From N&O:
“SAS Institute in Cary at No. 556”
Congratulations!
78 replies (most recent on top)
@1c7 How many companies have you created, bought, grown, sold?
You sound like a real expert with your advice on what Dr G should be doing. So certainly more than zero?
Leave the Sculpture department alone.
The Art Department should be out sourced, just like cafes, landscaping, security, etc.
JMP should be sold as a standalone company. It has value and is slowly growing. They act as a standalone because they have their own marketing and sales, as well as operational autonomy. Bundling a growing JMP with a dying SAS is a recipe for JMP's death.
The largest value asset SAS has is the v9 declining revenue stream. For a buyer who wants that, JMP adds no value to a sales proposition. Thus bundling it with SAS makes no sense when the goal is to unwind the company. Anyone who acquires JMP will trim JMP's fat. An easy task because the fat is in plain sight. JMP has a better chance of survival standalone.
Presently SAS is following the path of the founders: elderly and on a dying path. If that is the founder's wish(let SAS die with them) then they should cease all the noise about IPO readiness. The can not have it both ways
@19d JMP is no one's "pet". JS does not have hiring authority. He cannot grow his subsidiary more than JHG allows. If you know anything about the cooperative/competitive relationship of those two men, you know that JMP is certainly not JHG's "pet" either.
You call the Art Department a "pet", but you show no evidence of that. And would it not be equally true of the Landscaping? Neither of them are profit centers. But they make the campus pleasant for employees, and for visiting customers. They are a cost of doing business.
Until fat is trimmed in ALL areas, few will take an IPO seriously. That is why the Art Department and JMP are jabbed.
The pets remain safe
All you people who were laid off — You were sh---y employees!
Thanks, Daddy, I earned it!
@14n Then still employed people wont care about layed off people sensibilities. Many deserved it.
@114 Some comments are worthy of trite dismissal. For instance feeling entitled to proof of 10% profit from a PRIVATE company.
The Art Department jab is short-sighted. The Art Department is not expected to make a profit. Art is a personal charity of the CEO and his wife.
Art has the additional benefit of making the campus look good -- like landscaping, which also does not make a profit. Both features ensure that, when customers visit SAS, what they see looks pretty, and that helps make sales.
The JMP jab makes no sense:
SAS Revenue per Employee = ~$3B / ~12,000 = ~$250,000
JMP Revenue per Employee = ~$150M / ~500 = ~$300,000
No rational management will look at JMP as a place to make layoffs, when JMP is improving the numbers of SAS.
The Art Department and JMP jabs are not funny. The jabs are the truth. Laid off folk will not apologize for insulting anyone's insensibilities on that matter..
@er
I realize the Art Department jab is a frequent response to every topic on this page. But it ceased being funny a LONG time ago. Was it ever funny?
If you have an issue with the Art and Scenics Department, take it up with the Big Guy. He clearly values their contributions to the company and continues to keep them around. I’ve worked with them all over the years and I find them to be smart, creative, and extremely hard working. And did I mention, kind? That seems to be sorely lacking from many who post here.
This ranking is in line with the performance of our top human resources executive.
She stopped giving a F during covid and showed no leadership at all through that time. She has done nothing since then but collect her check, standing by silently as young, inexperienced and cheap box checkers are hired over those who can actually do the jobs they're hired for.
She's got a beach house and a cuck husband, what more could anyone want?
The Best Places to Work metric for today's SAS is a much lower ranking number than back in the day when SAS was in the top 5 for several successive years.
Those who are still at SAS and were also at SAS back in back the day of top 5s know that it is two totally different companies sharing the same name.
Back in the day SAS was vibrant and energetic. Employees were happy to arrive on campus. Now, arriving on campus seems like visiting a loved one who is terminal. That is quite a contrast. That is very sad but it is true.
Good luck to all!
“You be you”
A trite dismissive-ism. Those ki-l my mojo, man.
@104 just because you don’t know something doesn’t make it unknowable. You be you.
10% of what? Magical, mythical, mystical numbers without proof.
@xh You should check your own math 😂
10% is far from the end of the world and is greater than $1
@bc The answer is 556 out of 700.
$1 profit is profit so yea, you can be profitable on a buck! Only a select few know the true equation.
@sq
And that number would be meaningful if you also knew something about the other side of the equation... you know, the losses. So $3 billion in revenue, minus $2.7 billion in expenses, depreciation, etc. means that "profitable 3+ billion dollar company" makes less money than a $500 million revenue company with $100 million in expenses.
Butterball in Garner comes in at around #280 if that tells you about the SAS decline.
@rq lost opportunity sure.
Failure? That is overly dramatic. Profitable 3+ billion dollar company.
The majority of companies in the world would trade places with that failure in a heartbeat.
@hg once SAS was the business case study for success; now, sadly, it’s for failure.
It is amazing how fast everything changed.
We fell victim to the Innovator's Dilemma; that's hard to beat. But we also failed to capitalize on multiple opportunities.
Business school case studies will be forthcoming.
Get over yourself. The place is simply a job, not a religion. Oh wait…to some it is a religion.
I work somewhere higher on the list.
@ce Pretty sure you are ki-ling your own mojo. But if you need someone/something to blame go for it.
Did you immediately put in you resume at 555 other companies. What is the number that makes it all of the sudden awesome to you? Maybe you should only apply for the #1 company. Everything else must be sh--e.
@eq We were on top of the world. We had the #1 product for analyzing data -- when the amount of data in the world was growing explosively.
With that magnificent tailwind at their backs, our managers actually managed to shrink the company.
The best description I have seen of what occurred is in this thread:
https://www.thelayoff.com/post/@OP+1mvhMg6t
It may be 556 on the list, but it’s #1 in the hearts of employees in the Art Department, which is safe.
"This ranking is in line with the decline in my general sentiment re: SAS over the past 10 years."
And man it's rather sad. Felt like we were on top of the world and it all unraveled so fast.
@e5 ... yep, colinear
This ranking is in line with the decline in my general sentiment re: SAS over the past 10 years.
The full list is here:
https://www.forbes.com/lists/best-large-employers/
Only 15 years ago, SAS consistently ranked in the top 10:
https://www.forbes.com/2010/12/14/best-places-to-work-employee-satisfaction-leadership-careers-survey_slide.html
https://www.greatplacetowork.com/best-workplaces-international/world-s-best-workplaces/2011
Company Man, placing 556 is ki-ling my mojo! You don’t want folks losing that big cult, toxic positivity energy now, do you?
Gather up the Dollies in building C (see) and get with it!
556?! Out of how many?
Lolz 😂
Sounds about right.
😂