Jumo is a non-profit, not a startup. Using the language "acquired" and "exit" doesn't make any sense.
The submitter is a betabeat shill, so I'm guessing the phrase, "maximum click juice," should provide enough sensemaking points.
Chris Hughes's Startup Jumo ‘Acquired’ for $0 and a Graceful Exit
11–16 of 16 posts
Re: Chris Hughes's Startup Jumo ‘Acquired’ for $0 and a Graceful Exit
#12Hughes has already denied this on Twitter, but really, who knows.
As Betabeat wrote on Twitter in response" "@chrishughes @techmeme @GOOD as we said to you before we published, confirm or deny on the record, and we're happy to report it. You can't decline to comment beforehand, then refuse to go on record after, then point fingers. And we included the statement from your GM in the piece." If Jumo had a $$$ figure they were proud of, they would share it. But the first comment captur…
So that's how it works now, eh? When a subject won't talk to you, just run your worst suspicion. If they don't go on the record after that, you must be right!
Re: Chris Hughes's Startup Jumo ‘Acquired’ for $0 and a Graceful Exit
#13Jumo is a non-profit, not a startup. Using the language "acquired" and "exit" doesn't make any sense.
Acquired was the term used in the original Fast Company story that broke the news and the term used by Jumo General Manager Kristen Titus.
Re: Chris Hughes's Startup Jumo ‘Acquired’ for $0 and a Graceful Exit
#14How did they burn through $3.5MM in less than a year? Curious.
Re: Chris Hughes's Startup Jumo ‘Acquired’ for $0 and a Graceful Exit
#15Jumo is a non-profit, not a startup. Using the language "acquired" and "exit" doesn't make any sense.
This is incorrect. You can acquire and merge nonprofits just like a real corporation. The difference is that you don't have equity, therefore, if you do want to compensate people (e.g. employees or investors or whoever), you need to do so with cash (e.g. bonuses).
Re: Chris Hughes's Startup Jumo ‘Acquired’ for $0 and a Graceful Exit
#16How did they burn through $3.5MM in less than a year? Curious.
16 people, loaded costs of 100-200k each, plus facilities, legal, contractors, etc. A lot of non-profits have high costs of fundraising, too.
There's an argument that non-profit employees should take lower than market salaries to support the cause, but also there's an argument that they need above-market compensation since there's no equity or potential for an exit.
(I'd take a lower than market salary for a non-profit I really believed in, if I could, but it's not necessarily the case that the best designer or engineer for a non-profit is necessarily going to be willing or able to do so.)