Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrbgty | Hacker News Reader

Why do costs get created in a company? Generally it seems that we create a cost because we think it will result in revenue greater than that cost or because we think that cost will prevent some other larger cost (such as fines from the gov't).

I'm all for efficiency and maximizing the revenue we gain from each expense but we've still gotta realize that when we cut costs, we're losing something that was intended to generate revenue.

I've seen this happen in a large company where they cut a ton of expenses thinking they are going to be profitable (and they are in the very short term) but all those expenses were there for a reason. A few months later, revenue drops like a brick.

View on HN

I think it's important to look at costs as investments in the business. And if that investment will not yield a good return, why make it?

Buffett famously did this over at Berkshire, where he realized that there would be no future for domestic textile mills. He took the cash flow the company was throwing off and invested it in other companies.

So I think that Godin makes a huge overgeneralization, especially when he mentions newspapers. The economics of that business have drastically changed and allocating capital to keep things the way they are is probably a recipe for failure. They'd be better off using the newspaper's cash flow by cutting current costs and allocating that cash elsewhere (new lines of business)

So I think that Godin makes a huge overgeneralization

You have basically just summed up Seth's entire blogging history.

Its actually impossible to make a good point on the internet without giving someone, somewhere the ability to call it an over generalization. It turns out though, that pointing out exceptions to generalizations is the lamest comment one can make on the internet, because of course, any statement to a wide audience will have exceptions that someone, somewhere on the internet can point out. Pointing out over generalizations is like pointing out spelling errors, albeit less constructive.

You can't get any traffic to your blog if you don't make generalizations, because you won't appeal to a broad, general audience.

Of course, thats all just a generalization ;)

Try irc. :)

Its actually impossible to make a good point on the internet without giving someone, somewhere the ability to call it an over generalization.

No, it's really not. The Internet gives you the ability to publish as much data and detail as you choose. It allows you to target a selected audience and provide information and discussion topics that relate to a specific audience that would not have been cost effective to reach in the past.

However, if you're more trying to promote yourself or your own "brand" vs. trying to provide actionable valuable data, then yes, you must generalize heavily.

Every writer wants to reach more than 5 people in the tiniest sub-segment of any given topic of interest, which is about where you're at if you write generalization-free.

Which is to say that what you wrote is a terrible generalization! Its not always true - its only true for writers that are writing for groups of people numbering less than five.

My own writing has adapted to this. I now ONLY make brief generalisations, because I've learned that argument or reasoning or evidence is a waste of effort. People either already agree with you, or as far as they're concerned, you're wrong and always will be wrong. And furthermore you're a fat stupid troll and so is your momma.

The question isn't whether someone has the ability to call his point an overgeneralization (i.e. wrong, misleading, actively harmful, worse than useless); the question is whether it actually is or not. When faced with overgeneralizations, the most useful thing you can possibly do is to point out examples where those generalizations don't hold:

- It helps you by preventing you from accepting the false statement — you learn where it's true and where it's false.

- It helps other readers by preventing them from accepting the false statement, and in blatant cases, pointing out that the person who's writing is just trying to get traffic to their blog rather than writing something of value.

- It helps more careful writers by diminishing the reputations of the ones who are just bullshitting, which counters the audience-getting effect of boldly stating bullshit to some extent.

It's probably true that you can get traffic to your blog by making bold generalizations without any concern for whether they are true or not. The question is, what can we do to fix that, so as to reduce the temptation to jettison intellectual honesty in the quest for attention?

"I think it's important to look at costs as investments in the business. And if that investment will not yield a good return, why make it?"

Can't agree more. This was my point.

Look at those costs as investments and not just something you can get rid of to save money. More than likely, it's there for a reason, so please evaluate this expense as something that is likely producing revenue in some form or another.

In other words, you should expect your revenue to fall if you're getting rid of some expense unless you are able to successfully reinvest that expense into something with a higher return.

I don't how you read the article and understood that he recommends to "keep things the way they are" as you say.

Godin stated the exact thing that you say: "Instead of squandering it in a long, slow, death spiral, do something else. Buy a new platform. Move...."

What I understand Godin says is that if you cut costs you shouldn't do that just to keep the company afloat but to invest the money you "saved" in something new.

Evolution anyone? Who has heard of an organism adapting to change by cutting their limbs off?

People like stability. In fact, we are predisposed (through evolution) to think that the world is inherently stable. They think that if something has been working for 10, 20, 30 years there is no reason that it should not keep working; thus, a downturn in their business is a temporary abnormality that will correct itself. Sometimes this is true, usually, it is not.

Often, with new technology (internet) and markets (china), costs get demolished. A business that relied on the previous cost-price ratio simply cannot compete.

Things change - usually for the better - and companies who fail to adapt, die. Their failure to recognize genuine change is their own failure and no amount of cost cutting will change an organization for the better.

Seth Godin has dropped the ball recently (imho), but talking about evolutionary angle there is one his book I highly recommend: "Survival is not enough". Somehow I get an impression that this book is undervalued. Or maybe it just me reading to much into it.

Are you saying you still have a tail? ;-)

"Who has heard of an organism adapting to change by cutting their limbs off?"

Like this?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325170604.ht...

Snakes are another good example (albeit they lost their legs over a much longer time scale).

Also, grasses, which try to maintain a constant shoot-to-root ratio; if they get cut down or eaten, they drop some of their root.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com