Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumaturgy | Hacker News Reader

Wow. Look at all that money spent on things that didn't make their business better.

Except for the giant screen, I don't see much that looks particularly extravagant. Too much space (why all those meeting rooms?) and too many employees, probably, but it's hardly Ion Storm.

>Too much space (why all those meeting rooms?) and too many employees, probably, but it's hardly Ion Storm.

Keep in mind that space in DC is anything but cheap [1][2] and LS has some prime locations.

1: http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2855-most-expensive-commerc...

2: http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/10/washington-dc-rents...

The giant screen was my first real "huh" moment, but also: rock walls really aren't cheap, nor is that office space, or the multiple stainless steel appliances.

It's not that I think this money was mis-spent -- at best those things might have been able to pay for the salaries of only a few employees -- it's that, taken together, it seems to be a sign of a company that might be distracted where its resources are concerned.

Or maybe they just got really good deals on everything. :-)

The sheer number of Herman Miller SAYL chairs and iMacs is unbelievable, not to mention the sheer number of employees.

Is Living Social even profitable?

Edit: To answer my own question, a $558 million loss last year: http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2012/02/01/regula...

DC office space has to be expensive, they can only build up 7 or so stories by law (nothing can be taller than the Treasury building).

The part about the Treasury building is a common misconception! It's actually related to the size of the street in front of the building: http://www.welovedc.com/2009/05/19/dc-mythbusting-the-height...

Yes and no. While you can go too far with it (and I'm not judging whether LS did) having a nice office makes workers happier, and more likely to stay. Providing free food means they are less likely to leave the office, etc. etc.

It's not a total waste of money, but it can be.

> a nice office makes workers happier

I agree, but there's always going to be a 'good enough' point somewhere between drab-gray-walls-office-park and million-dollar-renovation. When I see startups do this I see them pushing too far to the right end of the bell curve.

Some startups really come off like 'new money' people: buying lavish top-of-the-line-equipment with the same mindset as someone who buys $500 flip-flops because they saw Jennifer Aniston wearing them.

I'd much rather see experienced people that know when to invest in something and when something is 'good enough' over someone bragging about their 50+ retro arcade room.

> Providing free food means they are less likely to leave the office

This bothers me to a point that I am less likely to consider a company that offers free food. I look at these 'perks' as "Oh hey, we'd prefer if you would stay and work through lunch, also, why not just stay and work through dinner! We're having Pasta tonight! Breakfast anyone???" Nooooo Thankyou.

"Oh hey, we'd prefer if you would stay and work through lunch"

While some offices might be like that, not all are. I have a cafeteria in my office and I'm very glad for it- it saves me having to go out in the rain to get lunch. It has a separate seating area so it's not like you're expected to be typing while you eat.

Just because you eat in the office and/or at your desk doesn't mean that you're necessarily working. I've worked places where lunch time would consist of people browsing the news on their computers or just kicking back with the people around them while they ate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com