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

Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

newsroom.spotify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#901

Post by tracerbulletx »

mrbonner wrote: post #743

I didn’t know they have that many people (9000) to work for a single product. I’ve been a subscriber for more than 5 years and the app on the iPhone just gets worse everyday. Why? - daily updates is gone. This is where I can get a snapshot of all new releases from artists I love. I’m not sure if Release Calendar is the new one but I don’t bother to check. - I listen to classical and the song title naming is just subp…

Every damned time this happens someone asks how it's possible they have so many employees when it's just an app... Spotify owns multiple large podcast studios, has sales people, negotiators, music industry people, lawyers, facility staff, lawyers, marketing, content curators. It is the business engine through which the vast majority of the world consumes music these days. You can quibble about if they have too many engineering employees, but at least get the real number first.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#902

Post by greycol »

dcminter wrote: post #583
BossingAround wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how you got from the quote to "senior people are let go first".

I think they may have misunderstood the meaning of the word tenure (note "with tenure") and not realised it meant only duration of employment here (versus its use in US academia).

There's also some weight in the word senior as that can also be referring to someone who's moved up within paybands within the same jobtitle as well as the (now less certain) expectation that someone who continues to work at the same place will get promotions to more senior positions as they show they're capable of them.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#904

Post by bogomipz »

tomatocracy wrote: post #754
bogomipz wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also signed a deal with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry that was worth 20 million. They agreed to part ways in June. I'm guessing the reason was that it failed to deliver financially. See: https://archive.is/Hgh3V

Reportedly only a fraction of this sum was actually paid out though.

A "fraction" of 20 million is still a lot of salary runway though. They were paid out on 2.5 years worth of that 20 million dollar deal. Even if their deal's earn out was only million dollars a year for 20 years it would be 2.5 million. Of course no earn out period is that long so it's likely they were paid out much more than that.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#905

Post by moogly »

emodendroket wrote: post #530

Has Spotify ever made money? It seems strange that all these music streaming services have limped along for years without having a model that makes any money or sense. Convenient for the rest of us I suppose.

Daniel Ek and Drake certainly have made money.

Smaller artists? Not a chance. They get paid in exposure, which is the #1 rule not to do in the creative arts.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#906

Post by DiggyJohnson »

janalsncm wrote: post #851
matchbok wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One alternative is never hiring them in the first place, which is a real possibility if some bad ideas like yours were put into law.

Businesses should be more responsible in hiring not just for the good of the workers but for the company as well. Hiring 17% more than you should’ve means there was a ton of waste. Rather than seeing this as a sign of prudence like most investors might, I see this as a reflection of poor planning.

But "poor planning" is inevitable in business. It cannot be completely avoided or accounted for. What should a business do that has planned poorly if it needs to cut costs?

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#907

Post by MisterKent »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #708
cbozeman wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that makes sense to you . I grew up with someone who is now in the C-Suite of one of America's largest corporations - a company that has been in the Fortune 100 for decades. He has bounced from directorship to C-Suite in Fortune 500s for the past 12 years, and I asked him about this phenomenon over cigars about six months ago, he said this: "cbozeman, you have to understand these people. Most of these people maki…

> They see engineers and programmers as expendable and easily replaceable Most businesses see their employees as disposable commodities but at least Spotify, FANG and big-tech treat and pamper them way better than the rest.

Just because you get massaged and fed beer, doesn't mean they don't think of you as cattle.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#908

Post by pants2 »

dandesim wrote: post #893
mrbonner wrote: post #743

I didn’t know they have that many people (9000) to work for a single product. I’ve been a subscriber for more than 5 years and the app on the iPhone just gets worse everyday. Why? - daily updates is gone. This is where I can get a snapshot of all new releases from artists I love. I’m not sure if Release Calendar is the new one but I don’t bother to check. - I listen to classical and the song title naming is just subp…

It's very much more than supporting 'one product'. Off the top of my head, regarding engineering, I can think of: 1. iOS App 2. Android App 3. Windows App 4. Microsoft App 5. Web App 6. Underlying API 7. Artist Portal/App 8. Advertising Portal/App 9. PlayStation App 10. Xbox App There are probably entire engineering teams for each micro-service in the overall product (personalization, playlists, player, etc.).

They have Spotify apps on everything: Garmin watches, Roku TVs, the "Car Thing", Amazon Echo, Facebook Portal, Discord, Bixby...

That's a lot of apps to maintain and keep up to date with the latest features.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#909

Post by MichaelZuo »

tracerbulletx wrote: post #901
mrbonner wrote: post #743

I didn’t know they have that many people (9000) to work for a single product. I’ve been a subscriber for more than 5 years and the app on the iPhone just gets worse everyday. Why? - daily updates is gone. This is where I can get a snapshot of all new releases from artists I love. I’m not sure if Release Calendar is the new one but I don’t bother to check. - I listen to classical and the song title naming is just subp…

Every damned time this happens someone asks how it's possible they have so many employees when it's just an app... Spotify owns multiple large podcast studios, has sales people, negotiators, music industry people, lawyers, facility staff, lawyers, marketing, content curators. It is the business engine through which the vast majority of the world consumes music these days. You can quibble about if they have too many e…

This seems false, Whatsapp became 'the business engine through which the vast majority of the world' sends texts on the backs of 20ish employees.

Even assuming delivering music, podcasts, royalty payments, negotiations with artists, etc..., takes 100x more headcount in total, that should still be only around 2000 employees.

9000 just means most are not being that productive.

Re: Spotify will reduce total headcount by approximately 17%

#910

Post by matchbok »

janalsncm wrote: post #851
matchbok wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One alternative is never hiring them in the first place, which is a real possibility if some bad ideas like yours were put into law.

Businesses should be more responsible in hiring not just for the good of the workers but for the company as well. Hiring 17% more than you should’ve means there was a ton of waste. Rather than seeing this as a sign of prudence like most investors might, I see this as a reflection of poor planning.

Literally no business works likes this. Every team and hire is a risk, and the market understands this. You don't have the information to say if there was "waste" and even if there was, so what?
Post reply on HN