3 ms·

I would say so, yeah. If you only have 10 people, I'd say it's still kinda risky. Your company could disappear very quickly. As I say, I'd rate plentyOfFish as

by axod 18y ago

I would say so, yeah. If you only have 10 people, I'd say it's still kinda risky. Your company could disappear very quickly. As I say, I'd rate plentyOfFish as a lifestyle business. It's not a derogatory term in any way shape or form. Just means that instead of growing the company (Headcount, diversifying, etc), they are maintaining their own lifestyle.

comatose_kid 18y ago
No way. 10 people creating a 100M business isn't at risk of disappearing. 10 people creating a 1M business might be. The issue is profits, not headcount.
- axod 18y ago
  I don't see why that would be the case. Profit doesn't really mean anything unless it's sustainable (Apart from providing a lifestyle). To be sustainable, it's worth diversifying, and that means increasing head count. Measuring a company in terms of profit is really short term. How about the long term lasting effect of the company?
  - sokoloff 18y ago
    I think that headcount is a (n often) necessary evil in growing a business, but keeping everything else equal and increasing headcount alone actually makes your business less likely to be long-run great, IMO. Paying additional salaries and benefits and taking on additional management and coordination overhead are all losses/drags on the business, unless the added body brings in far more money than they cost. Yes, you often need them, but successful large companies often have a lot of people because they have a lot of revenue and profit, rather than having a lot of revenue and profit because they have a lot of people.
    - axod 18y ago
      I think you're talking about exceptions rather than the rule. >> "unless the added body brings in far more money than they cost." Basic common sense. I never said hiring people who cost more than they produce was a good idea. Obviously it's not.

3 ms·

I would say so, yeah. If you only have 10 people, I'd say it's still kinda risky. Your company could disappear very quickly. As I say, I'd rate plentyOfFish as

by axod 18y ago

comatose_kid 18y ago
No way. 10 people creating a 100M business isn't at risk of disappearing. 10 people creating a 1M business might be. The issue is profits, not headcount.
- axod 18y ago
  I don't see why that would be the case. Profit doesn't really mean anything unless it's sustainable (Apart from providing a lifestyle). To be sustainable, it's worth diversifying, and that means increasing head count. Measuring a company in terms of profit is really short term. How about the long term lasting effect of the company?
  - sokoloff 18y ago
    I think that headcount is a (n often) necessary evil in growing a business, but keeping everything else equal and increasing headcount alone actually makes your business less likely to be long-run great, IMO. Paying additional salaries and benefits and taking on additional management and coordination overhead are all losses/drags on the business, unless the added body brings in far more money than they cost. Yes, you often need them, but successful large companies often have a lot of people because they have a lot of revenue and profit, rather than having a lot of revenue and profit because they have a lot of people.
    - axod 18y ago
      I think you're talking about exceptions rather than the rule. >> "unless the added body brings in far more money than they cost." Basic common sense. I never said hiring people who cost more than they produce was a good idea. Obviously it's not.