Hacker News Reader

Comment by scottfr | Hacker News Reader

Remember the CEO's idiotic (and apparently now deleted) blog post: "It's a fucking startup, why are you here" [1].

I guess 1/3 of the staff couldn't come up with a good enough answer. It's a shame they're the one's getting axed and not the CEO.

[1] http://www.fastcompany.com/3029439/most-innovative-companies...

View on HN

"Ultimately, if your goal is to build a great company — and that is our goal — you have to figure out your sustainable customer value proposition (your product differentiation) and your business model. Growth without solving for the USP and equation of the business only gets you so far."

So the way to rally the troops is to spout a bunch of talking points from the VC pitch deck?

Source: http://www.thesups.com/news/its-a-fuing-startup-why-are-you-...

> why are you here

To get fucking fired by incompetent blowhards apparently.

That appears to be the norm with most startups, and companies for that matter. Sad state of affairs.

Management demolishes $300 million in venture capital, employees get axed instead.

Most of that $300 million was spent on salaries for employees.

How much of it was spent on salaries for managers?

If most of the employees are technical, and the company is run like a typical tech company (ie, with too much middle management, but not headcount literally dominated by them), then line employee headcount costs likely dwarf those of management.

That is one reason why executive compensation can get so outrageous; if you have a lot of employees, most singular expenses become rounding errors.

Of course, and it was the execution choices by management that allocated that $300 million in such a way that they didn't arrive at a sustainable business. As such the business goes down the drain and the employees with it.

Employees received an average of $1MM over their time there?

Global workforce is/was ~275-300 according to the article.

More interestingly, how much did Goldberg take off the table in these huge later rounds?

Very simplistic view. When VCs put in that much cash, they also pressure management to spend it as fast as they can and expand and conquer new markets. That's the bet. That's the game.

Fab did that and it turned out the market was not there to float the investment. It happens, sometimes the firm beats the odds and people celebrate the management and their free spending ways as the reason for impressive growth. The ignore all the mistakes because the end result is all that matters.

Sometimes the bet doesn't pay off and here we are. Blaming the management and all the mistakes they made as the reason they ended up in this situation. The reality is the VCs, the management, and the employees know the truth. It is a game, it is a bet. If it folds, they move on.

Not sure why people get so worked up, lash out against management and go on and on about calling them "evil". It is a cop out. A lot of those same people were calling that same management "geniuses" for the rapid growth a couple of years ago.

Just a reminder: the employees they chew up and spit out during this process are human beings.

Just a reminder: the employees know it is a startup and they know the risk. That is why they picked Fab because of the potential upside vs. working at a place like IBM.

still no reason to treat them like dog poo. there are ways of inspiring your team and calling them expendable etc... ain't one of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com