Thread regarding SAS Institute layoffs

"And every 'friend of the family' in a made-up job that produces nothing?"

Reminds me of a certain high-level person and role. Friend of the family, or erm, "family"? Never figured that out. In a special role, made only for them, receiving a monthly allowance to produce lots of smoke, but no fire. At least "they're so nice!" Its baffling.

working on the customer side now. one product (a "solution") is doing ok because it has younger business users not tied to open source for resume purposes. although when it's up for renewal, not sure how competitive its capabilities really are. the older products are hanging on for now until its users age out. I'd say that will take 5 years. ideally, investing more in the solution will provide some growth in that 5 year period, definitely not enough to replace the platform decline, but maybe enough for the growth story of a leaner company trying to go IPO or get acquired. the price would likely not appeal to the owners since the buyer would factor in a massive declining asset against a few bright spots but relatively very small in size and not pay as if the entire company has unicorn level growth. Private Equity should probably spin those small areas out.

@6mzk+1tsShCyj That is all fine. But better be ready for the same with all the rank and file who do the bare minimum or are hanging on by a thread skill wise.

Something's got to go? How about we start with every director and vice president and manager who has zero direct reports?

And every 'friend of the family' in a made-up job that produces nothing?

Then we could move on to 'leadership' roles like those mentioned previously where employee feedback indicates the people in those roles are terrible at their jobs?

How about we send fewer mid-level executives on trips around the world to 'oversee' expensive conferences? Do we really need dozens of HQ employees on site at all these events for several weeks out of every year, squirreling away per diems, staying in luxury properties, flying to rack up frequent flyer miles and dining out with fellow employees at all the most expensive restaurants in every city they visit?

No we do not. Eliminate this costly low hanging fruit and start holding so-called leadership accountable for what they do and what they spend. That would be a start.

Perhaps those "loser" products are ones that JG acquired. To purchase them and then realize they were losers is too big an ego hit, thus he lets them continue. Some of those loser products may have some technology that seems promising to someone's vanity project. That's why they're kept.

What really su-ks is being assigned to one of those loser products for many years and then being cut. There's no path forward outside of SAS.

presumably a rational company wants to trim failing efforts and allocate resources to growing, promising areas. unfortunately, the agency cost issues and unclear picture aren't only due to revenue allocation gaming for sales incentives. there are also bad decisions and credit mongering due to managers attempting to establish or protect their political fiefdoms in other departments. we can only hope that harder times may force some urgency and focus. at least some of the very bad managers have left or retired.

"Is everyone quick to forget the mass layoffs in the retail group earlier this year? That appears to be an indication that some underperforming products are being cut."

Maybe, maybe not. They had to cut something and people had to go. It may not even be all related to Retail performance specifically, and they still have some Retail people left. They had a mass layoff of R&D testers last year too but testers worked on many products and some of those products are bread and butter for SAS but they got the layoff anyway.

If they need to cut costs to survive, something/someone has to go at some point, regardless of what it is. Everyone's time will come, sooner or later.

@4rdh+1tsShCyj Don’t bother. These folks have all the answers and know all the issues.

Is everyone quick to forget the mass layoffs in the retail group earlier this year? That appears to be an indication that some underperforming products are being cut.

"’SAS has no idea about the revenue attributable to any single product.’

Very strange for a company that claimed to be a leader in analytics. and whose roots were in analytics from the get go that they can't keep track of what products are making profits and what products are losing money year after year.”

I agree that it’s strange, if not downright disgraceful. That’s why I tried to correct the situation and help move SAS toward some approximate grasp of per-product revenue. Unfortunately, willful ignorance and corporate inertia are powerful forces. SAS has chosen inertia. Hey, at least I tried. Multiple times.

One of the greatest joys of retirement has been the ability to refer to SAS in the third person rather than the first person. They, not we.

So (if) they really know which products are losing money year after year but unwilling to let go/get rid of those loser products in order to invest in new viable products and/or reinvest/strengthen existing profitable products, but instead choosing to layoffs to cut costs. Isn't it wiser to get rid of unprofitable loser products first instead of laying off employees every year, every month, every quarter? If that is not strange, I don't know what is. Even if not strange than maybe very mysterious.

@3wlv+1tsShCyj So ask the owner.

Or man/woman up and ask your question in any of the town hall type meetings with question/answer sessions.

if the owner "knows", the question about "loser products" still applies, perhaps even more so

@3stk+1tsShCyj
Don't confuse unable with unwilling. The owner knows which products drove revenue.

@3stk+1tsShCyj Not that strange since it isn’t actually true. But whatever.

"SAS has no idea about the revenue attributable to any single product."

Very strange for a company that claimed to be a leader in analytics. and whose roots were in analytics from the get go that they can't keep track of what products are making profits and what products are losing money year after year.

Further, what products are actually even still used? Which are just shelfware? Which ones have some chance of getting more usage or at least a slower decline? But rationality always fell on deaf ears. It might be too late.

“But why is SAS hanging onto to so many loser products? Surely their books have come along enough to easily identify the losers???”

I’m repeating myself, but I guess it bears repeating—for the vast majority of products, SAS has no idea about the revenue attributable to any single product. This is because they permit salespeople to a) sell products as a bundle, always discounted and b) allocate the fees paid among the products according to their whims (whatever allocation nets the salesperson the largest commission and/or incentive). While I was at SAS I advocated for reforms in revenue allocation and proposed common sense boundaries on same. Always fell on deaf ears.

There’s nothing wrong with salespeople maximizing their return, but there should be limits. No one cares.

SAS is laying off people. With their flat or declining revenue, I get that.

But why is SAS hanging onto to so many loser products? Surely their books have come along enough to easily identify the losers??? We never hear about products being laid off, just people.

"I haven't seen one underperformer voluntarily leave SAS."

Why would they leave SAS when they have it so good at SAS as underperformers?
They get away with not working hard or not even 35 hours a week, always shoving their work over to the high achievers, but they get promoted anyway, even higher into management, and they get to eat M&Ms. Life is good at SAS for underperformers. That's the unique culture at SAS.

Getting rid of underperformers, what a concept. Here we promote them and or let them remain in management even when they are actively destroying their employees and the business.

Its true at any company, within every division, that appx 20 pct of your employees generate appx 80 pct of the value. Look at the people voluntarily leaving SAS. Most of them are in the 20 pct of PMs, developers, IT, sales, CS, etc.

I haven't seen one underperformer voluntarily leave SAS. Most employees who took one of the the early retirement packages were in he 20 pct

JG is allowing the 20% to walk to save the 80%. It's been this way forever, and high performers have put up with it because of the job security. Job security is no longer guaranteed. More layoffs are inevitable bt the real hammer wont drop until the company is sold in order to maintain business-as-usual optics to buyers. Once SAS is acquired, the real hammer will drop.

If you don't know by now whether you're set to receive a golden parachute, you're not.

To be clear, there are still plentyo f current employees in the appx 20 pct who remain but those roles are not being backfilled, and if they are, it's with inexperienced talent to cut costs.

This is not a long term strategy for sustained growth as a public compay. It's a short term GTHO ASAP strategy.