Comments on: Glam Achieves Profitability; Promotes Rotolo To North American Head

By: yaya

yaya — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 05:01:32 +0000

Joe ? – this piece is about jack and the "new direction" for glam – glam is dog eat dog guised under "family" culture – that being said, they have succeeded on so many levels and will continue to succeed. if samir and team was so miserable, would his core people stick with him for 10+ years? give em credit where credit is due.

By: mg

mg — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:10:43 +0000

looks like david is being fed information from an upset ex employees. As a mid level mgr at glam today, I can say that glam has performance objectives that are very clear and defined for all groups. every quarter we are asked to provide input and then the goals are set. Every quarter and every year we are asked to make sure we are focused on the right thing.

every manager is different is style, some do formal reviews and others do not- but all groups have to do performance goals. getting to profitability was a big goal and involved all of the company pulling together.

i have been at other companies and have to say that glam's founders really take the time to keep people empowered and motivated. morale is very high as glam is winning in the market. most of us get calls everyday to join other companies, and politely say no. Joe was drfinately side lined in the re-org and glam continues to attract top people. In hope this clears the situation.

By: Current Employee

Current Employee — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:36:44 +0000

Unless you faked a kidney failure or sued a coworker for some stupid thing. I don't think future employers would mind if you are fired. I say fired because when its due to performance issue, it is fired but if it is economic issue then it is laid off.

Glam is a company like any company, the primary objective is it's responsibility to its Share Holders. First preferred share holders and then common share holders.

Employees are not of importance since they are not even common share holders (they have options to purchase and that's it) and hence they are disposable. This is true for any company! If you don't constantly have this in the back of your mind, then ….

Glam understands that in a down economy, it is very easy to burn through employees and they won't be able to just quit because it is difficult to find a job.

It's not personal, it's just business.

For those of us who are still at Glam are patiently waiting for the day of exit.

We do not care much for our base salary reduction.

We do not care that Samir took $5 million off the $85 million round of funding. He at least took a 50% base salary reduction along with the rest of the company.

and when Glam exits at the end of 2010, we will be the ones happily going to the bank.

By: observer

observer — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:45:37 +0000

What a puff piece. C'mon, if they were that close to an IPO you think top execs would be heading for the doors as they have for the past months? As a reporter you should get some sources outside of the company exec instead of reprinting all the spin he gives you.

By: Analyst

Analyst — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:33:04 +0000

This is common practice is many firms like McKinsey. They do regular restructuring every year for 4-5% of their workforce and in a downturn of 7-8% of their employees. Contractors go first. But they also hire new people and grow almost every year. People that leave McKinsey realize that having worked their is something that shines in their CV's. So instead of kvetching about why they let you go, use that you worked there for your future job. No one cares why you were let go, only what you learned. Glam is a young company figuring it out, but the basic principles they are expounding are sound.

By: Solar

Solar — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:21:37 +0000

I think Glam did what it had to do and did it with touch. A lot of companies and vcs did worse things to a lot of people during that period. You all need to grow up; if you want job security, work for IBM or Obama. If you want to grow and learn, work in Sillicon Valley for a company like Glam. Employee churn is how Sillicon Valley innovates…

Stop over analyzing the couple hundred words in this story! Glam is an interesting company that caught everyone by surprise. It fought a war against big competitors and the economy and like in any war, someone's got to go.

Centrs, you probably learned a lot of things while you were there. Use those to your benefit and the benefit of the web. Stop being a victim, you should be happy to have worked there.

By: PinkShoes

PinkShoes — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:20:46 +0000

sounds like you still love glam and wish you could still work there so it must be very tough for you. potential employers will look at what you have done in the past, and certainly working at glam should help you. anyone who reads the article where it says âperformance-related reorganzations" if they are hiring will read it as a combination of company, group and/or personal along with an economic downturn. david does not say or imply that glam said that you were laid off due to your personal performance reviews. glam is a business and even normal restructuring is driven economically. many companies look at teams/projects "course correct" as they grow through hyper growth.

while you are claiming they reduced 25% of their workforce, they have grown 20% overall, so they have hired new people in other positions or projects as they have expanded. this is very typical as a company evolves from a small startup to a large media company.

agree, its time to be done with this conversation.

By: centrs

centrs — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:43:06 +0000

i've never held a grudge against glam. as early as this morning, i was telling someone what a great place it was to work and it was one of my best job experiences ever.

i think i can speak for former and present employees. who do you think brought this article to my attention? and, they all read "performance review" the same way i did.

i handled the layoff very graciously. i understood it was what was best for the company. i've remained friends with my coworkers and have cheered them on and congratulated them on their successes this past year.

the ONLY problem i have is the fact that there is the insinuation that the layoffs were for cause or part of a normal "restructuring" process to eliminate underperforming projects/teams and not part of an economic or profitability strategy. if i "misread" it or misconstrued it, others will as well. it's difficult enough to find a job and REALLY difficult to explain why i was laid off. i don't need a potential employer googling glam and finding this article. i would really like to see samir clarify what he meant by performance reviews.

if you count the people from the original layoff, all of the contractors that were laid off, plus all of the people who've been laid off month by month this past year, it equals about 25% of glam's workforce.

call me what you will, think what you will, but i know the truth and am willing to call it when i see lies or ambiguous statements that can be damaging to myself or others.

and, i'm done with this conversation.

By: Tr

Tr — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:09:15 +0000

centrs sounds like an old employee bearing a grudge and clearly does not speak for glam employees today or in the past. She is getting upset on the word performance at a time where the US has lost 14% of jobs, and the Sequoia memo asked for 30-50% employee firings. If Glam would have followed their advice, in addition to centrs/dnse being upset, Glam would have let over 100 people go unemployed. It's time to move on, and recognize though everyone is good at some level, inclduing centrs, companies have to rank people based on theie resources, performance and needs. Tough, but if Glam was not tough to a few, they would not be around and many more lives would be hurt. Take a look at AOL and Yahoo- layoffs every few months forever with no care.

By: RedSoles

RedSoles — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:45:37 +0000

I second Tr on ex employees, and perhaps present an equal typecast of a biased supporter currently working for the company. Performance reviews and reorgs have been a consistent process in an effort to maintain a strong and dedicated workforce contributing to Glamâs current focus. Layoffs are often the result of the company moving in a new direction, not necessarily tied directly to one's performance.

In times of mass layoffs elsewhere, the salary cuts were made to keep jobs, of which the staff was thankful for. The effects of revenue based compensations are felt by ALL employees regardless of % points, but Iâve found that it has also made our team stronger, focused on surpassing goals and sharing in our successes. Itâs a risk Iâm willing to take in knowing that these efforts will be substantially rewarded in due time.