>Spotify CEO Daniel Ek surprised by how much laying off 1,500 employees negatively affected the streaming giant’s operations
>When Spotify announced its largest-ever round of layoffs in December, CEO Daniel Ek hailed a new age of efficiency at the streaming giant. But four months on, it seems he and his executives weren’t prepared for how tough filling in for 1,500 axed workers would be.
>The music streamer enjoyed record quarterly profits of €168 million ($179 million) in the first three months of 2024, enjoying double-digit revenue growth to €3.6 billion ($3.8 billion) in the process.
>However, the company failed to hit its guidance on profitability and monthly active user growth.
Oh no! So following the Alien and Elon Cucksk and firing people was ultimately a bad decision long term?
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
bean counters gonna count
>Daniel Ek bad
>Elon Musk Bad
why dont you trannies ever spam about non-white CEO's?
is it against the server rules of the troony spam discord?
are you even trying
are you even trying?
yea daily threads about the CEO of the 16th (global MAU rank) social media company is totally organic and normal.
kys spammer.
wow, it's as if people have more shit to post about the dumb c**t who can't keep his mouth shut on twitter than the sneaky pajeet fricking shit up behind the scenes
>the dumb c**t who can't keep his mouth shut on twitter
your schizophrenic ad hominem is not technology related
>leave the multimillion dollar company CEO alone
lol no
you are missing the point
I would like to see as much schizophrenic ad hominem against the rest of bad CEOs too
yet you wont because we all know why, we all know you spam Musk threads everyday, we all know you will never pass.
Ugh. You win homosexual, you successfully derailed a thread. Got any other big plans this afternoon?
>Elon Musk must live rent free in my head and yall can't stop me!!
Wrong website my lesbian sister, you will not get gold and upvotes here.
lmfao get the frick out of here tourist
>performance of X is still good
This is what happens when you fire professionals and surround yourself with loyal cucks who would stay at the office at night because you said so.
Firing progressives from your company, like Elon did, is always the correct option.
Who was the person responsible for checking the links before Elon bought Twitter? Unless that position was changed, your butthurt is mute.
Aside from the bots problem, which is inevitable considering the efforts to make X profitable for everyone, the website is better than ever. No more progressive censorship. You can say 'gay' and 'learn to code' to journos without getting banned. Information flows better and media corporations are losing ground to independent journalists.
Only homosexuals are butthurt about layoffs.
Now try to post something positive about trannies and get banned. My dear zoomer, there is 2 parties in the country and one dunks on another all the time. If you can't post something it means the other party is in power.
>the website is better than ever
I can't read it without logging in so no, it's objectively worse.
lol he just created a culture of fear that makes people want to ship shit fast af with no testing or peer review lest they immediately get the axe
as if anyone can write good code on a 16 hour shift
more like jeetcode lmao
no terminally online person like trannies thoughever, everyone has suffered more than enough from their coordinated discord brigading and sabotaging
neither of those gays are white you fricking reddit homosexual
t. troony
> using spotify
> ever
not my problem. i don't use trash.
you're a spineless corporate wiener sucking simp.
this
it's alway elon and a literally who of the week
we can smell them a mile away
is terminal elon syndrome a thing now?
Microsoft is headed by a jeet, yet 80% of people still associate Bill Gates with Microsoft even though he hasn't been involved with Microsoft for like 20 years.
Just because he's a code monkey doesn't mean he knows how to manage internal corporate culture or politics. They still haven't killed off products and services, and that's ultimately going to catch up to them. More people that people avoid any product/service they make or host just because it's Alphabet or Google might suddenly kill it off at any point, is another person they need to make that product/service successful and have it keep on going.
And that trend is something the CEO needs to stop, otherwise things are going to end up that way.
I wonder what kind of people did they lay off.
Was it code monkeys, or was it israeli lawyers, psychologists and other kinds of specializations for advertisement?
gut tells me like a 35/65 split, although there may have been some operations/management people who actually did provide some benefits, but got caught in the crossfire.
Wasn't the idea to lay off dead weight and not productive people? Seems like they failed to do that
if they followed their idea, they'd lay themselves off and make most senior backend engineer the CEO because he's one of the only people who give a shit and comprehend what's going on in his company and why would they do that?
You codemonkeys are moronic to think that you have the skills to become ceo
>can program therefore empathize with anyone working at the company
yes they have 100% of skills required, have a nice day nepotism baby
You're delusional and always will be a wageslave
managers can get fired without loss of productivity in a company because they don't do anything of value
If you have to many managers. Or for a short while when wagies are already planned into what to do.
one manager is already too many because senior devs do the managing of their juniors already, manager exists only to leech money and complain about project velocity or whatever
>If you have to many managers. Or for a short while when wagies are already planned into what to do.
They talk like autists and their plans are all moronic
the problem is that they aren't autists unlike people who do the job
>because they don't do anything of value
unless the company policies/culture forces them to get involved in the work, it varies, autist
>work
>culture
oh nonononono
Yea dude CEO of Spotify really needs those interpersonal skills
Indians bad, but Google's CEO is an actual developer promoted to the position.
>but Google's CEO is an actual developer promoted to the position.
> jeet
> actual developer
good morning sir
there are jeets who can program, unlike IQfy posters, none of which can
>Indians bad, but Google's CEO is an actual developer promoted to the position
SAAAAAARRRR
Pichai is from McKinsey you fricking tard.
that's basically what Bayer is doing. Middle management is garbage.
tick tock wagie.
>Seems like they failed to do that
No shit. But you can't estimate people's value and follow the fleeting trend at the same time, so you have to do it at random.
>you can't estimate people's value
but you can though?
If they only kept the productive people then it would be like 20 people
Even the ussr knew about this phenomenon 55 years ago https://youtu.be/s7JEoqB6-FQ
>subtitles/captins unavailable
what is google trying to hide?
kek, a local in El Paso, TX told me that in their city, one guy has the shovel and 8 people supervise him, bloatmaxxed middle management in the city government
Companies rarely know who are the productive employees and who are the deadweight. Those most likely to know are the immediate supervisors of those employees but middle management has its own set of incentives that aren't aligned with what's best for the company so if you let them decide who to layoff, they'll often pick based on criteria other than productivity.
yeah it's really peculiar how employees notice who's worthless but companies? They couldn't possibly know despite managers who have this job of figuring out somehow don't know despite being paid more than entire team they manage... Really curious indeed.
Managers don't have the company's best interest in mind. Managers have the manger's best interest in mind.
that's why managers are worthless and wagies should be allowed to manage themselves
That's not true at all, the productive people know who the dead weight is, the dead weight think they're doing a great job and working very hard. Many productive people also don't make a show of how productive they are when dead weight love to put on a show for management.
>managers who have this job of figuring out somehow don't know despite being paid more than entire team they manage
they intentionally bloat up their roster because of exactly this reason.
>The music streamer enjoyed record quarterly profits of €168 million ($179 million) in the first three months of 2024
>However, the company failed to hit its guidance on profitability
what
>Everything past Poland us yellow or orange.
I love those maps.
low grade slope
You can fire people to improve your financial data short-term but your company would stop growing. Who would've thought huh?
If you look at how massively and brutally fast Musk cut jobs, the performance of X is still good. one problem is that his new features were rushed and thus sucked and, much more, that the former user base hates him personally.
Why do you need 7000+ people for a streaming service?
not enough automation, undoubtedly
Spotify is hot garbage, the devs and designers clearly dont use their app intensively
It is known that spotify sources their audio from rutracker, maybe not to general public, but you heard it here first, anon.
>thinking you need over 1500 engineers to make Spotify
If they just wanted to maintain the status-quo it should take like 10 tech guys and one manager to manage payroll and keep everyone organized.
If the product is going to grow, continue adding more content etc, then they need probably another 5-10 tech guys (maybe more if they are really adding a lot of new content quickly), a few contract/DRM lawyers, a couple marketing people, and maybe add in one position for combined HR / office manager.
I genuinely do not understand these megabloat tech companies. The entire magic of the digital age is how much can be accomplished with just a few people because a properly designed system mostly takes care of itself.
>>The music streamer enjoyed record quarterly profits of €168 million ($179 million) in the first three months of 2024, enjoying double-digit revenue growth to €3.6 billion ($3.8 billion) in the process.
sounds like it worked to me? what's the problem? their site is garbage anyhow, pre-layoff or not.
tick tock managers
https://web.archive.org/web/20240421090533/https://fortune.com/europe/2024/04/11/pharmaceutical-giant-bayer-ceo-bill-anderson-rid-bosses-staff-self-organize-save-2-billion/
If Bayer had never bought the fricking mutt poison peddler they would have now stood there supreme right next to the Danish. But nopeee had to suck up to the mutts.
>hey bruh, how about you'll be creating tasks by yourself and showing us burndown charts every week?)
>also, handle all the communications along with your primary job, please, will ya?
sounds based. if you want a secretary self-organize one, b***h.
I've seen literally everything this CEO is seething about happening at my company as well. Middle management roster bloatmaxxes and they all play pretend work in-perpetuity and then rush to spend money contracting out subpar work to meet deliverables. Anyone who defends these people are scum. Any executive that takes a stand against these parasites is based.
You don't get it? They'll be doing twice as much work now because tasks and charts ain't gonna create themselves even if it takes up not that much time to do. They're firing managers but don't give up their routines.
sounds fine to me as long as I get paid more
>huh? no you're not getting paid more
this isn't on my contract so not my problem.
oh and they're not gonna increase your salary, so opposing to keep managers is moronic in the same way
Honestly, so many of those day in the life in tech tiktok thots would be more useful as actual secretaries organizing stuff for engineers.
>laid off 1500 people
>still works just fine on my machine
I would say they did a good thing
I unironically don't know what people at Spotify even do day to day, the app never changes and never improves, and they just take more and more from the artists
>we added audio books but you can only listen a few hours a month with your premium subscription
Oh yay, I can stream mp3s of people reading books! Truly such hard work that took hundreds of man hours of development and a gazillion dollars that was stolen from legitimate artists
>make record profits
>fire people
>be told you didn't earn enough money to be considered having done a good job
Only a world run by Dodge Bros. vs Ford could fabricate such a ridiculous situation.
spotify UI is fricking garbage, they been fricking with the userbase for so long, the algorithm is autistic and keeps trying to shill you 0 views trash
Spotify is bloated dogshit. The answer is to cut entire categories of features that are shit. The CEO is a homosexual Swede so clueless and cowardly. Assume it will only continue to get worse.
I think what people fail to realize is that twitter had already totally saturated the market it's in and completed almost all meaningful objectives besides the hard ones (stopping bots)
So when Elon stupidly agreed to buy twitter, tried to frick with them, got held to his word by the courts, he probably wanted to do a massive layoff just as retribution
The difference here is spotify does way more complicated shit than tw*tter and has serious competition in youtube/tidal/etc. Their business model is also somewhat precarious in that they can't compensate the labels/music producers at a rate that's acceptable, their compensation has been going down over time
Meanwhile the twitter user base is on there to advertise, politicians, company, porn, etc.
American tech companies can fire because they over-hire. They hoard talent to try and prevent them from being head-hunted by competitors because Wall Street gives them infinite money. While it's true that in any company, the top 20% of the people do 50% of the work, it's (a) impossible to actually identify the people doing nothing and (b) the symbolism of the firing can be as damaging to company culture as the act, since the productive workers are likely to think "why bother? I'm probably next." The reason people like Google and Amazon can fire people in such large numbers is because they hired them to do nothing in the first place.
I think every mature company overhires just so that they preserve the business in case someone decides to jump off the ship.
Google especially will hire and isolate entire wings of people, making sure they're working on bullshit products that have no plan of providing any value (like the 10 billionth redesign of youtube's video page), making sure that they don't interact with or interact with other institutional knowledge pillars so that when they fire them no one cares. Amazon on the other hand seems to hire for useful things, but things that have a timespan so that when they're done they can feel free to fire them. again, in large vertical slices so they never interact with people who care they were fired and never had a chance to learn anything that would make them valuable to keep
>making sure that they don't interact with or interact with other institutional knowledge pillars so that when they fire them no one cares
Google is so full of internal tools the knowledge of it won't help you to get hired in any bit. Frankly, nobody gives a shit which techs you've been using. What matter is Google in your CV.
This, over hiring is necessary because if you end up with a division/role where multiple people leave in short succession you can end up in a very bad position.
As you fire you destroy morale as the other poster said, you disincentivize anyone from joining your company as you appear to be contracting, and you make the remaining workers work more which results in further resentment and morale issues.
The end result can easily be a death spiral where you end up with subpar talent that only tolerates you (IBM)
Overhire (hire enough people to not leave anyone overworked, then later fire most of them so the remaining employees can do the jobs of 2-10 other employees for the salary of one (paid based on cost of living standards last updated three decades ago))
you also have to account for periodic absences, people are fragile and then need a day off after the spouse dies or they get sick, or they partied too hard and are now puking/shitting themselves badly for a day, so one department might be understaffed or running on the bare minimum of workers for a couple of days this week, next week it is a different department, the week after a couple of managers stay home with migraines, CEO goes absent for a few days to attend a relative's funeral out of town or suck off a politician for a few days (or get sucked, whatever), etc.