Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 199 posts

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#181

Post by votepaunchy »

big_chungus wrote: post #133
freehunter wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be amazing to see a co-working brand have locations absolutely everywhere, like 24 hour gyms. One price gets you into any of them and they're all the same. It would help with customer retention because they've already paid $300/mo to get in, so if they move or travel they're not paying someone else. They're sticking with you. I'm surprised WeWork locations are so few and far between, while Snap Fitne…

It's not impossible, but I'm not sure a one-price-fits-all makes the most sense. Let's say I travel mostly in the mid-west. I go to lots of co-working spaces for my three-hundred-per-month. You, mean while, live in new england. You travel to lots of spaces, too. Here's the difference: it is significantly more expensive to operate a space in new england. Food is pricier, land is much pricier, the list goes on. For a u…

Gyms solved this problem with pricing tiers. Silver, gold, platinum, etc. You can only visit locations at or below your membership level.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#182

Post by SeeDave »

votepaunchy wrote: post #181
big_chungus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not impossible, but I'm not sure a one-price-fits-all makes the most sense. Let's say I travel mostly in the mid-west. I go to lots of co-working spaces for my three-hundred-per-month. You, mean while, live in new england. You travel to lots of spaces, too. Here's the difference: it is significantly more expensive to operate a space in new england. Food is pricier, land is much pricier, the list goes on. For a u…

Gyms solved this problem with pricing tiers. Silver, gold, platinum, etc. You can only visit locations at or below your membership level.

That is a far more reputable industry than timeshares ;)

I would propose Silver, Gold, Platinum plus optional drop-in rates of $x day, $x4 for a week, $x15 for a month such that $Gold - $Silver = $x*15

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#183

Post by freehunter »

jmhnilbog wrote: post #179
freehunter wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be amazing to see a co-working brand have locations absolutely everywhere, like 24 hour gyms. One price gets you into any of them and they're all the same. It would help with customer retention because they've already paid $300/mo to get in, so if they move or travel they're not paying someone else. They're sticking with you. I'm surprised WeWork locations are so few and far between, while Snap Fitne…

If only everything could be homogenous everywhere, so the very few people who have the opportunity to work wherever they like could avoid momentary inconveniences!

I'm not sure how that is a productive comment.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#185

Post by chocolatebunny »

So I'm trying to look into IWG (which the article claims is WeWork's primary rival) since it looks like they'll have less competition in a year or two. It looks like they're traded in the London Stock Exchange. Google seems to claim that they're owned by Berkshire Hathaway Energy but I can't find any evidence for that.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#187

Post by quaquaqua1 »

elliekelly wrote: post #108
tempestn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approved by whom? Someone might look at it after the fact, but nothing stops a company from buying or selling with its shareholders. (In fact it's quite common for private companies to pay owners for things like office space.) But yes, it should be at fair market value; you're not supposed to buy something for one price just to flip it to your company for a higher price (effectively taking compensation as a capital g…

Putting aside the fact that it's absolutely asinine that "we" can be trademarked at all, $5.9 million seems like a pretty hefty price tag for a relatively unknown trademark. Edit: I pulled the trademark[1] on USPTO. I don't know much about IP law but it looks like the mark was only registered in December 2018. And WeWork "rebranded" as the "We Company" in January 2019.[2] Am I reading the trademark info wrong or is t…

The timing is deliberate-- the founder used company money (from 3rd party investors) to personally enrich himself.

It's better than stocks or salary-- it's cold hard cash in an entity he wholly owns rather than partly owns :)

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#188

Post by hombre_fatal »

freehunter wrote: post #131
hombre_fatal wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone needs to exercise. WeWork appeals to a tiny fraction of the workforce.

>Everyone needs to exercise Yes, but not everyone does, and not everyone who has a Snap Fitness membership actually uses it. If that statement held true, Snap Fitness would have a US membership of ~330 million people.

Well, of course. But exercising can be marketing to everyone. Everyone is potentially in that target market.

The same can't be said for WeWork.

This is an obvious difference that answers the question to why you don't see WeWork everywhere you see gyms. Even my tiny hometown has a 24-hour fitness. Whether everyone uses their Snap Fitness membership is irrelevant, but notice how just about anyone can be guilted in to a gym membership.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#189

Post by mrnobody_67 »

euler_angles wrote: post #112

This post just made We* seem like a big scheme just to make the founder wealthy. Am I missing something?

You can say that about pretty much any start-up, though in public most founders are all about the mission and changing the world (insert "HBO Silicon Valley" meme here).

We has just been particularly blatant about it.

Re: WeWork isn’t a tech company; it’s a soap opera

#190

Post by wodenokoto »

freehunter wrote: post #115
roland35 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like their isn't much benefit to brand loyalty here - I would imagine it is easy to simply do a google search for a short term work place in a new city if you need a change of scenery from the coffee shop!

I think it would be amazing to see a co-working brand have locations absolutely everywhere, like 24 hour gyms. One price gets you into any of them and they're all the same. It would help with customer retention because they've already paid $300/mo to get in, so if they move or travel they're not paying someone else. They're sticking with you. I'm surprised WeWork locations are so few and far between, while Snap Fitne…

While not as prevalent as gyms, regus let’s users use all their locations.

Regus is old school from before coworking space was a term. They call themselves an office hotel, if I remember correctly. But they do have an area with coffee and tables where you can plug in a computer and work.

Post reply on HN