SAS revenues have declined on average >2% per year, over the past 10 years (from SAS-published figures, adjusted for inflation.)
If this trend continues, SAS could maintain its profit margin by cutting costs >2% per year. Or, the trend could get better, or worse.
What do you think will happen in the next few years?
Addressing the last three or four posts, I would say that the ego/arrogance factor iss variable, even within individuals. I had a multi l-decade SAS R&D career with the life/work ups and downs one would expect over this duration of time. It was often an opportunity for learning, personal growth, and adjusting my approach to others.
Also, true is the fact that interpersonal
communication styles/skills can differ even within one individual, so one person might perceive another as being humble, while on that subject's worst day at work they present as being rude/arrogant.
SAS did have something very special (with mostly A players, especially in R&D) in its earliest days and I think this mostly carried through until the mid 90s.
I was fortunate to have periodic experiences with engineers and business people outside SAS and this helped me realize just how good the best people are everywhere. I strove to live up to their excellence during most of my SAS career (although there were a few lapses due to personal circumstances).
SAS did pioneer and engender a very special workplace culture that gave many of us with the sense of pride and "specialness" that others have pointed out. No doubt the employees of other successful tech companies feel similarly during their era(s) of greatness.
IBM, Google, Oracle, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Salesforce, etc. all have very strong and even insular corporate cultures (and often amazing people :-)). This is certainly not unique to SAS.
I worked as a developer outside SAS, before and after joining SAS. Believe me, I worked with smarter people outside. So becoming a SAS developer did not “go to my head”; nor did I need to “wake from delusion”.
I knew many developers at SAS. Indeed, some thought they were “extra special”. They were egotistic and arrogant.
Invariably, these were not our best developers. They were our “B” players, at best, and some were “C”s. They were defensive about their skills. They wanted to be respected, and could not stand to be questioned.
Our best developers — our “A” players — had the biggest brains, and the smallest egos. They were confident in their skills. They knew what they knew, and when they didn’t know something, they were eager to learn.
SAS software, in its early days, was built primarily by “A” players. As time went on, we hired more “B”s and “C”s. This is exactly the way most companies evolve. @4uuy+1nOpn3sw, it may explain some of your experience.
I (: @4wig+1nOpn3sw) knew what you speak of (by keeping up with the industry) and left SAS R&D for your very reasons.
I'm @4uuy+1nOpn3sw.
I started to write a point, but I don't think most would get it. I'll try to rewrite it very briefly.
While at SAS, we were made to believe we were "special", especially Developers. Yes, SAS was successful at that time, in part because of Developers, but also due to many other factors outside of Development's influence. But the SAS culture reinforced the belief that SAS Developers we were extra special, and it went to their heads. Its not true.
After leaving the gates of SAS, I've come to realize that the world is full of other people, many just as talented as those from SAS. Some more so. The exclusivity of the SAS culture gave us the perception of some exalted status. That isn't reality, we're just regular people. Waking from that delusion is painful, I get it.
@4uuy+1nOpn3sw is correct that the world has changed. And most Product Managers, like most executives, believe that skilled engineers are a worldwide commodity.
Of course that isn’t true, for specialized software such as statistical algorithms or systems programming. But broadly speaking — for most types of software — it is true.
It’s also true that Product Management has been increasingly applied in the software industry over the past 20 years, and at SAS in particular.
And yet — when SAS was driven by R&D, it grew. As it became less driven by R&D, it declined.
I’d have no problem “taking orders from Product Management” — if it helped. At SAS, it hasn’t helped.
Have you ever seriously worked ever worked with truly world-class engineers in highly innovative environments where the resulting products became wildly successful,? Do you know anything about systems programming? About the level of intelligence and mathematical foundation required to develop the Analytics in a Product like SAS how and do you think the people (PhD nearly always required) who build this kind of software are "commodity"? Do you understand the first thing about rigourous research and proofs required to build correct software?
Do you realize how much sh-t software is in the world today because basic engineering (not marketing) research was not done?
Do you realize that being able to pass a West Coast style coding interview (often after tons of coaching) is not an indication of whether or not a developer is "commodity" or top talent? Talent is determined in the trenches after hundreds to thousands of hours of proving oneself.
Sure, product management is an important part of software development from startups to mega enterprise companies.
However, the top engineers still have lots of nexus and control when it comes to what is built and how it gets done. Do you realize that many engineers at this level are just as articulate in customer facing situations as business people? I know these things from personal experience both within and without SAS.
The attitude that Product Management and Marketing determines what is built and then goes out on the commodity market to hire engineers may be true for a lot of less than innovative "commodity" software but it sure as he-l not true for anything that's moving the needle.
In the next 5 to 10 years generative AI will very likely eliminate the need for commodity software engineers. Will be interesting to see what it does for the future of Product Management as well!
I'm not against product management, and I readily acknowledge and agree with you that it has a strong and important place today in the way software should be built today. However, the attitude that engineers have simply become a commodity is an exaggeration of reality when it comes to producing anything of real and lasting value. You get what you pay for most of the time.
I understand what you are saying. It seems you are mourning the loss of the days when Development was the one giving orders, rather than the ones receiving and executing the orders, and Sales and Marketing sold Development's ideas. The world doesn't work like that any longer.
The expectations for look, feel, and product experience have drastically changed in the last decade. Programming is no longer a speciality skill, it's a commodity skill available on a worldwide market. Developers now take orders from Product Management and Marketing. That's the way the world is now.
The good old days are over, and if they return, they will return in some other form. Sorry.
"If SAS could get back to simple integrity and deep commitment to the customer then maybe they can establish a profitable niche market going forward and build from there. All 'fluff' has got to go!"
There's enough talent remaining at SAS to execute this plan. But it would require management to distinguish "non-fluff" from "fluff" -- the wheat from the chaff. They've never done that. They don't know how.
They do know how to cut costs. For the past five years, they've pushed out, bought out, and laid off the highest-paid employees. Almost all the testers laid off this month were Senior or Principal level.
This is clearly the plan. We don't have to like the plan. We just have to recognize what it is, so we can make our best decisions.
“
also putting more incompetent people in more bs jobs telling worker bees how to do the work
“
Someone understands Agile and just defined it in less than one sentence.
Fact: SAS succeeded when it was an R&D driven company. This has been slowly diminishing for 20+ years while Product Management and Marketing has grown considerably. SAS could eliminate 60% of the marketing-related positions and it wouldn’t matter.
If new life is not breathed into R&D then the slow bleed out that will continue at SAS. It is also true that Viya can compete with Open Source for certain massively scaled use cases. Problem is it requires considerable R&D involvement to have a successful POC leading to a sale. These are large deals, often into the $Millions and are sticky. However, maintaining fiefdoms seems more important than cultivating and compensating people who can get the job done no matter what organization they are officially in.
JG has tolerated too many historical “hanger-oners“ along with too many slick arrogant corporate types. If SAS could get back to simple integrity and deep commitment to the customer then maybe they can establish a profitable niche market going forward and build from there. All ”fluff” has got to go!
"... the answer is: prioritizing areas of the business that actually produce revenue and also putting more incompetent people in more bs jobs telling worker bees how to do the work but no more worker bees to actually do the work. deep sigh. ..."
Now surely, she didn't state this so plainly. How did she state it, in her words?
I am a part of the marketing division and it feels like we're stuck in a massive and redundant circle jerk. The impression I get is that our leaders probably just regurgitate terms scraped from LinkedIn thought leaders, then repurpose them for SAS. While I'm thankful for my job, I can't help but have zero faith in those who lead us, as the entire organization often gives off a Ponzi scheme vibe.
"Chase said in January she was going to reorg the marketing decision and after 6 months of multiple workstreams (sas buzzword du jour)"
PIPELINE pipline pIPeliNE.......... (pipeline)
seems most of the people who post here are in R&D. tough to believe there are other areas of the company that smoky thinking beings, but there are.
Chase said in January she was going to reorg the marketing decision and after 6 months of multiple workstreams (sas buzzword du jour) the grand plan was revealed last week. the answer is: prioritizing areas of the business that actually produce revenue and also putting more incompetent people in more bs jobs telling worker bees how to do the work but no more worker bees to actually do the work. deep sigh.
" ... This is the grand plan everyone has been waiting 6 months for. Okay then. ..."
Will you please provide more context?
According to Jenn Chase the answer is to create a whole lot of new jobs for people who don't do any actual work product while not adding any headcount to do the actual work.
This is the grand plan everyone has been waiting 6 months for. Okay then.
"... Clearly, you two are not going to get along in your old age. When you move back on campus, into SAS/CCRC (SAS Continuing Care Retirement Center) we'll put you in separate buildings :-) ... )
The SAS/CCRC is a great idea! Around town it will be known as "The Cocoon", where self-important geezers search for immortality and vigor, just like the movie. They've already got the pool and the medical center!
(Un)fortunately, I won't be invited to take advantage of that 'exclusive' offer when it happens. I'm just not legacy SAS material.
Thank you for adding levity and humor!
"
we'll put you in separate buildings :-)
"
Well, that did work awile for two tech executives ...
Clearly, you two are not going to get along in your old age. When you move back on campus, into SAS/CCRC (SAS Continuing Care Retirement Center) we'll put you in separate buildings :-)
I do not believe we've been lied to, because the numbers published by SAS explain everything we've seen. I believe that, a few years ago, the continued decline in SAS revenues began to endanger its profitability. That's when the buyouts and layoffs began.
"... I have been around longer than most of the buildings ... " Again, the reading of condescension is entirely on my part.
@1fla+1nOpn3sw "The condescension in the post following emphasizes your point and makes it even funnier! - "That is not a bad idea - never thought of it."
The assumption of condescension is entirely on your end. It happens. The post simply builds on the previous poster's idea and was written in absence of any condescending thought. No tone was read or intended.
The campus is nice and I have been around longer than most of the buildings. I have enjoyed the landscaping and pleasant surroundings. It is interesting to ponder how it might change and be used differently as needs change over time.
PSA: @1npw+1nOpn3sw author (also writer of this present post) is currently in long-term recovery from being a “SAS know it all” aka “an old SAS porch dog”.
Believe me, most of us wag more than we bark and rarely bite. Getting older can be a wonderful thing!
"... Kibitz with your former colleagues about how great things were back in the SAS glory days. Give campus tours to your great grandkids or school for children coming on field trips ..."
What a great quote! This is so funny on so many levels!
First the spelling of "kibitz" was that a misspelling of 'kibbutz'? It doesn't matter because both spellings are appropriate, one being a communal farm, and the other being unwelcome advice.
The condescension in the post following emphasizes your point and makes it even funnier! - "That is not a bad idea - never thought of it."
I can picture this guy and the other condescending SAS know-it-alls strolling the campus reliving the glory days of SAS, just like Al Bundy and the High School Football Championship.
Thanks so much for a hearty laugh!
Another thought regarding the buildings - SAS becomes an extended campus for NCSU, much like the Centennial Campus. Driving through NCSU Centennial Campus recently, I was struck by how much it reminded me of SAS in terms of flow, arrangement, and street names.
"... I think we've been lied to for years in regards to our true revenue, so what now appears as a slow decay is actually quite worse. ..."
Every time JHG held one of those 'Update' meetings and discussed the financials, I noted his choice of words and what was missing. "We've seen X revenue growth this year..."
Never did I hear anything about the other side of the balance sheet and what the net result was. Never. It was very suspicious to me.
@1npw+1nOpn3sw "...buildings A, C and Q could be converted into luxury condos -- or even a retirement village.."
That is not a bad idea - never thought of it. The condos are within walking distance of a cafe, beautiful walking areas, and a gym. There is a grocery across the street. You might be on to something.
I have often wondered how long it will be before building J will be leased to some other company for office space.
Given the post-Covid "work from anywhere" trend, commercial real estate it's not the financial plum it used to be either.
Perhaps this will change, but if not, buildings A, C and Q could be converted into luxury condos -- or even a retirement village comprised significantly of SAS retirees (apparently several millennial inspired competitors already think SAS is a retirement village).
Wouldn't that be grand? Stroll the very grounds you spent years-to-decades of your work life at. Kibitz with your former colleagues about how great things were back in the SAS glory days. Give campus tours to your great grandkids or school for children coming on field trips..
I think we've been lied to for years in regards to our true revenue, so what now appears as a slow decay is actually quite worse. There is a reason why the Broadcom deal failed, because the potential buyer smelled the BS when they started looking at the numbers.
What I know as fact is that I should be working very hard to find a new job.
He didn't read it.
Another way to look at SAS's revenue performance is to look at the 2013 revenues of 3 billion dollars and adjust for inflation.
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=300.00&year1=201301&year2=202306
To be in the same position today as 2013 SAS's revenues should be almost 4 billion. (3.975).
By the same token the revenue per employee (if it was 250K 10 year ago) should now be 330K.
What is happening to SAS is right out of the "Innovator's Dilemma". I sent JHG a copy of the book anonymously via interoffice mail about a decade ago. I left SAS soon after. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma)
@lsx+1nOpn3sw "...That gives us approximately $250k per employee."
I remember when that exact same value was stated as the target revenue per employee about 10-15+ years ago during a company update broadcast. Hmmmm...
Not everyone makes 6 figures at SAS. There are a lot of food service, housekeeping, grounds crew (all of those have had some outsourcing, but there are still some) which will keep the RPE down and JG knows that and has mentioned it several times. I would guess there are a lot of work groups that dont have anyone making 6 figures in them.
"Then consider the revenue per employee of SAS (3 billion divided by ~12k employees?) That gives us approximately $250k per employee."
Maybe this was the essential calculus in the most recent layoffs. Anyone costing the company more in compensation and benefits, and who wasn't otherwise considered "critical" by some middle or senior manager, was let go.
It's funny how often the theme of thread repeats. See the following posts over the past 6 months:
The predictable repetition of these threads is both sad and funny.
I think the goal is 8% revenue growth and 10% profitability for IPO/sale. Which means treading water is not enough, correct? Also, I hear new hire salaries are higher than existing employee salaries for the same role/YOE because, markets. Compare those numbers to Google: As of January 2023, as the company announced a mass layoff, it returned its revenue per employee at $1,586,880, still behind the peak in 2021, for $1,840,330.
Scenario I see as most likely: They will finally recognize the problem with revenue, and cut costs more dramatically to drive profitability for private equity sale. The PE firm will take a stake (either controlling majority or 100%), reorganize the company, cut more costs, fire the useless management, install a new CEO, other CXOs, and board. Then they will start acquiring other companies to fold into the SAS brand, spinoff/selloff JMP because the business model doesn't fit with main SAS, and eventually sell off SAS to a large company like IBM or Software AG OR IPO the reengineered version of SAS. I'd guess 5-10 years from now.
Still a possibility, but less likely IMO: They follow-through with an IPO effort, but they have already stated it will only be a portion of the company. So, at best, they IPO that portion of the company to take money from the market--really this is to buy out Sall because he wanted to sell, but JMP isn't valuable to sell by itself and resolve his stake in the company. They use the IPO as an opportunity to reorganize the company, get new leadership, refactor the product line (aka, ditch the junk projects and associate staff), and finally make Viya function as the flagship product it was envisioned to be.
If neither of the above happens, then I think SAS will continue to wither away and die. I'll invoke Hemingway here: "Gradually and then suddenly." <--That's how SAS will die without dramatic change. So, pray investment bankers start showing up to campus soon.
I keep wondering how SAS is surviving as is. I try to think about it this way:
First think about the average salary of employee's these days. Maybe it's just because I'm older but I keep hearing about salaries in various departments that are in the high 100's or low 200's as SAS tries to keep up with attrition and outside offers.
Then consider the revenue per employee of SAS (3 billion divided by ~12k employees?) That gives us approximately $250k per employee.
How in the world is SAS paying for all salaries, benefits, campus, hardware and software costs, insurance, etc, etc, etc, etc.
I am by no means a business person, but I have a hard time seeing how the numbers add up (which I guess explains the latest events). Is there something I'm missing?