If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Inc)   One-third of employees can no longer haz cheezburger   (inc.com) divider line 91
    More: Misc, Ben Huh  
•       •       •

5731 clicks; posted to Business » on 09 Jul 2013 at 3:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-09 03:54:23 AM
Why does it take 90 people to operate a website(s) running off-the-shelf CMS software that serves content submitted by users?

How many people are employed by Fark? Like.... five?
 
2013-07-09 03:57:19 AM

Ishkur: Why does it take 90 people to operate a website(s) running off-the-shelf CMS software that serves content submitted by users?

How many people are employed by Fark? Like.... five?


This. I am baffled. This story would be right at home with the idiocy of the dot-com bubble, but in 2013!?
 
2013-07-09 04:10:17 AM
Penny Arcade runs their webcomic, the forum for said webcomic, a news branch, a charity, three conventions a year now and a reality show and I'm counting their contact page at 15 people.
 
2013-07-09 04:16:01 AM
How much difference do 30 pretty-much-minimum wage, according to some reports, jobs make to the bottom line?
 
2013-07-09 04:17:08 AM
I was on vacation with my wife in Spain when I received our Q1 2013 numbers.....

Yeah, should have been a lay off of one.
 
2013-07-09 04:24:00 AM
Cheezburger was always profitable-until we took venture capital investments. We raised $30 million in 2011, and our company went from 45 to 90 people in nine months, and we started spending more than we were making.

So of course he blames the workers, the only ones actually creating new product. I doubt it will matter to their business that I am now boycotting their site, since I keep all my scripts disabled on their site to avoid the stupid intrusive ads, but he can say goodbye to at least one frequent visitor now.

/wellbye.jpg
 
2013-07-09 04:39:55 AM
NINETY employees?

Holy farkballs.

insert: invisiblepileofyourimaginedworth.jpg
 
2013-07-09 04:49:52 AM

HotWingAgenda: Cheezburger was always profitable-until we took venture capital investments. We raised $30 million in 2011, and our company went from 45 to 90 people in nine months, and we started spending more than we were making.

So of course he blames the workers, the only ones actually creating new product. I doubt it will matter to their business that I am now boycotting their site, since I keep all my scripts disabled on their site to avoid the stupid intrusive ads, but he can say goodbye to at least one frequent visitor now.

/wellbye.jpg


Same here.
 
2013-07-09 04:51:28 AM
Cheezburger was always profitable-until we took venture capital investments.

This is pretty much all you need to know about investment.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-07-09 05:07:36 AM

HotWingAgenda: Cheezburger was always profitable-until we took venture capital investments. We raised $30 million in 2011, and our company went from 45 to 90 people in nine months, and we started spending more than we were making.

So of course he blames the workers, the only ones actually creating new product. I doubt it will matter to their business that I am now boycotting their site, since I keep all my scripts disabled on their site to avoid the stupid intrusive ads, but he can say goodbye to at least one frequent visitor now.

/wellbye.jpg


He didn't blame the workers at all, not even in the slightest. You are taking something he said and letting your fear and anger control you to see what you want to see.

Plus, its not like Cheezeburger was a profitable company when the layoffs began. It is very common for companies to lay off workers when they have an actual real loss.
 
2013-07-09 05:20:09 AM
If you were profitable at 45 employees, what the blueberry fark made you think you'd be more profitable at 90 employees? Take a VC's money if he/she is dumb enough to offer you a multiple that's far more than your company will ever be worth (technically, that sort of dilution is accretive, but as long as it's technically dilution, it's the best kind of dilution)... but after you've done so, for fark's sake, don't waste it. Think of it as a rolling exit strategy - the more you can roll 'em for, the better.

/and you were still 20% cooler when your URLs actually-had-things-we-could-remember-and-google-from-memory.jpg, rather than random 9-digit hex strings after 10-digit decimal numbers.
//seriously, who told you that making yourself invisible to a GIS was a good business decision?
 
2013-07-09 05:35:10 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: How much difference do 30 pretty-much-minimum wage, according to some reports, jobs make to the bottom line?


After reading that article, I will never visit that site again.
 
2013-07-09 05:42:40 AM
Aww did the poor guy have to end HIS vacation to Spain early so HE could put people out of work. How terrible for HIM. We should have so much pity reserved for him.
 
2013-07-09 05:58:40 AM

ThatDarkFellow: Aww did the poor guy have to end HIS vacation to Spain early so HE could put people out of work. How terrible for HIM. We should have so much pity reserved for him.


Truly. Can you imagine the courage it must have taken for him to tell his supervisors to fire people?  It almost makes you weep
 
2013-07-09 05:59:35 AM
90 people seems like a lot until you realize they have to hand-deliver every LOLcat when the internets ask for them. You can only imagine the amount of toner they go through on the copy machine.
 
2013-07-09 06:26:59 AM

Twilight Farkle: If you were profitable at 45 employees, what the blueberry fark made you think you'd be more profitable at 90 employees?


Because the VC wants bigger, better, faster returns and with retard math doubling your workforce means doubling your profits.
 
2013-07-09 06:48:02 AM
Meh. I've been a SW engineer for 13 years. If you can't handle getting laid off then this isn't the career for you. I've only been cut once. If you work in anything related to VC you should almost expect it.
 
2013-07-09 06:55:01 AM

HotWingAgenda: Cheezburger was always profitable-until we took venture capital investments. We raised $30 million in 2011, and our company went from 45 to 90 people in nine months, and we started spending more than we were making.

So of course he blames the workers, the only ones actually creating new product. I doubt it will matter to their business that I am now boycotting their site, since I keep all my scripts disabled on their site to avoid the stupid intrusive ads, but he can say goodbye to at least one frequent visitor now.

/wellbye.jpg


How do you know that the employees terminated were "creating new product?"

They may have been great at their job, but that doesn't mean that what they did contributed to company profitablity.
 
2013-07-09 07:32:36 AM
We are willing giving people with this type of attitude the lion's share of our collective resources and power.

How many more sacrifices are you willing to make to buy some asshole CEO (who caused the mess in the first place) another solid gold corporate jet?
 
2013-07-09 07:35:12 AM

ThatDarkFellow: Aww did the poor guy have to end HIS vacation to Spain early so HE could put people out of work. How terrible for HIM. We should have so much pity reserved for him.



I know right?  How dare a CEO ever take a vacation, they should always be in the office working until they die.
 
2013-07-09 07:35:13 AM
"Twenty-four people were let go, bringing our head count to 42. It was the most difficult week I've ever experienced. Often, when faced with a problem, you want to run in the other direction. It's like seeing a lion in the jungle. But I have to do what is best for the company, even if it sucks emotionally."

This is a pretty bad comparison.  It implies that the responsible way to deal with a lion is to fill its belly until it won't bother anyone else.

He could have just called it a reorg like everyone else.  It lets you blame the structure and not the manager.  It's a great way of hiding top-level failure.

Also, why is this news?
 
2013-07-09 07:39:34 AM

Kimpak: ThatDarkFellow: Aww did the poor guy have to end HIS vacation to Spain early so HE could put people out of work. How terrible for HIM. We should have so much pity reserved for him.


I know right?  How dare a CEO ever take a vacation, they should always be in the office working until they die.


You're clueless.

I have personally worked with several CEOs at the C-Level. Have you?
 
2013-07-09 07:40:12 AM
Maybe one less international vacation and one more job?
 
2013-07-09 07:44:18 AM
Doesn't sound like from TFA that he really had to think really hard about his options. Maybe he was wrestling with flying home early and telling his managers to "fire 24 employees" face to face rather than just calling them on the phone? He dumped the messy part onto the supervisors, but his mistake was taking the VC money in the first place and doubling the work force with that money.
 
2013-07-09 07:46:53 AM

Bendal: Doesn't sound like from TFA that he really had to think really hard about his options. Maybe he was wrestling with flying home early and telling his managers to "fire 24 employees" face to face rather than just calling them on the phone? He dumped the messy part onto the supervisors, but his mistake was taking the VC money in the first place and doubling the work force with that money.


. . . without considering whether or not demand would rise enough to keep up with his expenses.
 
2013-07-09 07:53:28 AM
Fark response boiled down:  There's no way a company like this can support 90 employees, so the CEO is a bad person for firing some of them.

Let me know where you guys got your business degrees, so I can avoid them if I ever go back to school.
 
2013-07-09 07:54:18 AM

TFerWannaBe: Bendal: Doesn't sound like from TFA that he really had to think really hard about his options. Maybe he was wrestling with flying home early and telling his managers to "fire 24 employees" face to face rather than just calling them on the phone? He dumped the messy part onto the supervisors, but his mistake was taking the VC money in the first place and doubling the work force with that money.

. . . without considering whether or not demand would rise enough to keep up with his expenses.


It's one big red flag for investors.  Hopefully they have the ability to replace/train the top management, or this is the time to get out.
 
2013-07-09 08:02:28 AM

nmemkha: You're clueless.

I have personally worked with several CEOs at the C-Level. Have you?


What does that have to do with taking a vacation?  But for the record yes, I have worked with a couple.  Both took *gasp!* vacations.
 
2013-07-09 08:04:07 AM

GoldSpider: Fark response boiled down:  There's no way a company like this can support 90 employees, so the CEO is a bad person for firing some of them.

Let me know where you guys got your business degrees, so I can avoid them if I ever go back to school.


Ugh, he didn't take responsibility for the company before that point, only when it would make him look bad to the investors.  Who hired people into that situation?  Who evaluated the market and made sure to size their workforce to sustain the hit of high and low estimates?  How did he not see it coming until the quarterly report?  Is there no other data collection and business intelligence system in the company?  The questions go on and on.

If a ship gets smashed up on the rocks who takes responsibility?  Is it enough to spearhead fixing the ship, or do you need to reconcile why it crashed?
 
2013-07-09 08:05:35 AM

Kimpak: nmemkha: You're clueless.

I have personally worked with several CEOs at the C-Level. Have you?

What does that have to do with taking a vacation?  But for the record yes, I have worked with a couple.  Both took *gasp!* vacations.


Yeah its called "their jobs".
 
2013-07-09 08:13:45 AM

nmemkha: Yeah its called "their jobs".


So...you're trying to argue a CEO should never take a vacation?  Even the president takes vacations for crissakes.  In this case he was still doing his job, while on vacation.  So yeah...I'm going to go ahead and say you're the clueless one.  Or perhaps just joyless, maybe you need a vacation.
 
2013-07-09 08:14:23 AM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-07-09 08:19:45 AM

nmemkha: Kimpak: nmemkha: You're clueless.

I have personally worked with several CEOs at the C-Level. Have you?

What does that have to do with taking a vacation?  But for the record yes, I have worked with a couple.  Both took *gasp!* vacations.

Yeah its called "their jobs".


I ain't playing favorites here, but as someone stated before, what does this have anything to do with taking a vacation? Seriously, CEOs and executives are not allowed to take a vacation in any of the companies you've worked for?
 
2013-07-09 08:20:37 AM
Dracolich:

Ugh, he didn't take responsibility for the company before that point, only when it would make him look bad to the investors.  Who hired people into that situation?  Who evaluated the market and made sure to size their workforce to sustain the hit of high and low estimates?  How did he not see it coming until the quarterly report?  Is there no other data collection and business intelligence system in the company?  The questions go on and on.

If a ship gets smashed up on the rocks who takes responsibility?  Is it enough to spearhead fixing the ship, or do you need to reconcile why it crashed?


I don't see how doing that and reducing headcount are mutually exclusive.  His VC partners would be asking those very same questions of him.
 
2013-07-09 08:24:10 AM
So maybe I'm a clueless idiot who's missing something obvious, but:

1. Have 90 employees.
2. Get rid of 24.
3. Now have 42.

How do those numbers add up? Had they already shoved a bunch of folks out the door before this? Or maybe the reason the company is in trouble is because management is egregiously bad at math?
 
2013-07-09 08:28:46 AM
And that was my first visit to cheezburger.  That made Buzzfeed look sophisticated.  How is that even a business?
 
2013-07-09 08:46:53 AM

Rapmaster2000: And that was my first visit to cheezburger.  That made Buzzfeed look sophisticated.  How is that even a business?


Ad revenue + high traffic volume + virtually free content = biznazz.
 
2013-07-09 08:51:07 AM
nmemkha:

You're clueless.

I have personally worked with several CEOs at the C-Level. Have you?


Several CEOs at the C-Level?     The CEO of the Department of Redundancy Department called, and you're fired.
 
2013-07-09 08:58:30 AM

RoxtarRyan: nmemkha: Kimpak: nmemkha: You're clueless.

I have personally worked with several CEOs at the C-Level. Have you?

What does that have to do with taking a vacation?  But for the record yes, I have worked with a couple.  Both took *gasp!* vacations.

Yeah its called "their jobs".

I ain't playing favorites here, but as someone stated before, what does this have anything to do with taking a vacation? Seriously, CEOs and executives are not allowed to take a vacation in any of the companies you've worked for?


Given that lower level employees are lucky if they get a whole two weeks, why the hell should executives miss out on the fun?
 
2013-07-09 08:59:34 AM

JerkyMeat: I was on vacation with my wife in Spain when I received our Q1 2013 numbers.....

Yeah, should have been a lay off of one.


I was just thinking he should cry to some call center employees.
 
2013-07-09 09:05:11 AM
The venture capitalist made him do it.
Boo hoo.
 
2013-07-09 09:06:17 AM

Kimpak: How dare a CEO ever take a vacation, they should always be in the office working until they die.


Many certainly seem to feel that way about their  employees, you know. Although to be perfectly fair, we do not know that for sure about this one.

I will say this, however, that article reeks of narcissism that borders on sociopathy. While nominally about what happened to the company, it is really all about him, his feelings, and an attempt to preserve his image. It is almost as if the world outside of himself does not exist, or is at the very least unimportant.
 
2013-07-09 09:08:31 AM

Twilight Farkle: If you were profitable at 45 employees, what the blueberry fark made you think you'd be more profitable at 90 employees?


But, but, but ... GROWTH!

/The philosophy of the cancer cell/venture capitalist.
 
2013-07-09 09:16:14 AM

CheatCommando: Kimpak: How dare a CEO ever take a vacation, they should always be in the office working until they die.

Many certainly seem to feel that way about their  employees, you know. Although to be perfectly fair, we do not know that for sure about this one.

I will say this, however, that article reeks of narcissism that borders on sociopathy. While nominally about what happened to the company, it is really all about him, his feelings, and an attempt to preserve his image. It is almost as if the world outside of himself does not exist, or is at the very least unimportant.


What he was *trying* to do is say "We're not cold, heartless bastards.  Taking on venture capital, in retrospect, may have been a mistake, because it necessitated this.  This is the hardest thing I've ever done, and we at least tried to give our ex-employees a soft landing."

The entire company floats upon the good will of their customer base.  It's not like you can't get funny captioned cat pictures elsewhere.  This was a necessary step to avoid a huge backlash.
 
2013-07-09 09:25:09 AM

Lexx: CheatCommando: Kimpak: How dare a CEO ever take a vacation, they should always be in the office working until they die.

Many certainly seem to feel that way about their  employees, you know. Although to be perfectly fair, we do not know that for sure about this one.

I will say this, however, that article reeks of narcissism that borders on sociopathy. While nominally about what happened to the company, it is really all about him, his feelings, and an attempt to preserve his image. It is almost as if the world outside of himself does not exist, or is at the very least unimportant.

What he was *trying* to do is say "We're not cold, heartless bastards.  Taking on venture capital, in retrospect, may have been a mistake, because it necessitated this.  This is the hardest thing I've ever done, and we at least tried to give our ex-employees a soft landing."

The entire company floats upon the good will of their customer base.  It's not like you can't get funny captioned cat pictures elsewhere.  This was a necessary step to avoid a huge backlash.


I'd say he failed miserably then.
 
2013-07-09 09:27:25 AM

CheatCommando: Lexx: CheatCommando: Kimpak: How dare a CEO ever take a vacation, they should always be in the office working until they die.

Many certainly seem to feel that way about their  employees, you know. Although to be perfectly fair, we do not know that for sure about this one.

I will say this, however, that article reeks of narcissism that borders on sociopathy. While nominally about what happened to the company, it is really all about him, his feelings, and an attempt to preserve his image. It is almost as if the world outside of himself does not exist, or is at the very least unimportant.

What he was *trying* to do is say "We're not cold, heartless bastards.  Taking on venture capital, in retrospect, may have been a mistake, because it necessitated this.  This is the hardest thing I've ever done, and we at least tried to give our ex-employees a soft landing."

The entire company floats upon the good will of their customer base.  It's not like you can't get funny captioned cat pictures elsewhere.  This was a necessary step to avoid a huge backlash.

I'd say he failed miserably then.


Don't know about that.  I feel bad for them, and I myself have never been given severance plus had my former employer try to hook me up with a new job on my last day.
 
2013-07-09 09:35:37 AM

Lexx: CheatCommando: Lexx: CheatCommando: Kimpak: How dare a CEO ever take a vacation, they should always be in the office working until they die.

Many certainly seem to feel that way about their  employees, you know. Although to be perfectly fair, we do not know that for sure about this one.

I will say this, however, that article reeks of narcissism that borders on sociopathy. While nominally about what happened to the company, it is really all about him, his feelings, and an attempt to preserve his image. It is almost as if the world outside of himself does not exist, or is at the very least unimportant.

What he was *trying* to do is say "We're not cold, heartless bastards.  Taking on venture capital, in retrospect, may have been a mistake, because it necessitated this.  This is the hardest thing I've ever done, and we at least tried to give our ex-employees a soft landing."

The entire company floats upon the good will of their customer base.  It's not like you can't get funny captioned cat pictures elsewhere.  This was a necessary step to avoid a huge backlash.

I'd say he failed miserably then.

Don't know about that.  I feel bad for them, and I myself have never been given severance plus had my former employer try to hook me up with a new job on my last day.


I've read too many marketing department massaged messages to take this one at face value. Something about the tone of it sets me off almost immediately, and I've been on both sides of painful and necessary layoffs before.
 
2013-07-09 09:50:00 AM

Secret Agent X23: So maybe I'm a clueless idiot who's missing something obvious, but:

1. Have 90 employees.
2. Get rid of 24.
3. Now have 42.

How do those numbers add up? Had they already shoved a bunch of folks out the door before this? Or maybe the reason the company is in trouble is because management is egregiously bad at math?


Obviously, some high level person in accounting has been embezzling employees.
 
2013-07-09 10:31:00 AM

JerkyMeat: I was on vacation with my wife in Spain when I received our Q1 2013 numbers.....

Yeah, should have been a lay off of one.


Winner winner chicken dinner!
 
2013-07-09 10:42:13 AM

jsteiner78: nmemkha:

You're clueless.

I have personally worked with several CEOs at the C-Level. Have you?

Several CEOs at the C-Level?     The CEO of the Department of Redundancy Department called, and you're fired.


No you moron, I included that information so I didn't "Oh you were probably the office gofer and didn't know shiat" comments.

I worked a company whose business model was flatly stated in private as selling mostly non-functional software to small business that were too small to try to sue them. Yes, it was literally laid out like that, by the CEO, to me in his office. I quit that some soon after.

These people are scum.
 
Displayed 50 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report