41–50 of 78 posts
We live in days that "trust" is something that you acquire after a time, not something that you suppose that others may have.
Why do companies wait till the dying moments before informing employees? I have seen many articles now which read like 'we went to back to the drawing board to realize that we have to close down in 2 days. Our bank was empty'. Is this just dramatization? I cannot believe people can run business without something so basic. Like paratroopers jumping out of an aeroplane and then saying 'we checked before hitting the gro…
Why would they tell employees? They're not going to be held personally responsible for not paying them; it's the fault of a mailbox in Delaware.
"due diligence", "due diligence", "due diligence" I mean, I know it's a term, but the literal meaning... If they had been diligent where/when diligence was due, all of this was evitable. Also, they should really do some legal action on the guy. Not because of revenge, but to try to save others from future actions of the con man. Public shaming is just not so stylish.
We're only hearing one side, and it doesn't sound like the management had a paper trail.
If you manage your receivables actively then you become aware very quickly if someone doesn't pay on time. This flushes out fraudsters, keeps you directly connected to your cashflow situation, and gives you early warning signs of any possible financial problems. These are the ways that actively managing AR mitigates risk.
It also carries a lot of upside. People who pay you regularly are some of the best people you can partner with. When someone's paid you on time for years it's a very big sign that they can be trusted (and have money!). And when you're directly involved in collecting money from those people you inevitably end up having discussions with them that are very frank and carry real stakes. If these discussions are successful that is another sign they could make a good partner.
If one of the founders at Reframed had stayed directly involved with AR on some level this story would have had a much better outcome. Simon would not have been a vendor for long. They would have found a new vendor and learned through direct experience whether that vendor could be a good partner/investor or not.
The other acronym I never let go of is HR. If I remember correctly Bill Gates was personally involved in Microsoft's first 500 hires!
That week was fraught, as it was the week of a major conference that we were working with. It was the first time we were displaying adverts on someone else’s site through our system, but we couldn’t trust Simon — we had no guarantee that he wouldn’t try and display something malicious. We had to rebuild the ad system from scratch to ensure that no one could maliciously inject adverts onto our system. It was too much…
I asked investors for references and actually called them before signing, but at the same time no doubt made mistakes that others wouldn't have.
The takeaway should not be these these guys were stupid at finance, rather that all critical decisions should be vetted by an adviser with expertise in that area.
This article is damage control for the author's naiveté. The problem: Reframed did the due diligence after talking to Simon and seeking additional investment. It's also not clear if Reframed ever provided any real value, but it's clear they we're willing to take real money and assign themselves a $4M valuation. That might not be a sham straightaway, but it's probably one in the making--good intentions aside. Your inv…
Why do companies wait till the dying moments before informing employees? I have seen many articles now which read like 'we went to back to the drawing board to realize that we have to close down in 2 days. Our bank was empty'. Is this just dramatization? I cannot believe people can run business without something so basic. Like paratroopers jumping out of an aeroplane and then saying 'we checked before hitting the gro…
When a founder doesn't know that they don't have money to pay their employees it's unforgivable. When a founder concludes they might have to fight to save their company and might not be able to pay employees in X months time that's an entirely different proposition. You can be upfront with your employees and hope that they stick around. Or you can keep quiet and do everything necessary to save the company and hope th…
This is a constant state for a startup, from day 1. You always have a runway of some length at which point you know you can't pay your employees. The question is when you start to warn about the runway running out. It's much more grey than you suggest. 2 days warning is unconscionable, IMO. But do you need to start warning employees at 120 days? 90 days? 60 days?
This article is damage control for the author's naiveté. The problem: Reframed did the due diligence after talking to Simon and seeking additional investment. It's also not clear if Reframed ever provided any real value, but it's clear they we're willing to take real money and assign themselves a $4M valuation. That might not be a sham straightaway, but it's probably one in the making--good intentions aside. Your inv…
Totally disagree that this is "damage control". It had all the signs of a good faith postmortem that others can learn from.
I read it as more blame-shifting to Simon, and since this Simon character doesn't have a voice in this, we can't see the whole picture.
I wouldn't discount the guy completely and frame him as the "bad guy" here. Most of the ad sales industry guys are very similar to this guy. They operate in a realm going from deal to deal, sometimes only a single deal separates them from extreme success and utter destruction. Sadly, this guy seems to have a grouping on the negative side of things and might have been just starting out in the ads business himself. I w…
What value would there possibly be in giving him another chance? I mean, in this case it wasn't possible because he managed to tank the company on the way out, but had they managed to survive him, what would they possibly get out of working with him again?
This article is damage control for the author's naiveté. The problem: Reframed did the due diligence after talking to Simon and seeking additional investment. It's also not clear if Reframed ever provided any real value, but it's clear they we're willing to take real money and assign themselves a $4M valuation. That might not be a sham straightaway, but it's probably one in the making--good intentions aside. Your inv…
Totally disagree that this is "damage control". It had all the signs of a good faith postmortem that others can learn from.