I heard SAS revenue coming from overseas like Europe exceeds revenue coming from US.
Is this really true?
56 replies (most recent on top)
That observation has been made many times over the years. When times were good, we grew too fast.
Unfortunately, now that times aren't so good, SAS has laid off, bought out, or pushed out many of its best people.
So you may end up with 7,000, but it won't be the 7,000 that you want.
buried now in all this bickering, but the comment saying the company doesn't need more than about 7000 employees is 100% correct.
funny thing is nobody would have to speculate about any of this if the company would just communicate honestly and transparently. alas.
get your facts straight. the people who say YAY SAS on social media including linkedin are called brand evangelists.
the regular social media team still exists but it's smaller and half of them don't do anything which it seems is acceptable?
anyway the other YAY SAS people are linked to the brand team. they were pinpointed years ago by their managers and the names were given to the brand team as people who would amplify the brand on linkedin and other social media.
In my over 3 decades at SAS, never one time did I ever hear even one manager (or anyone in management) or HR ever mention Glassdoor. If they did, it was a well-kept secret (which would rather defeat the alleged purpose).
When a manager asks a new hire to post a positive review, or a social media team asks a website to remove a negative review, both actions tilt social media in favor of the corporation.
Seems to me they both are ethical gray areas. But both are common practices.
Televangelist.
Having a social media team is a far cry from managers pressuring direct reports…
In fairness to SAS, other large companies follow the same practices that @10y+1jrxc31bf describes.
@10y+1jrxc31bf Well I do in fact work at SAS…. And I have never once heard of a manager asking or pressuring a direct report to post on Glassdoor (or LinkedIn) much less pressuring positive reviews.
The idea that no one would post anything on social media otherwise is weird. Are you even familiar with social media and technology?
@zh+1jrxc31bf
Do you... you know, work for SAS? Before they were laid off, there was a social media team. Their entire purpose was to monitor social media for SAS and engage on sites like Glassdoor, and get negative comments removed. Then the team was gutted. I have no idea if some of them still work for SAS or not in different capacities, but I'm betting someone is still getting negative comments removed. And the company's "communities of practice" (whatever they're calling them these days) were asked to go to social media to brag about the company. The social media team was there to expedite or assist. So if you were a new hire you were encouraged to post about your job at SAS and how great working at SAS was on social media during orientation. If you were an experienced hire, you were encouraged to brag about it on LinkedIn. There were a bunch of videos in the not-so-long ago from people who no longer work at SAS about their "day in the life". And then there is the omnipresent pressure from management asking people to go on social media and promote the company. Where do you think all those "#saslife" LinkedIn posts come from?
@za+1jrxc31bf You honestly believe that managers are actively encouraging employees to post glowing reviews on Glassdoor?
If I were looking to acquire SAS, I’d read this site because it’s unfiltered. Other sites like Glassdoor and Indeed can’t keep employees from posting glowing reviews encouraged by their managers.
By reading this site, I’d learn that SAS has a morale problem.
I’d learn that the accounting system makes it impossible to track sales and profits per product, or per region.
I’d learn details of Viya and AI efforts that would make me question the seller’s presentation of those as growth areas.
I’d note how few SAS defenders there are on this site, and how rarely they make rational arguments, but resort to name-calling and ad hominem attacks.
I’d give the seller a chance to address these concerns. Unless they could, I’d make a low offer.
This can't be true. SAS has never had a layoff.
SAS has laid off <100!
Savvy business people better act on this information quickly.
SAS in on track to make 4 trillion next year!
Savvy business people better act on this information quickly.
“ Savvy business people looking to acquire a company use all available resources including this site. It makes good business sense to use all info especially FREE info to make a better informed decision.”
Anyone who used an anonymous gripe fest web site as “information” is a fool.
Keep your head in the clouds.
Given current conditions, SAS should be operating with ~7000 employees. With the right management and biz/tech talent, this should be plenty to sustain and even grow the company. JG needs to awaken to this fact.
"Don't feed the trolls."
@ts+1jrxc31bf You are delusional if you think savvy business people use thelayoff.com to inform decisions.
"Well the they are being posted to the right place. Lots of hypothetical buyers on the layoff.com. It is where all savvy business people go when assessing an acquisition"
Savvy business people looking to acquire a company use all available resources including this site. It makes good business sense to use all info especially FREE info to make a better informed decision.
But you keep doing you with your head in the sand.
“ If you truly believe there have been less than 100 people laid off, I can’t help you. You’re free to believe what you want.”
as are you person who hasn’t even worked at SAS for years…
I gave up and left SAS years ago, so I have no access to internal numbers.
“the <100 people laid off…”
If you truly believe there have been less than 100 people laid off, I can’t help you. You’re free to believe what you want.
“You know that number is not public.
You also know that SAS headcount was ~14,500, and is now ~12,000. Those numbers are public.
If you truly believe that ~2,500 people departed purely through buyouts and attrition, then I hope that the weather is nice on your planet.”
So you don’t actually know the number of people layed off. Shocking.
I do know the employee count was 14,500. Probably better than you do…
Since you are so informed tell me when that 14,500 number was from. Be specific since it was a specific number. I’ll tell you if you don’t know.
Now break down the rate of decline for that time window. Steady drop or were there bigger drops based on “events” such as say the great resignation.
“the <100 people laid off…”
"give me the actual number"
You know that number is not public.
You also know that SAS headcount was ~14,500, and is now ~12,000. Those numbers are public.
If you truly believe that ~2,500 people departed purely through buyouts and attrition, then I hope that the weather is nice on your planet.
@rg+1jrxc31bf ok give me the actual number oh informed one. Not a guess. Actual number.
Not people who left voluntarily. Layoffs.
“the <100 people laid off…”
I am surprised there are people so uninformed.
“ They obviously matter to people getting laid off, and to hypothetical buyers.”
Well the they are being posted to the right place. Lots of hypothetical buyers on the layoff.com. It is where all savvy business people go when assessing an acquisition,
And the <100 people laid off can also come to the same place and bask in the fictional numbers that they purportedly care so much about. I mean if I get laid off I’m moving on with my life.
Not really sure what all the non laid off and non acquisition people are doing on here. But they pose two groups probably make up like .1% of people here.
The argument (esp with the "angry person" upset with "whiners who should leave") is pointless, but the underlying facts are very much on point. They obviously matter to people getting laid off, and to hypothetical buyers.
This argument over $3B is pointless and thus does not matter.
What matters is what a buyer is willing to pay. And of course what the seller is willing to accept.
That is exactly why SAS remains unsold. Duh. Go ahead and downvote or upvote all you want. Sadly, none of that will change matters for SAS.
“An upside would be if you left and worked somewhere else.”
Of course, I did leave, when I saw no upside to SAS. I got a better manager, better hours, better technology, and better pay.
I left sadly, because I had invested most of my career in SAS. I helped build Viya, and wanted it to succeed.
Sadly, I still see no upside to SAS, and you have shown none.
@kk+1jrxc31bf An upside would be if you left and worked somewhere else.
let's say the "lost" revenue and investments (over $1B in real terms of revenue just due to inflation, plus supposedly $1B "invested" in Viya or "AI") and layoffs and so on are now sunk costs, and have zero to do with any upside story. Let's even say the slate is cleared of the "boomers" and SAS9 investments. Viya didn't pan out, so may as well lump that into the sunk costs for things that didn't work. Ok great, what is this amazing upside? is it: "$3 Billion dollars, exclamation mark, exclamation mark"? Past results are no guarantee of future performance, but investors like to see some kind of track record of success. Otherwise the dollars should just return to "shareholders" .... um, wait...
“You still cannot seem to say that SAS has 3 billion in revenue TODAY.”
SAS has not published revenue numbers since 2023.
SAS published those numbers in their annual report, with a caveat noting they did not use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. So it would be no surprise if the true number were less than $3B.
Nonetheless, I and others have used the $3B number multiple times. Also, I’d accept that whatever SAS earns “TODAY”, it’s probably in that ballpark.
So there is no unwillingness to state a single number.
But there’s also no interest, because a single number conveys so little information. With only one data point, you can’t analyze a trend, or predict the future, or calculate a reasonable value for the company.
People are interested in the trend, and the future, and the value. That’s why we look at more than one number.
“He/she is so jaded there is no upside to anything.”
SAS has shrunk by ~20%, laid off many of my friends, and you see “upside”?
Show me.
@je+1jrxc31bf He/she is so jaded there is no upside to anything.
If SAS soared to 4 billion in 2025 they would still say that is terrible as it is flat since 2015 if you factor in inflation. By the way SAS has no control over inflation. It impacts us all but when someone asks your salary you don’t explain it in inflation adjusted terms.
@gb+1jrxc31bf
“ if you were wondering. Repeating the "$3 billion in revenue" line over and over again is exactly the problem.”
I wasn’t wondering but thanks anyway.
I clearly acknowledge that 3 billion today has less purchasing power than 3 billion ten years ago.
But as expected you still cannot seem to say that SAS has 3 billion in revenue TODAY.
If someone asked you the simple question “what is SAS revenue?” you are incapable of answering it without talking about 2015.
@g0+1jrxc31bf
@fz+1jrxc31bf
Are you kidding? You do know that SAS calculates the difference between TOR for the current year and previous year in adjusted dollars and publishes that like, daily, right? You can just look it up. Why do you think they do that? Because $3 billion in 2025 dollars is worth less than $3 billion in 2024 dollars and someone wants to be able to meaningfully compare performance year-to-year. That's why "$3 billion in revenue" is a meaningless number. $3 billion today is about $2.2 billion in 2015, adjusted for inflation. Was the company a $3 billion dollar company in 2015? If so, then it lost value. Calling it a $3 billion dollar company today is burying the lead. SAS had revenue of $3.16 billion in 2015, so it's even worse than that. The company has lost almost a third of its value in ten years. That's the opposite of growth, if you were wondering. Repeating the "$3 billion in revenue" line over and over again is exactly the problem.
@ft+1jrxc31bf Just once I’d like to hear you say that SAS revenue is 3b without adding caveats about flat line adjusted for inflation.
I’ll stipulate that the purchasing power of that flat line 3 billion is not the same as the 3 billion from ten years ago if you acknowledge that the current revenue is 3 billion.
@ft+1jrxc31bf Ok fine it has something to do with something. Just nothing to do with the fact that SAS currently in today’s money has 3 billion in revenue. This isn’t hard.
Past and future values of money is certainly interesting but nothing to do with current revenue.
“nothing to do with anything”
Inflation-adjusted revenues are down ~20%. Headcount is also down ~20%.
One might have something to do with the other.