• SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Effectively firing half the employees seems like a strong sign that the new owners are going to ruin what made Bandcamp good.

    • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Holy fucking shit they fired 830 employees. Considering what Bandcamp has done (nothing for years despite being pretty terrible UX-wise) and how simple it is, why the fuck did they originally have 1600+ employees?

      A startup with < 50 people could make it work. They don’t need hundreds of employees. Lay off more and actually focus on development FFS.

      • small44@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        However, most of the employees they laid off are those in charge of the Bandcamp blog, which is full of good articles and music recommendations. I think it’s the best editorial team. Bandcamp really needs them if they want to keep the quality.

        • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s sad but how critical are those people / how many do they need? I didn’t even know Bandcamp had a blog. I use it in a very simple way: I find music I want to own somewhere, check out if it’s on Bandcamp, if it is, I buy it and download it to my library. If not, I have one other place to get it (a “local” eshop that also sells music for download) and then it is the high seas.

      • slouching_employer@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, the article says that Epic Games “laid off 16% of its [Epic Games’] workforce, or 830 employees”.

        I believe Bandcamp was ~120 people total – so 60 laid off.

        • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ahh my bad, can’t read apparently. That amount of employees sounds way more reasonable, even if I feel like they weren’t doing much.

          • sugar_in_your_tea
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just think of half of your company getting laid off, that’s going to be noticable regardless of the total number of employees.

            • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Oh yeah no question about that. My point was just that I don’t understand why you’d need so many people for such a fairly simple project - with such a narrow scope; but that’s moot since they didn’t have that many people after all.

      • r_se_random
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        From a technical standpoint, sure.

        But there’s a large amount of conversations that happens with Studios and Artists to make sure that the fees are negotiated properly. Sometimes large partners have a singular manager for their coverage. That could always balloon the org size.

        • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I can see how half of their workforce (which was apparently 120 people, I can’t read) could be just people who negotiate the deals and such. Best of luck to everyone.