. Everyone I know who bought during that time period is now stuck for 30 years because over-extended and took a bath on property value, and a lot of them are already regretting that choice as life returns to normal and they realize life in the outer suburbs is kind of miserable (especially as they RTO). Conversely, refinancing and leveraging cheap cash in 20/21, building a pile of powder, and then waiting until 2023-2024 to buy looks like a much better move. At least in my local market, either prices are down significantly or the seller can't afford a lower price and the inventory just sits on the market.
      - deltree7 4y ago
        Real Estate from 20/21 appreciated 20-30%. With leverage you'd see 100%-200% returns. You can always sell now and realize that gain. At the end of the day, however you look at it, it'll be one of the stupidest financial decision you've made and you should take responsibility for it
        thwayunion 4y ago
        The 20-30% appreciation is in specific markets. Definitely not all markets. Several housing markets are already down from 20/21 highs and lots of markets are trending downward. Again, securing financing in 20/21 was great but buying real estate at those prices wasn't great relative to alternatives. If a mortgage was you only way to get leverage in 20/21 then you should've taken out a mortgage. But if you had other ways to get leverage at the lower rates -- eg taking out a line of credit on existing real estate or borrowing against assets -- other options have been performing better and especially over the next few years will continue performing much better.
  - paxys 4y ago
    Who said that they weren't accountable? It's not just entry level employees getting laid off, but also senior ones, managers and executives. Salesforce got rid of 3 out of their 4 CEOs this year.
  - filmgirlcw 4y ago
    Those people should be accountable for that, sure. But Matthew McConaughey isn't accountable for that. We don't know the terms of his contract -- just that his contract was better than that of at-will employees (which, of course it was. The contracts for executives are also better than those of at-will employees...that's how this works) -- and we don't know what all was included as part of it. But even if paying a celebrity $10 million for endorsements is a bad decision (and we don't know if it is or if it isn't -- it's probably a wash, as most marketing expenditures like this are), that decision is unrelated to why 8,000 people were laid off.
paxys 4y ago
Is it very hard to believe that (1) some single digit % of employees (and even entire divisions) at a massive corporation – one that nearly doubled in size during the pandemic – aren't adding a lot of value and (2) a flashy marketing campaign can bring a company new customers?
- alpenbazi 4y ago
  8k of 25k is not some "single digit %" u sound like u get paid for salesforce-pr
  - paxys 4y ago
    25k what? Salesforce had over 80k employees at the time of the layoffs.
    - thwayunion 4y ago
      Well all the numbers I've ever seen have been just shy of 80, and 8/80 = 10%, which is 2 digits. So there are two possibilities. One possibility, I guess, is that both your and parent are using some sort of counting system we'll call "base b" where 25 base b = 80 base 10 and in which 8/80 base b < 10% base b. The other, more likely, possibility is that you're intentionally under-stating the scale of the layoffs and being oddly defensive. Enjoy your Salesforce stock grant, I guess ;-)
      - dfmooreqqq 4y ago
        The base b here would be base 37.5 :)
- Chris2048 4y ago
  8/25 is 32%, no?
  - rco8786 4y ago
    25k is just what they hired during covid
WalterBright 4y ago
The old joke is the marketing manager saying: "Half of all our marketing expenditures are wasted. The problem is we don't know which half." In my years in business, it's nearly impossible to draw an accurate cause and effect line between marketing and sales. Too many other factors at work.
- j0hnyl 4y ago
  One thing I've noticed is that having competent and down to earth marketing folks also helps to boos overall morale at a company.
kermatt 4y ago
It does seem odd that companies would pay for services from Salesforce because of a celebrity quip, instead of a determination that said services would improve the company's operations. Or perhaps these Marketing departments are just really good at internal marketing of budget usage?
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  So are you saying, then, that you find it odd that marketing and advertising works? Nothing wrong if you do, I just wanted to be clear on that point.
  - bsg75 4y ago
    No, I find it odd to spend that much cash on a celebrity endorsement when the target consumer audience (businesses) know that the celebrity is not a Sales Force customer: "What the heck to Matthew McConaughey use SalesForce for ?" or more importantly: "Why is SalesForce paying that kind of money when they could be investing instead in their abysmal support?" - as a SF/Tableau customer this is my perspective.
  - ztrww 4y ago
    how do you know it worked in this specific case though? maybe Salesforce would have done just as well financially and also saved 20 million or something like that without that ad campaign
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
      And maybe it wouldn't have. But since I don't work for SalesForce's marketing dept, there's no way to tell.
- proser 4y ago
  That's not what marketing does. It doesn't influence the decision. Marketing makes sure your company is top of mind when the customer decides to make a decision.

by eunoia 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deltree7 4y ago

They have better metrics than random anti-corporate HNer who is typically clueless about accounting, marketing, lead-gen?

mola 4y ago
Don't you think that the ppl deciding to hire like crazies just to fire a year later should be accountable for that? They're clearly making bad decisions. It's just that someone else is expected to pay for them.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Those might be bad decisions for the employees, but those might be good decisions for the company. Basically, scoop up talent while you can, then cut the lowest performers. It's basically the last step in a thorough interview process.
  - wootland 4y ago
    If you've ever worked somewhere where there's been layoffs, you'll know that of the remaining employees, all of the best people immediately start looking for jobs elsewhere. If management is so incompetent that they overhired or underperformed bad enough to lay people off, the writing is on the wall to jump ship. It can take years to repair the motivational and cultural damage caused by a layoff. Especially when paired with "soft" layoff behavior like mandating RTO and "performance" management.
    - deltree7 4y ago
      Where is this magical "elsewhere" part where there would be no layoffs? It's mind-boggling that we have raised a generation of people who are absolutely clueless about "Cost-of-Capital". It is worse than people not understanding democracy
      - wootland 4y ago
        > Where is this magical "elsewhere" part where there would be no layoffs? Any company with competent management. That includes not cargo culting layoffs while turning a blind eye to the damage they cause to a company. > It's mind-boggling that we have raised a generation of people who are absolutely clueless about "Cost-of-Capital". It is worse than people not understanding democracy What's mind-boggling is that people think the cost savings from a layoff happens in a vacuum. There are definitely repercussions in terms of loss of productivity, increased employee churn, brand damage, increased difficulty hiring in the future, loss of operational knowledge... Layoff are a sign of mismanagement. That has nothing to do with the "cost-of-capital".
        deltree7 4y ago
        So you have never created a bug in your life? Made a mistake? Your statement is as naive as "A Production Bug / Latency is a sign of Incompetent Software Developer" Should we fire you as soon as you hit the first bug? BTW, You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Cost of Capital Tomorrow if your salary is cut by 50%, would you cut-down on extra expenses? Is that a sign of mismanagement from you?
        ztrww 4y ago
        > Tomorrow if your salary is cut by 50%, would you cut-down on extra expenses? Is that a sign of mismanagement from you? if you knowingly and willfully put yourself into a situation which resulted in your salary being cut by 50% then yes
        4y ago
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    That's not what Salesforce did. They cut longterm and high-performing employees, and we still have freshly hired randoms who know nothing.
- grog_tremor 4y ago
  Speaking here as an employee that was affected by layoffs in one of those companies that hired like crazy during the pandemic. I see no problems in their behavior. The insane rate of hiring was useful to give a good boost to my salary in a couple of years. Here's to hoping they go back at hiring like crazy again.
- deltree7 4y ago
  How many financially bad decisions you made in 2022? Did you buy real-estate in 20/21 when the mortgate rates were 2%? If you didn't that's a terrible decision. Did you take responsibility and fire yourself as the primary bread-winner for your family? Why not? Did you buy any high-growth tech stocks in 2021? If you did, that was a terrible decision. Any idiot can arm-chair hindsight decisions
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    > Did you buy real-estate in 20/21 when the mortgate rates were 2%? If you didn't that's a terrible decision. Meh. Securing financing in 20/21 was great but buying in 20/21 was kind of terrible. Everyone I know who bought during that time period is now stuck for 30 years because over-extended and took a bath on property value, and a lot of them are already regretting that choice as life returns to normal and they realize life in the outer suburbs is kind of miserable (especially as they RTO). Conversely, refinancing and leveraging cheap cash in 20/21, building a pile of powder, and then waiting until 2023-2024 to buy looks like a much better move. At least in my local market, either prices are down significantly or the seller can't afford a lower price and the inventory just sits on the market.
    - deltree7 4y ago
      Real Estate from 20/21 appreciated 20-30%. With leverage you'd see 100%-200% returns. You can always sell now and realize that gain. At the end of the day, however you look at it, it'll be one of the stupidest financial decision you've made and you should take responsibility for it
      - thwayunion 4y ago
        The 20-30% appreciation is in specific markets. Definitely not all markets. Several housing markets are already down from 20/21 highs and lots of markets are trending downward. Again, securing financing in 20/21 was great but buying real estate at those prices wasn't great relative to alternatives. If a mortgage was you only way to get leverage in 20/21 then you should've taken out a mortgage. But if you had other ways to get leverage at the lower rates -- eg taking out a line of credit on existing real estate or borrowing against assets -- other options have been performing better and especially over the next few years will continue performing much better.
- paxys 4y ago
  Who said that they weren't accountable? It's not just entry level employees getting laid off, but also senior ones, managers and executives. Salesforce got rid of 3 out of their 4 CEOs this year.
- filmgirlcw 4y ago
  Those people should be accountable for that, sure. But Matthew McConaughey isn't accountable for that. We don't know the terms of his contract -- just that his contract was better than that of at-will employees (which, of course it was. The contracts for executives are also better than those of at-will employees...that's how this works) -- and we don't know what all was included as part of it. But even if paying a celebrity $10 million for endorsements is a bad decision (and we don't know if it is or if it isn't -- it's probably a wash, as most marketing expenditures like this are), that decision is unrelated to why 8,000 people were laid off.

paxys 4y ago

Is it very hard to believe that (1) some single digit % of employees (and even entire divisions) at a massive corporation – one that nearly doubled in size during the pandemic – aren't adding a lot of value and (2) a flashy marketing campaign can bring a company new customers?

alpenbazi 4y ago
8k of 25k is not some "single digit %" u sound like u get paid for salesforce-pr
- paxys 4y ago
  25k what? Salesforce had over 80k employees at the time of the layoffs.
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    Well all the numbers I've ever seen have been just shy of 80, and 8/80 = 10%, which is 2 digits. So there are two possibilities. One possibility, I guess, is that both your and parent are using some sort of counting system we'll call "base b" where 25 base b = 80 base 10 and in which 8/80 base b < 10% base b. The other, more likely, possibility is that you're intentionally under-stating the scale of the layoffs and being oddly defensive. Enjoy your Salesforce stock grant, I guess ;-)
    - dfmooreqqq 4y ago
      The base b here would be base 37.5 :)
Chris2048 4y ago
8/25 is 32%, no?
- rco8786 4y ago
  25k is just what they hired during covid

WalterBright 4y ago

The old joke is the marketing manager saying: "Half of all our marketing expenditures are wasted. The problem is we don't know which half." In my years in business, it's nearly impossible to draw an accurate cause and effect line between marketing and sales. Too many other factors at work.

j0hnyl 4y ago
One thing I've noticed is that having competent and down to earth marketing folks also helps to boos overall morale at a company.

kermatt 4y ago

It does seem odd that companies would pay for services from Salesforce because of a celebrity quip, instead of a determination that said services would improve the company's operations. Or perhaps these Marketing departments are just really good at internal marketing of budget usage?

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
So are you saying, then, that you find it odd that marketing and advertising works? Nothing wrong if you do, I just wanted to be clear on that point.
- bsg75 4y ago
  No, I find it odd to spend that much cash on a celebrity endorsement when the target consumer audience (businesses) know that the celebrity is not a Sales Force customer: "What the heck to Matthew McConaughey use SalesForce for ?" or more importantly: "Why is SalesForce paying that kind of money when they could be investing instead in their abysmal support?" - as a SF/Tableau customer this is my perspective.
- ztrww 4y ago
  how do you know it worked in this specific case though? maybe Salesforce would have done just as well financially and also saved 20 million or something like that without that ad campaign
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    And maybe it wouldn't have. But since I don't work for SalesForce's marketing dept, there's no way to tell.
proser 4y ago
That's not what marketing does. It doesn't influence the decision. Marketing makes sure your company is top of mind when the customer decides to make a decision.