A third of Stitch Fix employees quit after new CEO ends flexible work hours

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/stitch-fix-employees-quitting

by adamhowell • 5 years ago

187 75 5 years ago

The new CEO, she said, “thinks that the [technology] can do better than us, and that clients don’t care ... that there’s not a person behind the computer.”

That's surprising. The only reason I've ever considered Stitch Fix is specifically because there might be a person with better taste than me on the other end.

An algorithm is just going to give me a mix of what's popular and what I've liked in the past, which is precisely the information I already had before coming to their service. Wouldn't people eventually realize they don't need to be told to keep buying things they already like?

I'd be more interested if they not only kept the people around, but doubled down on having consistent relationships and interaction between stylists and clients.

Tarsul2• 5 years ago

I'm still wondering how many "stylists" are good enough for the job. Or maybe I'm just too picky and thus find it hard to imagine that many stilists would be able to find what the other person would like without it being too obvious (hey, I noticed you liked blue things. here's another blue one!). In my imagination it's a very thin line between obviousness and misunderstanding (and the fine line being the absolute understanding of the customer).

ctvo• 5 years ago

Yes, it's very difficult to tell your style from your photos, social media presence, and explicit instructions provided when you signed up. This is sarcasm if you didn't pick it up.

People who are as picky as you outlined self-select out of services like this.

What they have that the customer doesn't, is knowledge of the space of products that may match your taste. They also know more brands than you do, and may match you with one that you weren't aware of. Like most services, we can do it ourselves, but we pay others because we don't have the time.

Ensorceled• 5 years ago

You also do not want just what "I like". A stylish friend did a shopping trip with me and made me buy stuff I didn't really like: too tight, too colourful, etc. Not outlandish, just way outside my comfort zone. Apparently I look really good in red.

OMG. The compliments. From co-workers, random people on the street and staff in stores. I was shopping for a nice watch for my wife, went to a place and was ignored but saw a watch, went back a few days later in my new clothes, and the same staff was super friendly and helpful. It really changed how I viewed the importance of style and fit.

nightski• 5 years ago

I use Stitch Fix and personally I don't care. So far the selections have been great.

It sounds like the stylist is provided data from an algorithm already any way and just fine tunes the selections.

Not only that they have a lot of ways to build out the style you already received which is great.

tmp_anon_22• 5 years ago

I mean the whole gimmick is about off-loading hard-to-sell inventory at immense mark-ups by bundling items together. Yea some absurd combinations will be sent back but it will still profit an order of magnitude more then displaying it in a department store for months. A lot more room for JIT style and data-driven logistics without the lag-time of presenting within a store.

You can't be that mad at a company when it is so obvious what their value proposition and consequences are to a consumer.

spoonjim2• 5 years ago

How does a stylist learn “style” and why could an algorithm not perform the same?

whoisjuan2• 5 years ago

An algorithm is just going to give me a mix of what's popular and what I've liked in the past.

That's exactly the same thing a human stylist would do + making sure the outfit pieces look good together (Which I assume the algorithm is also trained to do).

As much as I want to believe that a human in the end would do a better job, I think an algorithm is capable of becoming a more accurate and dynamic stylist than a human.

Unless you want to be a trend-setter or do some artistic expression through your clothing. In those cases a human stylist does make sense. But for the regular Joe, I think a well trained algorithm can perform better than a human.

weego• 5 years ago

This is just a misunderstanding of how creative people work vs algorithms.

An algorithm will aim to make you look similar to what other people like you look like. It will not push boundaries or riff on creative 'happy accidents' because it can't.

A real stylist will do those things and more.

I don't know whether it's an age thing or just pure cognitive dissonance because people in tech have the hubris to think we can optimise and improve everything because technology, but this machine-learning nihilist thinking is profoundly sad.

heyhey09182• 5 years ago

The algo literally gives 10 cargo jackets in the summer because they are “high match scores”.

doahgul1452• 5 years ago

The algorithm sends winter coats and three crop tops to someone living in Texas during the summer.. it doesn’t put together outfits, consider seasons, or make selections based on budget/requests/lifestyles/etc.

So a human (usually with a fashion background and retail experience) is going to be able to perform better in pretty much every scenario with their algorithm “helping”

paxys• 5 years ago

It's not like you are getting top-tier fashion designers, interior decorators etc. on services like these. The company has a fixed catalog, decided based on what deals they can get from vendors, and their reps are all outsourced and following a script/reading out algorithmic results.

gowld2• 5 years ago

"In the future, your job will be performed by a robot, but the robot will be you."

LatteLazy2• 5 years ago

Im the same. I don't mine the algo but i wanted a human as well. This is disappointing. Ive been really pleased with what they sent me.

alistairSH• 5 years ago

The only reason I've ever considered Stitch Fix is specifically because there might be a person with better taste than me on the other end.

If the ex-workers in the article are representative, they aren't trained stylists at all; they're housewives and other normal people looking for extra income. Using StitchFix is basically letting your Uber driver select your wardrobe.

gowld2• 5 years ago

If they have good taste, works for me.

zippergz• 5 years ago

I'd venture a guess that the average "normal person" is better at picking out clothing than I am, so I don't see the problem with this. Vanishingly few people who choose clothes for others, whether it's a Stitch Fix, Nordstrom, or styling celebrities, are "trained stylists." It's about taste, not training.

JustARandomGuy• 5 years ago

Would HN recommend Stitch Fix? I was thinking of signing up if there was a personal stylist recommending clothes, but now I’m not sure. How good is the AI in picking a wardrobe?

toomuchtodo• 5 years ago

Speaks to the strength of the current labor market. The jobs had low value, and those who stuck behind either want the job or have no other choice.

t-writescode• 5 years ago

Or they’re working 2 jobs and cannot comply with the new core hours rule.

kilroy123• 5 years ago

I was an early adopter of their service and I've noticed the quality has gone down hill the past year or two. About the same time they went public. I'm not too surprised to hear of internal issues.

mdaniel• 5 years ago

Wow, they had 1500 employees? That's a lot of ... shipping? shopping? customer service?

I'd laugh if the shareholders fired the CEO over a boneheaded move like that, since (at least in my mind) it would seem replacing 1500 people is not a good use of the organization's time and energy and such an exodus was self inflicted

stagger87• 5 years ago

They certainly anticipated it and in all likelihood hoped for it. I doubt they plan on replacing every employee that left.

echelon• 5 years ago

These were clothing style pickers, and it sounds like the CEO intended to get rid of many or most of them.

It wasn't just quitting. They were offered $1000 in severance. Only a third of the workers took the offer.

It seems like they're trying to get consistency from fewer staff that are more focused on the job. And less costly to employ. That, or eventually replace them with algorithmic picking.

The company missed revenue targets, lost multiple senior staff, and the new CEO is from Bain capital. They're doing this on purpose.

jessaustin2• 5 years ago

...the new CEO is from Bain capital.

That explains the introduction of black-box management-solely-via-P&L. If any position could be automated away, one would think that that sort of CEO could...

jwong_• 5 years ago

What sort of costs go into these employees? I think I'm missing something, but not very familiar with costs of a worker who: * has no benefits * BYOD * not eligible for benefits (they are explicitly called out in TFA as not eligible to become employees)

Is it just the cost of scheduling these workers?

dghlsakjg• 5 years ago

I think the CEO is missing a major point. Their competitive advantage might be that they AREN'T algorithmic.

Shopping algorithms seem really good at finding very similar items in my experience. That's great when I'm shopping for a cheap router, or some other commodity. When shopping for something like clothing, you frequently want VERY dissimilar items to compare, OR you want complementary, but differently categorized items.

Get rid of the human touch at your own peril. Especially when your business model is built on taste.

Looking at stitch fix pricing it is not cheap. It looks a lot like you would expect somewhere like Nordstrom's to price. It's worth noting that Nordstrom's is more than happy to have an employee act as a personal stylist at no cost.

hadlock• 5 years ago

1500 employees, 1/3rd quit. Supposedly, many of those who quit were working less than 20 hours a week, previously a minimum of 5 hours a week was required. At that rate it would take 8 part time employees to work 40 hours...

PragmaticPulp• 5 years ago

The headline buries the big number: They claim a whopping 1/3 of the workforce quit after the announcement.

But they also buried the other big factor: They offered everyone $1000 to quit. They also didn't actually completely end flexible working hours, they just raised the minimum working hours to 20 per week and required that they be performed during core hours:

employees would now be required to work at least 20 hours per week on a set schedule during regular business hours; their log-on and log-off times would be tracked, and stylists would at least temporarily no longer be allowed to become full-time employees. Those who couldn’t work within the new rules were offered a $1,000 bonus to quit

So it's not as simple as the headline makes it sound. It would have been helpful to know how many of those employees who quit were already working the minimum of 20 hours per week during core hours.

If they lost a lot of key workers, that's a big deal. If they lost a lot of people putting in a few hours here and there and those workers got $1000 for it, then this is a non-story. I suppose we can't really know.

From personal experience: Flexible work is great, but infinitely flexible working hours quickly becomes a huge pain. Without setting core hours and minimums, you end up with a long tail of workers who want to put in a couple hours here and there at weird hours. This might work if you workload is 100% asynchronous, requires virtually no training, and has minimal managerial intervention, but eventually the odd hours and inconsistent working schedules take a toll on everyone else who has to work around the flex employees. Constraining flex hours to certain windows and requiring a minimum is actually a very reasonable policy, IMO.

heisenbergs• 5 years ago

This. This was basically a lay off in disguise, and yet it's being portrayed as the opposite. Stichfix has continually automated many of their processes using their 100+ data scientists. This is no different.

The company's executive has continually failed at PR though, which is hammering the stock price. Unbelievable that they're letting this narrative just persist.

tbrooks• 5 years ago

“Letting this narrative persist”

As if it’s in their purview to control. Ask the poor PR folks at CFA (chicken QSR)

Traster2• 5 years ago

That's if you beleive the scientists are there for the product instead of being there for the investors. I don't know about stitch fix but there's a lot of unrealistic "Oh we're going to automate away all our staffing costs"

Areibman• 5 years ago

Thank you for this.

I've noticed that Buzzfeed News almost always intentionally buries these crucial details to create sensationalist pieces.

If the domain were banned from HN, I wouldn't be upset.

dahdum• 5 years ago

According to the article the minimum working hours isn't 20 hours a week, they are forcing their employees to block off 20 hours during core working times to be available in case Stitch Fix wants them. If Stitch Fix guaranteed those 20 hours were paid I'd be more understanding.

While the new policy requires that stylists be available at least 20 hours per week, company guidelines reviewed by BuzzFeed News said they can be scheduled for as little as zero hours as “availability does not guarantee a certain number of working hours each week."

MattGaiser• 5 years ago

Yeah, that is retail level bullshit.

BizarroLand• 5 years ago

That sounds like being engaged to wait. I don't know this company but that seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

x0x0• 5 years ago

so it's basically unpaid on call

dang• 5 years ago

Ok, we've put "a third" in the title above. Thanks!

kevinmgranger• 5 years ago

They also didn't actually completely end flexible working hours, they ... required that they be performed during core hours

These are always equivalent in my experience. I've never seen a company that didn't use "core hours" to mean some large window centered around the middle of the day.

heyhey09182• 5 years ago

This doesn’t, however, make sense because Stitch Fix’s core hours cause entirely too many employees to be on the server at one time. Last week, the server went down at exactly 8 am every single day because it was the first hour stylist were allowed to be on. It also went down for 3 hours on Wednesday. Stitch Fix is not equipped to have this many employees on the server during these core hours. If the server goes down, you are to move your hours or take a pay cut— whether you are part time or full time. This is exactly what stylists saw coming, so they bowed out.

doahgul1452• 5 years ago

You obviously don’t have any real insight into the company or the changes that were made. There aren’t employees putting in a “few hours here and there”, and the minimum commitment previously was 15 hours. They’ve restructured scheduling policies to a very large degree from how it’s operated for almost 10 years. They now require exact time-shift commitments to the minute, for multiple hours within a tight schedule timeframe, and you still are on-call. Before you were able to schedule anywhere from 15-29 hours and you would set hours during the day that you could complete around your own schedule.

Your assumption of things aren’t close, and they didn’t lose employees who barely worked. They lost employees who have anything else going on between the hours of 8-8 between Tues-Sat, and worked the job for flexibility..

Hamuko• 5 years ago

Is Stitch Fix one of those podcast advertiser regulars? I feel like I've heard about them before even though I'm not anywhere near their target audience, and podcasts are a good way to reach people who are not in your target audience.

ketzo• 5 years ago

Yep, big time. If you’ve listened to a podcast regularly in the last five years, you’ve almost definitely heard an ad for them (or similar competitors).

spoonjim2• 5 years ago

For years, Stitch Fix stylists have been training Stitch Fix ML models to do their jobs. Now the CEO doesn’t need them and showed them the door. This is just the way of doing it which makes the company seem like a victim of its own incompetence instead of a ruthless capitalist automating its people out of their jobs.

LatteLazy2• 5 years ago

Very lucky that the new ceo took over just as they became expendable...

alberth• 5 years ago

I wonder how much of this help Stitch Fix stock narrative (and bottom line).

Stitch Fix has market valuation as if they are a tech company (due to unique machine algorithm cloth matching).

Having 1,000s of employees is counter to that narrative and might make wall street reassess their valuation.

phaedryx• 5 years ago

I was thinking of signing up for them, but this gives me pause. Any other recommendations in this space?

rossdavidh• 5 years ago

"One Midwest-based employee said she had started working for Stitch Fix on top of her full-time day job..."

...and that is why the current levels of remote work aren't going to completely stick. I work remotely, but I also am not a "permanent" employee, so the fact that I can work for more than one company at a time is fine, because they haven't hired me as an employee. Most companies are not looking for that, or if they are it's a consultant/contractor, not an employee with benefits. If you're working for more than one company at a time, you're not an "employee", rather those companies are your customers. It's a different relationship. If you want that flexibility, you'll probably have to give up the (alleged) security that goes with being an employee, and just work as a consultant or contractor.

avianlyric• 5 years ago

You’re aware that huge swathes of the economy is run by “flexible” labour that doesn’t get any guaranteed hours, and is forced to work 2 or 3 job simultaneously to make ends meet.

Most of these individuals don’t want this scenario, they would much rather have one full time job that paid the bill. But with minimum wage in the US basically being a glorified slave-wage, that’s not a realistic ambition for many people.

1billionstories• 5 years ago

i was a stylist (left few months ago). even though management would always tell us they don't plan to replace us with AI, it was pretty clear they were lying.

Traster2• 5 years ago

Every employer wishes magical AI would come along and replace all of their workers. It doesn't mean it's actually a feasible goal. To be honest, if you could build an AI to do what stitch fix does, it probably just devalues what stitch fix does.

kazinator• 5 years ago

In time didn't save nine, it seems.

cronix• 5 years ago

This sounds like a great opportunity for those ~500 past employees. 500 is a pretty big number to start a competing business that would work for the employees the way they wanted it to.

“We knew from the beginning we were teaching the algorithm,” said an East Coast–based stylist who requested anonymity because she still works at the company. “We know the ultimate goal of Stitch Fix was to get rid of us.”

I have a hard time with the above statement. If you "know" you are training your replacement, or believe you are, and stay anyway, and then you get replaced/eliminated... that just seems to ignore the writing on the wall and being upset post fact when you had full knowledge of it up front, or so you say. It rings kind of hollow. I understand losing a job is an emotional gut punch, even if you're kind of expecting it.

A third of Stitch Fix employees quit after new CEO ends flexible work hours

Related Stories