3 ms·

I feel bad for the people but this is just another company trimming the fat to increase their stock price (which worked [1]). I don't see why TechCrunch calls B

by error54 13y ago

I feel bad for the people but this is just another company trimming the fat to increase their stock price (which worked [1]). I don't see why TechCrunch calls Beatport a startup as it is 10 years old and owned by another company. 1 - http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sfxe http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sfxe

hkmurakami 13y ago
Well, slideshare is 7 years old and is owned by LinkedIn, but I suspect that many of us here would consider it to be a startup.
- benoits 13y ago
  Interesting. What's you definition of a startup then?
  - downer90 13y ago
    Ballpark: Small business, less than 20 employees, and less than 5 years old, and started with unconventional debt (not bank loans). Bonus points to "startup" credentials when software development or new, emerging technologies are involved. 20 50K salaries multiplied by 5 years is five million dollars in labor, never mind the overhead. If you've burned through that much cash and you're still in business after five years, congratulations. Unicorns aside, it doesn't matter if you're in the red or in the black. You are an established business, and not some fledgling twinkle in an investor's eyes.
- truthlaidbear 13y ago
  Same with a lot of the Salesforce component companies. Goinstant for example.
- Edmond 13y ago
  Funny, I posed this question a couple of days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6862721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6862721)...it is a new branding trend for IT companies though food and beverage companies have been doing it longer.
- graue 13y ago
  It suddenly occurs to me that "startup" is the new "indie", or "viral". It's become a genre rather than a descriptor of the source of the content.
7Figures2Commas 13y ago
I think that's an interesting interpretation of these events. According to TechCrunch's post, the people laid off were part of teams that "weren't making money." According to SFX, "To allow us to adapt and improve our service, it was necessary to make some organizational changes." Translation: the savings realized by cutting unproductive (or less productive) parts of the organization can be put to use in areas that management believes have higher productive potential. Even if the motivation for "looking at the finances" more closely was the fact that SFX is now publicly-traded and has a new set of shareholders to answer to, what's the problem with this? Most companies (established or not) don't have the luxury of indefinitely letting performing parts of their businesses subsidize underperforming parts of their businesses. In many cases, the best and/or only source of needed investment dollars can be found in expense reduction. As for feeling bad: layoffs are always unfortunate and it's worth noting that, from what I have seen at least, the good times of the past several years have left many, engineers especially, with the mistaken impression that they're impervious to the financial realities of their employers. It's always a good idea to understand the relationship between your role/team and your employer's finances regardless of how valued you believe you are in the org chart.

by error54 13y ago

hkmurakami 13y ago

Well, slideshare is 7 years old and is owned by LinkedIn, but I suspect that many of us here would consider it to be a startup.

benoits 13y ago
Interesting. What's you definition of a startup then?
- downer90 13y ago
  Ballpark: Small business, less than 20 employees, and less than 5 years old, and started with unconventional debt (not bank loans). Bonus points to "startup" credentials when software development or new, emerging technologies are involved. 20 50K salaries multiplied by 5 years is five million dollars in labor, never mind the overhead. If you've burned through that much cash and you're still in business after five years, congratulations. Unicorns aside, it doesn't matter if you're in the red or in the black. You are an established business, and not some fledgling twinkle in an investor's eyes.
truthlaidbear 13y ago
Same with a lot of the Salesforce component companies. Goinstant for example.
Edmond 13y ago
Funny, I posed this question a couple of days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6862721 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6862721)...it is a new branding trend for IT companies though food and beverage companies have been doing it longer.
graue 13y ago
It suddenly occurs to me that "startup" is the new "indie", or "viral". It's become a genre rather than a descriptor of the source of the content.

7Figures2Commas 13y ago

I think that's an interesting interpretation of these events. According to TechCrunch's post, the people laid off were part of teams that "weren't making money." According to SFX, "To allow us to adapt and improve our service, it was necessary to make some organizational changes." Translation: the savings realized by cutting unproductive (or less productive) parts of the organization can be put to use in areas that management believes have higher productive potential. Even if the motivation for "looking at the finances" more closely was the fact that SFX is now publicly-traded and has a new set of shareholders to answer to, what's the problem with this? Most companies (established or not) don't have the luxury of indefinitely letting performing parts of their businesses subsidize underperforming parts of their businesses. In many cases, the best and/or only source of needed investment dollars can be found in expense reduction. As for feeling bad: layoffs are always unfortunate and it's worth noting that, from what I have seen at least, the good times of the past several years have left many, engineers especially, with the mistaken impression that they're impervious to the financial realities of their employers. It's always a good idea to understand the relationship between your role/team and your employer's finances regardless of how valued you believe you are in the org chart.