Sales and sales development roles are very different, especially if you are in an inside sales role. The number of feedback touchpoints are much higher for those roles. Sales interactions happen very frequently and getting feedback real-time increases the quality and relevance of the feedback.
>>To make this order happen, we had to take $45,000 in personal loans from friends and family, $65,000 in business credit card debt, $35,000 from a business loan, $60,000 in personal credit card debt, $20,000 in outstanding invoice debt, and $11,000 in loans from us personally to the business, for a total of $216,000 in debt.
I don't find myself very sympathetic. Feels like there is plenty of evidence that the business owners here aren't the most diligent or detailed oriented.
$45k+$65k+$35k+$60k+$20k+$11k adds up to $236k
Best case this is the result of their own naivety/incompetence, worse case this is just a distasteful marketing ploy.
>>Mid July, after 6 weeks of roasting 21 hours a day on the roaster in 3 shifts, working 12-16 hour days, regularly working until 11 pm to finish bagging and boxing.
Despite this work schedule, had no problem releasing their weekly hour-long podcasts every week in June/July.
> I don't find myself very sympathetic. Feels like there is plenty of evidence that the business owners here aren't the most diligent or detailed oriented.
> $45k+$65k+$35k+$60k+$20k+$11k adds up to $236k
$20k of that, as called out by them is invoice debt. Aka they will are owed that amount but amount, they just have yet to get it from the distributor. Leaving them with the $216k number given.
The award is for 61000 shares, which would have been worth $212M as of the 12/31/2021 share price. It's worth far less now.
Quite frankly, this is as sensible of a comp package for a CEO as one could propose. Compensated in primarily in equity with a long horizon for vesting. If a company wanted its executive to be aligned with the interests of its shareholders, is there really a better structure?
Aligning the incentives of the CEO to the incentives of shareholders by awarding the equivalent of an 0.012% ownership stake seems reasonable to me.
"The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life."
Marin County is one of the most segregated counties in the Bay Area, and by design from legacy housing policies. It's hard to ignore the fact that "preserving the essence" is the same thing as "continue to be a heavily segregated" locale.
"An inordinate number of the most segregated cities in the Bay Area are smaller cities that are more than 85 percent white in Marin County (Ross, Belvedere, Sausalito, San Anselmo, Fairfax, and Mill Valley are each in the top 10). Two of the top 10 are similarly small-sized, heavily white cities in San Mateo County (Portola Valley and Woodside)."
Well, I suppose the devil's advocate argument is once you get to this stage (publicly traded company), the company's priority is no longer just "do things to get traction", but also "do things to support share price". You could argue the ex consultant MBA type product manager is better suited to solve a problem that institutional investors run by ex finance MBA types have.
Specifically, I think that in the past people who were so MBA-influenced were mostly in finance, and not in charge of designing every minor product feature.
Now that they often are, you get the sense of being nickel-and-dimed every time you use the product. Maybe that's temporarily spiking the share price, but it's a really bad long-term strategy. You really don't want every product to descend into RyanAir pay-toilets-aboard-the-plane territory.
RyanAir (and other similar budget airlines) fill a niche.
People use it. Wouldn't almost anyone love to fly in a private jet? Sure, but it has a cost.
The problem is that this fucking cross-financing infested hellscape of consumer web built on the abyss of advertisement sucks in almost everything , because "it's free" even though of course there's a hedonic quality adjustment to using a site crafted for a purpose that you pay for versus the same with endless dark pattens, freemium upsell hooks and ads ads ads. banners. modals (remember the fucking popups?) cookie consent "you are the product" dialogs.
but at the same time it's true that dismissing those modals and scrolling through ads takes a few seconds while paying for content takes more time and some actual money too.
can the original root inspiration be sustained ? or will big pocketed capitalism will always swallow anything either through buys or through heavy competition forcing people to distort everything until there's nothing left of the original idea ?
And don’t forget getting traction in a new market is one thing. Defending market share in a more mature market with competitors who will eat your lunch is another.
I know I'm being repetitive of points already made by prior posters, but the logical fallacy of this article is so egregious that I can't help but post it again.
The opening paragraph of this article:
"From the onset, we have chosen to use one of Wall Street's measures of a better CEO – namely, market cap. In other words, by this measure, CEOs that create the most value are the best CEOs. Sure, there are other measures perhaps more virtuous; but market capital is well-known, generally reliable, and historically trended. So, let’s just roll with it as our measure of “better CEOs” as we have lots to discuss.
An objective review of the data leads to the conclusion: top companies are increasingly founded and managed by software engineers."
The first 100 words in this paragraph and the "objective conclusion" drawn is all you need to read to know the remaining 7000+ words are completely logically flawed. It's like making the assertion "the best restaurants in the world serve the most meals, so an objective review of the data leads to the conclusion that fast food restaurants have the best chefs."
About ~10% of AirBnbs shares were offered in the IPO. So only the shares sold in the IPO "left anything on the table". The other 90% of shareholders still have the option of selling at the higher market price.
Who's the say this wasn't the intended effect - the benefit to the valuation of the 90% of shares still being held is greater than the opportunity cost of the 10% shares sold in the initial IPO?
I know it doesn't really work this way anymore but the theoretical point of a public offering is raising capital for business operations. This represent billions in working capital that AirBNB missed out on.
Plus of the 10% of the shares soldo, most were to institutions with an understanding that they are going to hold it "long term" (i.e. which may be just a few months). Part of the IPO road show is for the company to select investors that believe in the company and who will be "good" shareholders.
If they opened higher than the market was willing to pay, the compounded effect would have been brutal, the media would have effectively declared airbnb dead on the sport with article after article contemplating exactly how they would die. And realistically that would have been the case with even a lukewarm launch, so who’s to say the net effect of leaving some money on the table for the 10% investers doesn’t overall pay itself back? The story today definitely isn’t “AirBnB is dying after covid period cuts them to the bone”.
Let's implement income caps for all Bay Area tech company employees at $75k. Then landlords will lower rent and the housing price issue will be solved. /s
Max incomes and max wealth seem like excellent ideas. It should be gradual tho. I would like to see a basic income start at 50 or 100 bucks. That way we can see some of the effect and deal with it. It would at least reveal how hard it is to implement.
