2 ms·
They have revenue, but at just $3MM in revenue, it still looks like they are operating at a loss. Doing some quick calcs: $3MM Revenue / 34 employees = $88,235
by hkarthik 15y ago
They have revenue, but at just $3MM in revenue, it still looks like they are operating at a loss.
Doing some quick calcs:
$3MM Revenue / 34 employees = $88,235 per employee.
In most major US cities, that wouldn't even cover the base salary of an skilled employee. Not to mention benefits, payroll taxes, etc. Add this to all the equipment costs, office rental space, etc. and they must be operating at a loss.
I've heard that most VCs/Angels consider a company profitable only if they're making an average of $200K/year per employee.
Under these circumstances, it's clear why they took funding because it provides some breathing room for another year or so till they reach true profitability.
Even so, it's still commendable that they're able to hold on to their ideals of a 4-day workweek given their current circumstances.
- elliottcarlson 15y agoI've heard that most VCs/Angels consider a company profitable only if they're making an average of $200K/year per employee. VCs are looking at their ROI, so their view on profitability is based on what they might have in the company - that shouldn't skew the fact that a company might actually be profitable, and with time and growth they will meet those numbers as well.
- eli_gottlieb 15y agoIn most major US cities, that wouldn't even cover the base salary of an skilled employee. Only if by "most major US cities" you mean San Francisco and New York exclusively. The vast majority of the United States would still be happy to make $88,000/year!