The Vent and Rant Thread

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Hitch

This is so weird--a good friend, who is one of the first Booknook.biz clients, is in a similar situation (although, there's no PHB grandson, as I understand it). Her husband (in his 70's) has had to return to his position as CEO, because the Prez that they hired to replace him was running the biz into the ground. Damnation, I know that you'd THINK that some youngling in that fam would take over, no? Boggles my brain.

Family businesses have inherent problems that not all overcome. If the family is dysfunctional, the business will be too.

One problem is attracting and retaining competent subordinates. If it's known that Junior will inherit the business and become CEO when Dad retires, there's an absolute ceiling on how high and employee can rise. Some folks who would like to be a CEO someday will leave for someplace where that's at least possible.

Another is whether the next generation is interested and/or competent. In some cases, the siblings simply aren't interested in the family business, and have other interests. Years ago, for instance, I was taken to dinner at a high end Italian restaurant by a friend. We got into a conversation with the Maitre D, who stated that Italians didn't own/run any Italian restaurants in NYC these days. The grandparents had come over from Italy, got into the food trade, and worked 12 hours a day seven days a week to establish themselves and built a successful and prosperous restaurant. Their kids largely didn't want to recapitulate that experience. The wanted to go into other middle class careers like law, medicine, or brokerage. So the next generation of immigrants filled the void. He recounted interviewing a guy for a job as a waiter. Asked where he was from, the prospect mentioned an Italian village across the border from what was then Yugoslavia. "Who are you bullshitting?", responded the Maitre D. "You're a Yugoslav! You're from my town!"

A third issue is that there may be multiple siblings, but not all will be fit to run the business. In earlier eras, you had the concept of the remittance man. This was typically someone like a younger son of a noble who would not inherit the title. He was given an allowance and encouraged to go live somewhere else. The Rothschilds made use of the technique. They recognized that not all of the younger members of the family were suited to be managers of the business. They were given allowances sufficient to maintain themselves in a suitable fashion, and sent to live elsewhere, where they would establish themselves at high levels of the local society, and make a point of keeping the family informed of what was taking place that might offer opportunities, but they wouldn't actually be making the deals.

And a fourth issue is that multiple siblings who are interested in running the business may fight over who does what and who gets to be the top boss. (See above about dysfunctional families.) The Bancroft Family had owned and controlled Dow Jones, whose properties included the Wall Street Journal. They sold out to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp in 2007. Among other things, there were reports of disagreements in the family about the management of Dow Jones, and they decided to simply get out of the business instead of fighting over it. (Many folks including me are less than thrilled over what happened since Murdoch took over.)

The hired hand mismanaging things is yet another issue. A friend recounted the problems at his company, a computer/network consulting outfit, where the owner had hired a woman to handle day-to-day management. As it turns out, she had ambitions, and was deliberately running the company into the ground so it could be picked up for a song by people she was involved with, and leave her as CEO after the ownership change. She got caught, and tried to purge the evidence. He talked about employees voluntarily coming in on Sundays to do computer forensics on her machines and resurrect the stuff she tried to delete to cover her tail. The last I heard, she had fled, tried the same thing at another company elsewhere, and was currently a wanted fugitive facing racketeering, embezzlement, and other criminal charges. The owner had to resume management of the business. Whether he learned from the experience is unclear.
______
Dennis

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Family businesses have inherent problems that not all overcome. If the family is dysfunctional, the business will be too.

One problem is attracting and retaining competent subordinates. If it's known that Junior will inherit the business and become CEO when Dad retires, there's an absolute ceiling on how high and employee can rise. Some folks who would like to be a CEO someday will leave for someplace where that's at least possible.

Another is whether the next generation is interested and/or competent. In some cases, the siblings simply aren't interested in the family business, and have other interests. Years ago, for instance, I was taken to dinner at a high end Italian restaurant by a friend. We got into a conversation with the Maitre D, who stated that Italians didn't own/run any Italian restaurants in NYC these days. The grandparents had come over from Italy, got into the food trade, and worked 12 hours a day seven days a week to establish themselves and built a successful and prosperous restaurant. Their kids largely didn't want to recapitulate that experience. The wanted to go into other middle class careers like law, medicine, or brokerage. So the next generation of immigrants filled the void. He recounted interviewing a guy for a job as a waiter. Asked where he was from, the prospect mentioned an Italian village across the border from what was then Yugoslavia. "Who are you bullshitting?", responded the MAitre D. "You're a Yugoslav! You're from my town!"

(Dennis: I have ZERO comprehension as to why that is coming out italicized. I don't see anything in the BBC that would cause it. )

Well, one of the first things you learn as an entrepreneur, whether that's a newsstand, a restaurant, or an eBook company is that nobody else is going to love and slave over your company like you do. Or hate and slave. Mach nicht. You can't expect any paid person to labor over an 80/hour/week business like you do. And, unless you're extraordinarily fortunate, you can't reward them adequately in order to induce them to do so, either through direct salary or other forms of compensation. Believe me, I know this. ;-)

A third issue is that there may be multiple siblings, but not all will be fit to run the business. In earlier eras, you had the concept of the remittance man. This was typically someone like a younger son of a noble who would not inherit the title. He was given an allowance and encouraged to go live somewhere else. The Rothschilds made use of the technique. They recognized that not all of the younger members of the family were suited to be managers of the business. They were given allowances sufficient to maintain themselves in a suitable fashion, and sent to live elsewhere, where they would establish themselves at high levels of the local society, and make a point of keeping the family informed of what was taking place that might offer opportunities, but they wouldn't actually be making the deals.

Yes, but the Rothschilds were never...kid-blind. They were nearly cruel in correctly assessing the attributes of their offspring and their offspring's offspring. That's a rare talent, it seems. My mother suffered from kid-blindness, in the case of my late brother. She simply had an utterly boggling double-standard in everything--from behavior to capability to you-name-it. As one of the affected offspring, I can tell you, it was beyond infuriating. We had our own familial issues, surrounding monies and some other bits and orts, so yes--I can see the problems quite clearly.

And a fourth issue is that multiple siblings who are interested in running the business may fight over who does what and who gets to be the top boss. (See above about dysfunctional families.) The Bancroft Family had owned and controlled Dow Jones, whose properties included the Wall Street Journal. They sold out to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp in 2007. Among other things, there were reports of disagreements in the family about the mqanagement of Dow Jones, and they decided to simply get out of the business instead of fighting over it. (Many folks including me are less than thrilled over what happened since Murdoch took over.)

See above. Oh, yeah. You bloody betcha. Our fights were almost a disaster. Caused a major severing of familial ties for a year or two.

The hired hand mismanaging things is yet another issue. A friend recounted the problems at his company, a computer/network consulting outfit, where the owner had haired a woman to handle day-to-day management. As it turns out, she had ambitions, and was deliberately running the company into the ground so it could be picked up for a song by people she was involved with, and leave her as CEO after the ownership change. She got caught, and tried to purge the evidence. He talked about employees voluntarily coming in on Sundays to do computer forensics on her machines and resurrect the stuff she tried to delete to cover her tail. The last I heard, she had fled, tried the same thing at another company elsewhere, and was currently a wanted fugitive facing racketeering, embezzlement, and other criminal charges. The owner had to resume management of the business. Whether he learned from the experience is unclear.
______
Dennis

Well, most of us don't have to-be felons as our issues; it's just, as I said above--having enough $$$ in the profit to PAY someone good enough, their actual worth. One alternative, of course, is to use equity...but that's tough, again, with most family businesses. We've had several businesses, in our family, for the better part of the last century, into the first part of this one. Each has faced one or another of these issues. (Not to mention, the ubiquitous, "the kid that wanted to take it over was the LEAST capable of so doing" issue.)

NONE of them worked out really satisfactorily to ALL parties. They all ended up compromises, which, natch, means that everyone felt that they'd been screwed, somehow. ;-)

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

(Dennis: I have ZERO comprehension as to why that is coming out italicized. I don't see anything in the BBC that would cause it. )

All quotes which have an "Originally Posted by ______" ( [QUOTE=somebody] ) line are italicized...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Well, one of the first things you learn as an entrepreneur, whether that's a newsstand, a restaurant, or an eBook company is that nobody else is going to love and slave over your company like you do. Or hate and slave. Mach nicht. You can't expect any paid person to labor over an 80/hour/week business like you do. And, unless you're extraordinarily fortunate, you can't reward them adequately in order to induce them to do so, either through direct salary or other forms of compensation. Believe me, I know this. ;-)

I'm contrary on this. I've told people elsewhere salary may be a negative incentive. I once told a boss "I expect to be paid comparably to my peers. If I discover Joe in the cube down the hall who does what I do, has the same seniority, and the same skill set and performance evaluations as I do is getting a lot more than I am, we'll have words about why. But meanwhile, while more money is nice, it's not a game changer. If you double my salary, I won't magically become twice as productive. I'm already working as hard as I can. What I want is work I like to do, making a visible contribution, done with people I get along with and having the resources to do it right. Your job is to tell me what needs doing, see that I have what I need to do it, then step out of the way and fly top cover to keep others from interfering while I get it done." Do that and I'll be happy.

(That employer later laid me off, and I had a grimly amusing exit interview with HR where they gave me a list of other eliminated positions and the ages of the affected employees. It was a CYA "We are documenting that we aren't laying you off because you are an older employee. We are laying you off because you are making more money than we want to pay." They were having problems, so it was no real surprise, but various of us noted that while IT was being cut to the bone, HR was expanding. Hmmm. The company has less people, but needs more HR employees to handle the remainder...")

Yes, but the Rothschilds were never...kid-blind. They were nearly cruel in correctly assessing the attributes of their offspring and their offspring's offspring. That's a rare talent, it seems. My mother suffered from kid-blindness, in the case of my late brother. She simply had an utterly boggling double-standard in everything--from behavior to capability to you-name-it. As one of the affected offspring, I can tell you, it was beyond infuriating. We had our own familial issues, surrounding monies and some other bits and orts, so yes--I can see the problems quite clearly.

When the family business is "lender to kings and princes", you better not be kid-blind. You're very fussy about just which offspring are in position to make those loans.

A woman I know came from a family with kid-blind issues. Older brother was ... damaged ... and needed to be institutionalized. Dad couldn't admit his son's condition, and poured resources down the rat hole that should have done things like pay for her and her sister's college education. By the time dad was forced to face reality, she and her sister had been pretty well screwed over. And dad died with all sorts of unresolved issues between them that would now never get resolved.

Her dad was a colorful character, and sounds like the sort of guy I'd have loved to meet and talk to when he was alive. The unresolved issues worked out to "He was her father, and she loved and adored him, but she also hated his guts for what he'd done to her and her sister, and she couldn't admit that to herself, let alone anyone else."

She wound up divorcing her husband because an entrepreneurial venture of his failed, and she simply needed more financial security. It was not an amicable parting. The lines were drawn among their mutual friends, and many supported her and demonized him. I stayed out of it. I thought he was clueless, and should have understood her needs better than he did, but wasn't evil.

Meanwhile, her sister got stuck with caring for brother after dad died, and eventually got him declared a ward of the state, because she simply couldn't deal with it. She wound up in a messy parting of the ways with her sister, and now lives on the West Coast and seems determined to put her whole family behind her.

Well, most of us don't have to-be felons as our issues; it's just, as I said above--having enough $$$ in the profit to PAY someone good enough, their actual worth.

I had a conversation about that with a friend. He had founded a computer consulting business that was a defense contractor, and retired young when it was acquired by a larger company, and his part of the payment made him financially independent and able to do what he liked doing. The acquriing company wanted to keep him, and said "What would it take to get you to stick around?" He really didn't want to, so he decided to name an outrageous figure and scare them off. He said "$5 million!" They said "We'll have to think about that...", leaving him thinking "OMG! What do I do if they say yes? I don't want to stick around." Fortunately, they didn't make him the offer.

More recently, his former VP Sales at the company he sold has been working with a Chinese outfit doing embedded development and having problems. He begged my friend to participate in a conference call, and since for former VP was a friend, he did. The issues the Chinese outfit was having were in areas he knew, and he made a couple of suggestions. They said they wanted to hire him as a contractor to work on that for them, and asked his rate. It's another case of "I really don't want the job. Set an absurdly high price and scare them off." He told them his rate was $500/hour. They said "When can you start?"

One minor good point is that he can twit his former corporate lawyer who bills $450/hour and say "Nyah, nyah! I'm billing more than you!" But he said "There's no way I'm worth $500/hour!" I said "Sure you are. Something is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. They are willing to pay you $500/hour. You are worth it to them Take the money!"

One alternative, of course, is to use equity...but that's tough, again, with most family businesses. We've had several businesses, in our family, for the better part of the last century, into the first part of this one. Each has faced one or another of these issues. (Not to mention, the ubiquitous, "the kid that wanted to take it over was the LEAST capable of so doing" issue.)

The problem with equity is whether it will in fact be worth anything. I've lost count of the number of folks I've encountered working ridiculous hours for startups in exchange for equity. The problem is, maybe 1% of those startups succeed, IPO, and make the founder rich. If you aren't a founder, forget getting rich even if it does IPO, and usually, you will wind up with equity that has no value.

There may actually be equity in family businesses, bet getting a piece of it if you aren't a family member presents challenges. Issuing more shares dilutes the equity of existing holders, who may not be happy.

NONE of them worked out really satisfactorily to ALL parties. They all ended up compromises, which, natch, means that everyone felt that they'd been screwed, somehow. ;-)

So long as they all felt equally screwed and no one was getting singled out, it was proper compromise...
______
Dennis

[covingtoncat73]

Is a world without David Bowie and Alan Rickman in it really one worth living in?

[orlok]

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

Is a world without David Bowie and Alan Rickman in it really one worth living in?

I know what you mean, and feel much the same way, certainly regarding David Bowie, who had a huge influence on me growing up. But I suppose the world isn't completely without them, as you can still listen to the music and watch the videos and films. And it is a better place because of that.

[covingtoncat73]

Originally Posted by orlok

I know what you mean, and feel much the same way, certainly regarding David Bowie, who had a huge influence on me growing up. But I suppose the world isn't completely without them, as you can still listen to the music and watch the videos and films. And it is a better place because of that.

Very true that.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'm contrary on this. I've told people elsewhere salary may be a negative incentive. I once told a boss "I expect to be paid comparably to my peers. If I discover Joe in the cube down the hall who does what I do, has the same seniority, and the same skill set and performance evaluations as I do is getting a lot more than I am, we'll have words about why. But meanwhile, while more money is nice, it's not a game changer. If you double my salary, I won't magically become twice as productive. I'm already working as hard as I can. What I want is work I like to do, making a visible contribution, done with people I get along with and having the resources to do it right. Your job is to tell me what needs doing, see that I have what I need to do it, then step out of the way and fly top cover to keep others from interfering while I get it done." Do that and I'll be happy.

When I was an employee, to some extent, this was true of me. I'd work absurd hours, like a stakeholder, pretty much regardless of the pay. I was, however, motivated by more money. Not necessarily just for the lucre; but I was a woman in a man's field. I mean, so male that at the time, the only females, nationwide, were secretaries and admin assists, and, of course, the occasional "head" of HR, or "office manager." So, keeping up with the Johnses was important to me. When I learned that some lower-level employees in another division were being paid more than I was, I nearly blew a blood vessel--and the CEO raised my salary and perks significantly that same day. It mattered to me. This was at a time when CEO's, etc., would say "but, you don't need the money like Bob does; your husband works, doesn't he?" And, no--I'm not regurgitating someone else's story; that's been said to me.

(That employer later laid me off, and I had a grimly amusing exit interview with HR where they gave me a list of other eliminated positions and the ages of the affected employees. It was a CYA "We are documenting that we aren't laying you off because you are an older employee. We are laying you off because you are making more money than we want to pay." They were having problems, so it was no real surprise, but various of us noted that while IT was being cut to the bone, HR was expanding. Hmmm. The company has less people, but needs more HR employees to handle the remainder...")

Yes. I was laid off as well, during the '89 S&L financial crisis. I got a similar tap-dance, how all the OTHER Veeps were being nuked, as well. What he failed to mention, mind you, was that one of them got a significantly larger severance, and that came back to bite him in the ass. No, not some legal kerfuffle; he wanted to hire me to consult, some years later, and I made him pay the difference--plus interest--before I'd take the gig.

When the family business is "lender to kings and princes", you better not be kid-blind. You're very fussy about just which offspring are in position to make those loans.

Agreed. I rather admire their Klingon-style advancement policies.

A woman I know came from a family with kid-blind issues. Older brother was ... damaged ... and needed to be institutionalized. Dad couldn't admit his son's condition, and poured resources down the rat hole that should have done things like pay for her and her sister's college education. By the time dad was forced to face reality, she and her sister had been pretty well screwed over. And dad died with all sorts of unresolved issues between them that would now never get resolved.

Change some genders and roles around, and this is VERY much like our fam. It's all sorted now...so to speak--but mostly because the kid-blind parent and the kid who was the beneficiary of that blindness are both dead. No issues were ever resolved while they were alive.

She wound up divorcing her husband because an entrepreneurial venture of his failed, and she simply needed more financial security. It was not an amicable parting. The lines were drawn among their mutual friends, and many supported her and demonized him. I stayed out of it. I thought he was clueless, and should have understood her needs better than he did, but wasn't evil.

Meanwhile, her sister got stuck with caring for brother after dad died, and eventually got him declared a ward of the state, because she simply couldn't deal with it. She wound up in a messy parting of the ways with her sister, and now lives on the West Coast and seems determined to put her whole family behind her.

That's messy on a lot of fronts. Many women, biologically, can't live without security. It's not "gold-digging." It's a deep-seated, evolutionary biology, NEED. Hell, I understand it. I have endeavored not to be suppressed by it, because I certainly feel it, but my career path and other choices have been far from safe. I couldn't blame anyone--male or female--for divorce in a situation in which this fundamental need just isn't met, or even understood.

I had a conversation about that with a friend. He had founded a computer consulting business that was a defense contractor<SNIP> He said "$5 million!" They said "We'll have to think about that...", leaving him thinking "OMG! What do I do if they say yes? I don't want to stick around." Fortunately, they didn't make him the offer.

Now, THAT is a high-level problem to have.

More recently, <snip>He told them his rate was $500/hour. They said "When can you start?"

Ah, the good old days. {sob}.

One minor good point is that he can twit his former corporate lawyer who bills $450/hour and say "Nyah, nyah! I'm billing more than you!" But he said "There's no way I'm worth $500/hour!" I said "Sure you are. Something is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. They are willing to pay you $500/hour. You are worth it to them Take the money!"

That's exactly right, like the oft-told Picasso story (w/the napkin). He's worth it to them, so--he's worth it. Take the ducats and run.

The problem with equity is whether it will in fact be worth anything. I've lost count of the number of folks I've encountered working ridiculous hours for startups in exchange for equity. The problem is, maybe 1% of those startups succeed, IPO, and make the founder rich. If you aren't a founder, forget getting rich even if it does IPO, and usually, you will wind up with equity that has no value.

There may actually be equity in family businesses, bet getting a piece of it if you aren't a family member presents challenges. Issuing more shares dilutes the equity of existing holders, who may not be happy.


So long as they all felt equally screwed and no one was getting singled out, it was proper compromise...
______
Dennis

I would never ask anyone to work for equity in a start-up. Not unless I'd gone over it with micro-toothed combs, and then some, and saw a REAL need or hunger for the product in the marketplace. Too many startups, too many "venture capitalists," too many crowd-funded half-assed adventures...nah.

There is a vast difference, in many ways, between a family owned biz that's been around for a hundred years or so, and a start-up. Now, having said that--the likelihood that the start-up will allow the participants to strike it rich, so to speak, is FAR greater with a start-up than a staid family-owned biz. Most of them are just that--staid. They are all sorts of companies, many still pumping out things that others forget even exist, from industrial widgets to construction to tailoring, to whatever. Nobody is likely to strike it right with widgets or bespoke suits. ;-) Construction? Possibly, but remote.

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

Is a world without David Bowie and Alan Rickman in it really one worth living in?

Bowie didn't have a massive influence on me, although I respected him; but I'm desolate about Rickman. I simply adored his work.

Hitch

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Hitch

When I was an employee, to some extent, this was true of me. I'd work absurd hours, like a stakeholder, pretty much regardless of the pay. I was, however, motivated by more money. Not necessarily just for the lucre; but I was a woman in a man's field. I mean, so male that at the time, the only females, nationwide, were secretaries and admin assists, and, of course, the occasional "head" of HR, or "office manager." So, keeping up with the Johnses was important to me. When I learned that some lower-level employees in another division were being paid more than I was, I nearly blew a blood vessel--and the CEO raised my salary and perks significantly that same day. It mattered to me. This was at a time when CEO's, etc., would say "but, you don't need the money like Bob does; your husband works, doesn't he?" And, no--I'm not regurgitating someone else's story; that's been said to me.

I'm not denigrating money. I was happy to be better paid. (Though the layoff I mentioned from prior employer was a case of "That's what I get for being good. They're laying me off because they don't want to pay me what they previously decided I was worth.")

But more money wasn't the only factor in the job satisfaction equation, and likely wasn't the most important. As I said, we want to be paid comparably with our peers, and get upset when someone supposedly a peer is making far more without an obvious good reason for the disparity.

Yes. I was laid off as well, during the '89 S&L financial crisis. I got a similar tap-dance, how all the OTHER Veeps were being nuked, as well. What he failed to mention, mind you, was that one of them got a significantly larger severance, and that came back to bite him in the ass. No, not some legal kerfuffle; he wanted to hire me to consult, some years later, and I made him pay the difference--plus interest--before I'd take the gig.

A friend in Boston got laid off after a dozen years. He was doing computer security for a big financial outfit. His employer disagreed with the state over taxes, and closed the facility he worked in. He chose not to relocate the family to TX to follow the job. His boss got the chop about a week after he did.

He made a mid-life career change, and became a rep for a family-owned outfit importing spirits from France, and sells armangac, cognac, and whiskey. He wasn't making a lot of money, but was having fun. Now he's also doing work for a consulting firm where the idea was he'd peer-program with a partner working nights and weekends. But the firm is getting more deeply embedded with thier principal client, and his part-time gig is approaching full time. I saw him at an SF con over the weeken in Boston, and he was technically on vacation but working because of various issues. He said about one vendor in the process "They claim to be in the cloud, but I've accused them of actually having the server under someone's desk in the office!" I told him the cloud was simply how the outside world reached the box, and it's physical location might just be under someone's desk...

Change some genders and roles around, and this is VERY much like our fam. It's all sorted now...so to speak--but mostly because the kid-blind parent and the kid who was the beneficiary of that blindness are both dead. No issues were ever resolved while they were alive.

I suppose you can say it's sorted in the case I mentioned, though I do wonder about the current state of the other sister. The one I knew is on the West Coast and doing well. Her ex-husband is remarried and a father, but his wife understood what she was getting and knew how to deal with it.

That's messy on a lot of fronts. Many women, biologically, can't live without security. It's not "gold-digging." It's a deep-seated, evolutionary biology, NEED. Hell, I understand it. I have endeavored not to be suppressed by it, because I certainly feel it, but my career path and other choices have been far from safe. I couldn't blame anyone--male or female--for divorce in a situation in which this fundamental need just isn't met, or even understood.

I agree. Her behavior made perfect sense, especially after the family stuff she'd been through, and I didn't blame her. (Part of the fun was that she and her husband were principles in an editorial services business that was having issues. She griped on a list we were on about various things publishers weren't doing like proofreading and copy editing. Another list member who was an editor at a trade house said "But those things are part of the book's budget and always done!" "Maybe they still are at your house" was the reply, "but I'm the one here dealing with publishers who used to pay us to do that and aren't anymore...")

I didn't see her husband as evil - just clueless. He was focused on what he was trying to do, and blissfully unaware of her feelings until hit by the divorce clue-by-four. (I take that back. He was aware she was unhappy. He didn't comprehend why well enough till after she left.)

That's exactly right, like the oft-told Picasso story (w/the napkin). He's worth it to them, so--he's worth it. Take the ducats and run.

He expects his taxes to be ugly, but has established a separate account for this work and is socking the money to pay the taxes away.

I would never ask anyone to work for equity in a start-up. Not unless I'd gone over it with micro-toothed combs, and then some, and saw a REAL need or hunger for the product in the marketplace. Too many startups, too many "venture capitalists," too many crowd-funded half-assed adventures...nah.

I worked for a start up for a short time. I got a salary, and had options. I did not expect the options to be worth anything, and was correct. The board told the CEO he needed to grow the business. He went out and rustled up investors and got lots of money put into the company, but was unable to convert that into increased business and revenue and profit. They wound up being acquired for pennies on the dollar by another firm after I left. I have no idea who is still there, but the guy who hired me isn't.

There is a vast difference, in many ways, between a family owned biz that's been around for a hundred years or so, and a start-up. Now, having said that--the likelihood that the start-up will allow the participants to strike it rich, so to speak, is FAR greater with a start-up than a staid family-owned biz. Most of them are just that--staid. They are all sorts of companies, many still pumping out things that others forget even exist, from industrial widgets to construction to tailoring, to whatever. Nobody is likely to strike it right with widgets or bespoke suits. ;-) Construction? Possibly, but remote.

The problem with family owned business and startups is similar. You must be a family member or a founding partner to share in any sudden riches. If you aren't one of those two classes, none of it will stick to you even if it does happen.

Aside from the idiocy of expecting people to work for equity, you have the need for a clear eyed view of reality. Too many startup founders have visions of dollar signs dancing through their heads, and dream of grabbing the brass ring - their startup will IPO and they'll be filthy rich. Save that most startups never reach the point of IPO, and many that do trade at a price that puts the options under water. No one involved gets rich.

I tell people "Do it because you love it. Do it because you can't imagine not doing it. Do it as though an IPO will never happen, and you'll be making an okay living doing what you love but never get rich. Don't do it because you expect to become rich, because you won't!" (Come to think of it, I give the same advice to aspiring writers... )
______
Dennis

[HomeInMyShoes]

I hate setting up environments. So much mussy work and fiddly work and why can't I access this file and why isn't this installed and why .... and why ...

Oh well. Comes with the territory.

[DMcCunney]

I'm a long time fan of SF and fantasy. I've been reading the genre for over 50 years, and involved in organized SF fan activities for over 40. In the process, I've had the opportunity to meet many of the people in the field, and Dave was one of them

I first met Dave 40 some years ago. He was a consulting editor at the Signet imprint of NAL Books. Signet had a long history of SF publishing, but the line had fallen into disarray, and Dave was on board to help restore it. He described it taking 7 months just to determine who Signet had under contract for what, and another 5 to dot Is, cross Ts, and get contracts renewed. And even then, Signet lost properties they wanted to keep because they had forgotten they had the rights to something, but the author or author's agent hadn't, and formally asked for the rights to revert when they became available. (You would think a publisher would at least know who they had under contract for what, but Signet didn't. I haven't seen much evidence the rest of publishing has gotten any better.)

Dave liked to have lots of part time jobs, and also taught graduate level English classes (he was technically Dr. Hartwell, with a PhD in English), ran a college dorm, dealt rare books, and did other things I'm probably forgetting. He was editor of the Berkley/Putnam SF line for a while, and described the fun when they were discussing what to pay him. He said "I don't want a full time job. I like having several part time jobs. Figure out what you were going to pay me, knock a grand or so off of it, and give me the result as an expense account I can use to go to all of the SF cons I like to attend!" I doubt Berkley/Putnam understood, but they did as requested.

Dave had broad interests, and aside from a passionate involvement in literature, he liked deconstructing men's fashion. Part of that effort included a collection of ties you wouldn't believe existed till you saw him wearing one of them.

He was a founder of both Sercon and Readercon, and on the board of and largely responsible for the annual World Fantasy Convention.

Most recently, he was a Senior Editor at Tor Books, and the original announcement was made by Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Tor's Manager of SF and close editorial associate.

If there is a pantheon of late giants in the SF genre publishing field, it includes Ian Ballantine, John W. Campbell, Terry Carr, Fred Pohl, Donald A. Wollheim, and now, damn it, Dave.

A light has gone out in my personal sky.
______
Dennis

[Katsunami]

The person who designed the keyboards of the current DELL notebooks should be kicked in the nuts. Hard. Thrice over.

The old Latitude 6000 series had a keyboard that was similar (and exactly the same to some) Thinkpad notebooks. They had dedicated HOME/END, PGUP/PGDOWN, INS/DEL buttons on the top right.

The current keyboards have HOME/END as part of te arrow keys, used together with FN, and PGUP/PGDOWN are relocated left and right beside the top arrow key. Also, all of these buttons are now half-height.

It's a pity that this DELL is the only laptop on offer at the moment that has everything (else) I want, because this keyboard just s***s b@llz big time. It will take me a year just to retrain my muscle memory, as I use HOME/END a lot, especially in combination with CTRL.

I wonder why companies are always jackassing with keyboard layouts.

[cromag]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'm a long time fan of SF and fantasy. I've been reading the genre for over 50 years, and involved in organized SF fan activities for over 40. In the process, I've had the opportunity to meet many of the people in the field, and Dave was one of them

I first met Dave 40 some years ago. He was a consulting editor at the Signet imprint of NAL Books. Signet had a long history of SF publishing, but the line had fallen into disarray, and Dave was on board to help restore it. He described it taking 7 months just to determine who Signet had under contract for what, and another 5 to dot Is, cross Ts, and get contracts renewed. And even then, Signet lost properties they wanted to keep because they had forgotten they had the rights to something, but the author or author's agent hadn't, and formally asked for the rights to revert when they became available. (You would think a publisher would at least know who they had under contract for what, but Signet didn't. I haven't seen much evidence the rest of publishing has gotten any better.)

Dave liked to have lots of part time jobs, and also taught graduate level English classes (he was technically Dr. Hartwell, with a PhD in English), ran a college dorm, dealt rare books, and did other things I'm probably forgetting. He was editor of the Berkley/Putnam SF line for a while, and described the fun when they were discussing what to pay him. He said "I don't want a full time job. I like having several part time jobs. Figure out what you were going to pay me, knock a grand or so off of it, and give me the result as an expense account I can use to go to all of the SF cons I like to attend!" I doubt Berkley/Putnam understood, but they did as requested.

Dave had broad interests, and aside from a passionate involvement in literature, he liked deconstructing men's fashion. Part of that effort included a collection of ties you wouldn't believe existed till you saw him wearing one of them.

He was a founder of both Sercon and Readercon, and on the board of and largely responsible for the annual World Fantasy Convention.

Most recently, he was a Senior Editor at Tor Books, and the original announcement was made by Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Tor's Manager of SF and close editorial associate.

If there is a pantheon of late giants in the SF genre publishing field, it includes Ian Ballantine, John W. Campbell, Terry Carr, Fred Pohl, Donald A. Wollheim, and now, damn it, Dave.

A light has gone out in my personal sky.
______
Dennis

Very sorry to hear this. Cosmos magazine, for the very brief run that it had, is still a great memory for me.

[pdurrant]

Bother! I've lost my Kindle Paperwhite. Somewhere between getting on a bus and getting to a railway waiting room.

So I've sent emails to the lost property departments of both places, and I'll just have to hope it turns up. Back to my Nook Glowlight for now.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

<snip>
I first met Dave 40 some years ago. He was a consulting editor at the Signet imprint of NAL Books. <SNIP>

He was a founder of both Sercon and Readercon, and on the board of and largely responsible for the annual World Fantasy Convention.

Most recently, he was a Senior Editor at Tor Books, and the original announcement was made by Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Tor's Manager of SF and close editorial associate.

If there is a pantheon of late giants in the SF genre publishing field, it includes Ian Ballantine, John W. Campbell, Terry Carr, Fred Pohl, Donald A. Wollheim, and now, damn it, Dave.

A light has gone out in my personal sky.
______
Dennis

I'm sorry for your loss, Dennis, I truly am.

Hitch