Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17% • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#631

Post by esskay » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:00 PM UTC

acjohnson55 wrote: post #462

maxglute wrote: post #102

Should have fired 80% of their employees years ago when service was reasonably feature complete. Not that I don't sympathize with people getting laid off, but feels like past a certain point, more heads changes products faster than can be fixed, and sometimes moving fast degrades what shouldn't have been changed in the first place. NPR acquisition drama aside, pocketcast has like 25 employees that makes the service s…

At every company I've worked at, there are things we want to do that nearly everybody think are a good idea. But we can't do them all, because we have limited capital. So we have to be very strategic. Spotify has developed a huge surface area, because they are attempting to be the one-stop shop for all things audio. The thesis is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and that's what they're selling to…

> they are attempting to be the one-stop shop for all things audio

The only problem with that approach is they now have a huge number of half baked or broken features. It's infuriating as hell when you spot a bug or something not working as expected only to find a post on their community dating back close to a decade, with thousands of people confirming the issue and someone from their team repeatedly replying with a vague message about passing it on to the team.

Spotify's development has somehow been run at a snails pace even with their huge headcount.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#632

Post by adam_arthur » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:01 PM UTC

Solvency wrote: post #590

adam_arthur wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software companies are pretty uniquely positioned such that they have far more employees than are operationally necessary. Not to say that those employees don't provide value, but the spread between operationally stable employment levels and current headcount is far wider than other industries. Thus, more potential for large cuts.

Ok but why?

Because margin on core software products tends to be far higher than other industries.

For example, retailers tend to have single digit margins. Software products often have 50%+ and sometimes 70%+.

Thus lots of excess money to hire people that aren't necessarily operationally critical.

A retailer with a large excess of store associates would fail quickly, whereas a software company can often survive in perpetuity

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#633

Post by wahnfrieden » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:01 PM UTC

gtirloni wrote: post #580

querez wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I see, we ARE human resources I think that's just a normal process of growing older. Also: yes, of course you are a resource to your employer. An annoying one (stell or laptops don't usually talk back and has demands). I also don't think there's anything wrong with companies behaving this way. B…

> By all intents, purposes and employment contracts, it was always meant to be a "work for payment" type deals, nothing more That's exactly the opposite of what 99% of the companies sell to candidates. You must have seen stuff like this is a great place work, join the family, etc. So maybe you mean the hidden intent was that but that's not the message being broadcasted.

In fact they will try to terminate hires or reject candidates who express primary interest in work being "for payment". Every business looks for an edge, including exploitability checks (and checks against disrupting that line of thought for their other hires)

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#634

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

buro9 wrote: post #621

crazygringo wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely backwards. They didn't hire "for the sake of hiring" -- they hired specifically to build up their podcasting and audiobook efforts, which were totally new products within the app. Which they thought were essential to staying competitive -- e.g. what if people start moving over to Amazon instead with its Music+Wondery+Audible, or other competitors? Now it's turned out those bets haven't been as succ…

They placed a bet, and that bet didn't pay off. But what I'd expect is for them to cut only a little (not 17%), because they would place another bet on something else to remain competitive. To cut so heavily looks like they've no great idea on the next bet that they could make, that they don't believe those people they hired could contribute towards another thing in the near future (or they have no runway to explore…

[deleted]

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#635

Post by erellsworth » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

sometdog wrote: post #606

erellsworth wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how specific you want your criteria to be, but you can create a Spotify "radio" station based off of any song, band/artist, or playlist. Spotify's discovery capabilities are miles beyond Pandora, in my opinion.

They removed the ability to create "radio" stations off of playlists, which does make discovery somewhat more difficult.

Looks like they replaced it with the "smart shuffle" feature.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#636

Post by michaelt » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

coredog64 wrote: post #552

jmarchello wrote: post #495

Anytime I see layoffs like this, All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth', But now reality has set in and we need our employees to serve a purpose beyond simply headcount". In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but…

> In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. These people got a high(er)? paying job during the period, have a well known company on their resume, and are being let go during a layoff such that no blame is assigned to their exit. What’s not to like?

If they knew that was what they were getting into, great.

On the other hand, if I hire a guy, he quits a secure job, he moves his family all the way across the country, and then 3 months later I fire him because I changed my mind about what I need? That guy is absolutely not going to thank me.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#637

Post by bogomipz » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #478

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #354

"..Spotify had taken advantage of cheap borrowing during 2020 and 2021, when central bankers cut interest rates sharply in response to coronavirus pandemic lockdowns" > “Embracing this leaner structure will also allow us to invest our profits more strategically back into the business,” > invest our profits more strategically back into the business why didn't they do this in 2020 when they got zero interest loans and…

They invested the pandemic ZIRP bonanza on the 'transformative' IP that is podcasts. In lieu of actual profitability, they also chucked in $1bn to buy up their own stock to maximize the CEO's already enormous compensation. https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/20/spotify-to-spend-1b-buying...

Wow, it's pretty wild that an unprofitable company spent a billion dollars on share buybacks.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#638

Post by ctvo » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #596

jmarchello wrote: post #495

Anytime I see layoffs like this, All I hear is "We hired for the sake of hiring when money was cheap and we wanted to signal 'growth', But now reality has set in and we need our employees to serve a purpose beyond simply headcount". In my opinion they did these employees a disservice by hiring them in the first place. We need our companies to act more responsibly regardless of the price of capital. Innovate sure, but…

This is completely backwards. They didn't hire "for the sake of hiring" -- they hired specifically to build up their podcasting and audiobook efforts, which were totally new products within the app. Which they thought were essential to staying competitive -- e.g. what if people start moving over to Amazon instead with its Music+Wondery+Audible, or other competitors? Now it's turned out those bets haven't been as succ…

I think trying to normalize a ~20% workforce reduction as business as usual is a little bit much here.

Management made a lot of mistakes to get to this situation. It wasn't we tried a few things and it didn't work out, it was we burrowed too much money, spent too much money, and risked too much.

What other tech company has cut this deeply recently? You name their competitors, like Amazon and Apple -- is it happening there? 20% is not 2-3%.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#639

Post by gnicholas » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

teg4n_ wrote: post #627

jaywalk wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are pretty high up at Spotify, you have literally no idea how much Joe Rogan has brought in for them. His podcast has been number one on the platform since it launched.

Personally, I cancelled my Spotify premium family plan over it. I doubt I’m the only one.

OTOH, the only reason I ever downloaded the Spotify app was because there was an episode of that show that I wanted to listen to, and it wasn't available anywhere else.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#640

Post by zucked » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #548

weebull wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flip side is that these people had a good job for a few years, and can hopefully springboard on. The alternative is that they weren't hired by Spotify, or potentially at all. As long as they were hired in good faith, and not to just see which people worked out, I don't have a problem.

>As long as they were hired in good faith I think that's the OP's point. They were not hired in good faith and I agree. This mass hiring/firing cycle is playing games with people's lives and, as always, the people at the top are unaffected by it, and in fact maybe rewarded for it. This isn't a game, this is people's lives. It's a little less horrible if it's a remote position but people upend their lives and move for…

I don't think there's any particular malice to the ups and downs - it's just the nature of work these days. Employers and employees have pretty much laid bare their view that the other is simply a cog in their machine. That being true, folks need to understand, plan for, and not be particularly surprised when these ups and downs happen. That means having a runway for lean times, and knowing your worth, how to communicate it, and being flexible when things go pear-shaped. People do move for jobs all the time, yes, but I hope that part of the planning for that involves asking the question - "what happens if this job evaporates?"