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

How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

news.morningstar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#111

Post by a_bonobo »

moomin wrote: post #72

I'll pick out a thread here: the toxic culture. When businesses fail, it's regarded as obvious that the toxic culture contributed to the downfall. With successful businesses like Uber or some bank you recently read about, it's assumed that somehow these behaviours are what makes the companies profitable. My own theory is that toxic culture is a drain on every company with one, like a parasite on a host organism. Some…

Have you read DeMarco/Lister's Peopleware? The main hypothesis is that projects (companies) mainly fail because of sociology (culture) and not because of lacking technology, to quote:

>The major problems of our work are not so much technological as sociological in nature.

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#112

Post by pryelluw »

spaceflunky wrote: post #110
pryelluw wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the lady herself or know much about NG, but villifying her like this is silly.

She's legit not a good person, that I can guarantee you. Look at her story. It's borderline sociopathic. She brags about stealing and swindling to get her start. She had terrible eBay feedback. She's been sued multiple times for mistreatment of employees. She spent $1m on a wedding that was annulled 6 months later. She has a clear pattern of terrible behavior.

Holy crap, that's quite a rep.

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#113

Post by wpietri »

charlesdm wrote: post #101
wpietri wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. When people size a business in dollar terms I think they're usually talking about revenue. Because a) it's a clear, concrete measure, b) it's indicative of consumer demand, and c) it allows you to ignore all of the gross and subtle factors that influence profit. (I think the second-most common way to use the phrase is in market cap terms, but that only works well for publicly traded companies.) For example, cons…

Revenue is vanity. Profit is sanity. Revenue means nothing if you can't flip the profit switch.

There are ways to turn revenue into a vanity metric. But that's true about profit as well.

In the long run, revenue means satisfied customers. That is the economic purpose of business: to create value for others. Yes, you need to do that sustainably, which means giving your investors a decent return. But you'll never make real long-term profits without creating value and taking in revenue.

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#114

Post by spaceflunky »

pryelluw wrote: post #112
spaceflunky wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's legit not a good person, that I can guarantee you. Look at her story. It's borderline sociopathic. She brags about stealing and swindling to get her start. She had terrible eBay feedback. She's been sued multiple times for mistreatment of employees. She spent $1m on a wedding that was annulled 6 months later. She has a clear pattern of terrible behavior.

Holy crap, that's quite a rep.

Oh I'm just getting started... She got divorced because she was sleeping with Galen Pehrson 6 months into the marriage, a groomsman in the wedding who was the partner of one of her bridesmaids (Liz Carey).

She fired an employee because the employee had heart surgery and cost the company money [0]

She has had DUIs, but has paid a publicist (out of the company dime) to bury that information.

She hasn't been paying her suppliers, which is causing a couple companies to go bankrupt as well. (see bankruptcy docs)

Oh and you should see the way she treats the waitstaff a restaurant...

[0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3327240/Fashion-e-...

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#115

Post by pryelluw »

spaceflunky wrote: post #114
pryelluw wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy crap, that's quite a rep.

Oh I'm just getting started... She got divorced because she was sleeping with Galen Pehrson 6 months into the marriage, a groomsman in the wedding who was the partner of one of her bridesmaids (Liz Carey). She fired an employee because the employee had heart surgery and cost the company money [0] She has had DUIs, but has paid a publicist (out of the company dime) to bury that information. She hasn't been paying her…

Welp, Im done with the internet today.

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#116

Post by Asparagirl »

spaceflunky wrote: post #107
Asparagirl wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read her book, and if I remember correctly, she claims she had turned down a lot of VC's swarming to get a piece of the company. There was the anecdote about the VC who called and left a rambling message on her phone and later said he had been so high partying that he didn't remember it, or something like that? The implication was that a few of the nerdy-preppy SV VC's were hilariously pretending they were party an…

Complete fiction. Most of that book is her posturing about how great she thinks she is. See statements about cult of personality.

I appreciate your taking the time to reply here. Working for toxic, crazy bosses is the worst. Unfortunately, I too speak from experience...

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#117

Post by headmelted »

monkeyprojects wrote: post #24
headmelted wrote: post #4

The most interesting part of this to me is the purchase by Boohoo.com, itself capitalising on legendary dotcom failure boo.com's branding. It sounds very much like the parent is running a business model very similar to the "one last draw" model Warren Buffet was so successful with earlier in his career. It might make a lot of sense for the right type of investor, too. The growth won't likely be there in the long term…

As someone who worked at Boo.com - escaping in Feb 2000 as its death become obvious to anyone, I don't think boohoo.com capitalises on boo.com - most people have never heard of boo.com..

Were I local to you (Northern Ireland, so I'm almost certainly not), I'd love to buy you a coffee and pick your brains about what that was like.

I have to say though, boohoo.com quite clearly capitalises on boo's branding and history.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken it originally mimicked the typeface and name of Ernst Malmsten's book about the boo.com story, which is kind of ironic given the circumstances.

Book:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTPf1rQbytroVo7SYUhV...

Boohoo logo (now):

http://www.boohoo.com/content/ebiz/boohoo/resources/images/l...

(To be fair, Boohoo have altered their branding over time but the similarities are still recognisable I think?).

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#118

Post by edshiro »

spaceflunky wrote: post #109
jdmichal wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty surprised at that personal spending on the company dime also. That's the kind of thing that pierces the veil and can get you personally liable for company actions and debts... Which might very well come out to play in bankruptcy court.

It was crazy. At her peak she has three personal assistants on the company dime. One to handle work stuff, one to handle household stuff like her dogs, and there other for special projects. She also spent at least $1MM on her wedding which btw only lasted 6 months before she got divorced.

Can't her investors sue her for mismanagement of assets? Or she just managed to take money off the table during the funding rounds, with investors approval as well.

It's really upsetting to read about this kind of story. It seems that once the money poured in she completely lost it and thought she was the new Cleopatra. Money corrupts...

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#119

Post by jlebrech »

moomin wrote: post #72

I'll pick out a thread here: the toxic culture. When businesses fail, it's regarded as obvious that the toxic culture contributed to the downfall. With successful businesses like Uber or some bank you recently read about, it's assumed that somehow these behaviours are what makes the companies profitable. My own theory is that toxic culture is a drain on every company with one, like a parasite on a host organism. Some…

Uber is toxic to it's industry, which is an advantage.

Re: How Nasty Gal Went from an $85M Company to Bankruptcy

#120

Post by Ntrails »

headmelted wrote: post #117
monkeyprojects wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who worked at Boo.com - escaping in Feb 2000 as its death become obvious to anyone, I don't think boohoo.com capitalises on boo.com - most people have never heard of boo.com..

Were I local to you (Northern Ireland, so I'm almost certainly not), I'd love to buy you a coffee and pick your brains about what that was like. I have to say though, boohoo.com quite clearly capitalises on boo's branding and history. In fact, if I'm not mistaken it originally mimicked the typeface and name of Ernst Malmsten's book about the boo.com story, which is kind of ironic given the circumstances. Book: http:/…

I mean, yes it may have a lot of references to Boo.com but as I've never heard of Boo.com I think that your parent comment probably has some validity.
Post reply on HN