5 ms·

some people look at business as making money for the sake of making money. However other people look at making money as a means to better society. This goes bac

some people look at business as making money for the sake of making money. However other people look at making money as a means to better society. This goes back over a century to the Quaker run businesses, like Lloyds, Rowntree, Cadburys, etc. You can imagine if your ultimate aim was to improve society, then acquiring a firm but having to sack a bunch of employees as somewhat of a failure.

Invictus0 9mo ago
Option A: the business goes bankrupt, investors lose money, customers lose the product, all employees get fired. Option B: the business stays afloat, investors make money, customers keep the product, some employees get fired with a severance. You think option A is superior?
- supoxblade 9mo ago
  Here's the rub: Vimeo was profitable, and had no debt. Per their last public filing(s), in 2025 the company had: - ~$400M expenses - ~$420M revenue (therefore ~$20M profit for the year) - ~$300M of cash in the bank (no debt) Vimeo has not had major growth in recent years, but it was making progress, however slowly. Just nowhere near the 10x expectations out there. Nobody was going to lose anything.
  - makeitrain 9mo ago
    For a company that makes a flat $20 mil per year, how long will it take to make back the $1.4 billion they paid for it?
    - Nextgrid 9mo ago
      Presumably Bending Spoons believes they can optimize a lot of that 400M expenses while keeping revenue flat or even growing it. At least they believe enough to make a 1.4B bet on it.
      - supoxblade 9mo ago
        Maybe? This sounds more like a reverse mortgage line of business, to me. Bending Spoons is betting they can eek enough revenue out of Vimeo to pay the interest on the $1.4B loan by cutting the $400M expense run rate. The actual loan principal will be paid out (if it ever does) of the money they expect to bring in when they inevitably go to an IPO. And at that point you have speculators carrying risk, bankers getting rich off interest, leadership raking in millions, and a once reasonably healthy business is jeopardized (subject to the performance of other Bending Spoons properties, risky management, etc). All in the name of growth that may or may not be achievable.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  Your options are too coarse. There's good and bad ways to get fired (and there's nothing here saying they got a severance to begin with). How about a 3 month warning? How about guaranteeing a 6 or more month severance after those 3 monhts? How about even before this sell goes through you make sure employees benefit from the 1.4b with more than "well my company stock got a tiny bump"? What I see here is "Business stays afloat, investes make money for now, customers get a continually worse service and eventually leave, and a lot of good talent is out on the streets over corporate greed". This is only a win if you're an investor, and only in the short term. So I'm not convinced this is better than option A in the long term.
- Quarrelsome 9mo ago
  what option C where you make _less_ money (you still make _some_) but your employees are better able to send their kids to college?
fsckboy 9mo ago
>some people look at business as making money for the sake of making money. However other people look at making money as a means to better society. if the two sides you describe agree on those definitions as mutually exclusive but in union describing the universal set of people, then they are both wrong. as long as people engaged in a market make their own choices, then money is a direct measure of happiness on the margin. you give somebody your money in exchange for something you want and would rather have: this creates happiness out of thin air. if you think a better society is a happier society, then going into business to make money is the same as going into business to make society better.
- HKH2 9mo ago
  Society depends on long-term 'happiness'. Short-term 'happiness' often makes society worse.
  - fsckboy 9mo ago
    what you are actually saying is that a certain class of people "know better" than what another class thinks they want. If you look at financial markets and finance theory, there is no validity to the idea that people are long term blind and short term mistaken. markets discount the future, they are the best estimates of the future rather than somebody with no skin in the game magically "knowing better"
    - HKH2 9mo ago
      What about externalities? What about policy makers going after short-term gains?
    - Quarrelsome 9mo ago
      > they are the best estimates of the future its plausible for companies to be worth less than their assets. While it might be the best estimate its still not necessarily the best one. aka the market can stay crazy longer than you can stay solvent. Markets measure confidence as much as they measure value.
- 9mo ago

Invictus0 9mo ago

Option A: the business goes bankrupt, investors lose money, customers lose the product, all employees get fired. Option B: the business stays afloat, investors make money, customers keep the product, some employees get fired with a severance. You think option A is superior?

supoxblade 9mo ago
Here's the rub: Vimeo was profitable, and had no debt. Per their last public filing(s), in 2025 the company had: - ~$400M expenses - ~$420M revenue (therefore ~$20M profit for the year) - ~$300M of cash in the bank (no debt) Vimeo has not had major growth in recent years, but it was making progress, however slowly. Just nowhere near the 10x expectations out there. Nobody was going to lose anything.
- makeitrain 9mo ago
  For a company that makes a flat $20 mil per year, how long will it take to make back the $1.4 billion they paid for it?
  - Nextgrid 9mo ago
    Presumably Bending Spoons believes they can optimize a lot of that 400M expenses while keeping revenue flat or even growing it. At least they believe enough to make a 1.4B bet on it.
    - supoxblade 9mo ago
      Maybe? This sounds more like a reverse mortgage line of business, to me. Bending Spoons is betting they can eek enough revenue out of Vimeo to pay the interest on the $1.4B loan by cutting the $400M expense run rate. The actual loan principal will be paid out (if it ever does) of the money they expect to bring in when they inevitably go to an IPO. And at that point you have speculators carrying risk, bankers getting rich off interest, leadership raking in millions, and a once reasonably healthy business is jeopardized (subject to the performance of other Bending Spoons properties, risky management, etc). All in the name of growth that may or may not be achievable.
johnnyanmac 9mo ago
Your options are too coarse. There's good and bad ways to get fired (and there's nothing here saying they got a severance to begin with). How about a 3 month warning? How about guaranteeing a 6 or more month severance after those 3 monhts? How about even before this sell goes through you make sure employees benefit from the 1.4b with more than "well my company stock got a tiny bump"? What I see here is "Business stays afloat, investes make money for now, customers get a continually worse service and eventually leave, and a lot of good talent is out on the streets over corporate greed". This is only a win if you're an investor, and only in the short term. So I'm not convinced this is better than option A in the long term.
Quarrelsome 9mo ago
what option C where you make _less_ money (you still make _some_) but your employees are better able to send their kids to college?

fsckboy 9mo ago

>some people look at business as making money for the sake of making money. However other people look at making money as a means to better society. if the two sides you describe agree on those definitions as mutually exclusive but in union describing the universal set of people, then they are both wrong. as long as people engaged in a market make their own choices, then money is a direct measure of happiness on the margin. you give somebody your money in exchange for something you want and would rather have: this creates happiness out of thin air. if you think a better society is a happier society, then going into business to make money is the same as going into business to make society better.

HKH2 9mo ago
Society depends on long-term 'happiness'. Short-term 'happiness' often makes society worse.
- fsckboy 9mo ago
  what you are actually saying is that a certain class of people "know better" than what another class thinks they want. If you look at financial markets and finance theory, there is no validity to the idea that people are long term blind and short term mistaken. markets discount the future, they are the best estimates of the future rather than somebody with no skin in the game magically "knowing better"
  - HKH2 9mo ago
    What about externalities? What about policy makers going after short-term gains?
  - Quarrelsome 9mo ago
    > they are the best estimates of the future its plausible for companies to be worth less than their assets. While it might be the best estimate its still not necessarily the best one. aka the market can stay crazy longer than you can stay solvent. Markets measure confidence as much as they measure value.
9mo ago