Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

https://soundcloud.com/jim-romenesko/sounds-from-wednesday-morning

by coloneltcb • 12 years ago

183 149 12 years ago

jere• 12 years ago

I had a recruiter send me an email exactly 5 months ago today claiming "I've placed ten folks with AOL in the past year, and Patch is the most profitable and exciting division especially for the engineers."

First time I've ever had to respond to a recruiter to tell them they were full of shit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/08/09/layoffs...

tptacek• 12 years ago

Recruiters. How do you not love them.

badman_ting• 12 years ago

Well, I guess you could call this exciting.

toomuchtodo• 12 years ago

May you work in interesting times /s

notahacker2• 12 years ago

Potentially profitable too, if you're a recruiter looking for job candidates...

dba7dba• 12 years ago

Never EVER trust a recruiter. Years ago I got an email from a recruiter about a job after I submitted my resume. The position was a Novell admin. On my resume, there was NOTHING about Novell.

IMO it's a complete waste of time.

seandhi• 12 years ago

I was approached by a recruiter with the same line for Patch about 6-8 months ago. Listening to this conference call, I am so glad that I did not take it seriously.

aabalkan• 12 years ago

What is Patch?

japaget• 12 years ago

From the patch.com website:

"Patch reports on everything you need to know about your town, from local government to school news to what to do with your family this weekend.

And your local Patch makes it easy for you and your neighbors to connect and post your news and events too.

All of this, plus comprehensive listings of local restaurants and shops, home improvement services and businesses, events, and more – all in one place – in over 1,000 communities and counting."

platz• 12 years ago

i.e. so-called "hyper-local" media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlocal

timmaah• 12 years ago

Site that the CEO of AOL founded before joining AOL. Then bought once hired at AOL and poured millions into before being forced to cutback/sell to keep his AOL job.

zmanian• 12 years ago

Tim Armstrong is the current CEO of AOL and former senior Google Executive. He is reputed to have been the driving force behind the success of Google's Ad Words business.

He seemed to become less effective at Google as his responsibilities expanded and moved on to AOL.

Patch was his big play to make AOL relevant again and has proved to be a complete economic failure.

Highlights an unfortunate reality of the Silicon Valley that past success can sometimes just mean a longer rope to hang yourself with.

The reality is that running AOL is thankless job.

oh_sigh• 12 years ago

Exactly.

joeblau2• 12 years ago

That was going to be my response, but you beat me to it.

smackfu7• 12 years ago

Hyperlocal news site. The idea is to have dedicated sites for small towns, usually with a single local employee writing all the articles. These towns are very underserved by other news sources, since traditional newspapers have cut staffs so much. Then when you have local traffic, you can sell ads to local businesses.

They shuttered a lot of the sites a few months ago.

dgrab242• 12 years ago

Love it. A great HR-scripted call.

callesgg• 12 years ago

They should have used text 2 voice software.

That would have made it seam a bit more personalized.

sgt• 12 years ago

Agreed, I would have preferred:

$ say -v "Bad News" "Unfortunately your role has been eliminated and you will no longer have a role at patch. Today will be your last day of employment with the company"

georgemcbay• 12 years ago

Agreed, if I were in the place of those employees I'd rather be listening to Siri or the Google Maps driving voice lady, both sound a lot more human.

Even better would be if they hired Ellen McLain to GladOS it because at least that would have been funny.

xutopia• 12 years ago

I didn't hear of Patch until today. This seems like a private call between employees and someone responsible for HR. Why is this news? Is Patch a big name?

mkr-hn2• 12 years ago

It's the only local news in some places.

bchjam• 12 years ago

In spite of the fact that some group of people lost their jobs, the audio track is kind of funny in the sense that this real HR department sounds like a parody of what tech people think of HR departments.

scrabble• 12 years ago

I don't know. I got laid off 18 months ago. HR did it to my face (bringing in a small group of people at a time). It sounded almost identical to this, tone and everything. More realistic than parody.

nols• 12 years ago

It was AOL's (well, Tim Armstrong's) next big thing, until reality struck and they sold it a couple weeks ago.

untog• 12 years ago

Patch was, at one point, heralded as the future of local journalism. AOL's CEO was an early investor in Patch and (presumably) played a key role in AOL acquiring it. Then it all fell apart.

arethuza2• 12 years ago

I had to lay quite a few people off in 2002 when the company I co-founded in '95 was acquired (post IPO) by another company who then tanked. I was the only founder/exec who stuck with the acquirer and I got the dubious pleasure of laying off everyone in our office before I was myself laid off by the roving HR manager.

One thing that I'm slightly proud of is that when I had to lay people off at least I did it myself to their face - quite a few thanked me for the time they'd had and some even wished it had turned out better for me - which was rather humbling.

Touche• 12 years ago

Wait, did you know you were going to be laid off too?

Gracana2• 12 years ago

I don't think so. As I understand it, they wished things had worked out better for him because he was a founder/exec and a bunch of layoffs means it's already going down the drain.

kyrra• 12 years ago

Working in a satellite office for a large company. Whenever anyone from HR was in the office we always knew someone was being laid off.

What was more fun, starting around 11am one day, all managers in the office (about 6 of them) disappeared. Around 2pm none of them returned and were not responding to calls/txt/email. One of them ended up breaking the silence and told someone the office was closing. Everyone left around 2:30pm that day, and when we showed up in the morning, we knew we would be laid off. It made the meeting a bit easier.

CompleteMoron• 12 years ago

Patch was kinda rocking at first for me - especially when I was over in Broooklyn. It was showing up in my feeds or when i went searching for stories in some states.

Then AOL got them and suddenly I saw no posts from The Patch on my feeds - for like all of 2013.

What happened?

aaronem• 12 years ago

Sounds like AOL happened. As far as I can tell, they've never been all that comfortable with this new-fangled "inter-web" nonsense.

mkr-hn2• 12 years ago

I stopped using the local Patch when they broke the commenting system. I don't know what broke, I just can't comment, and no one else does either. The comments were the best part.

A lot of the bad news out of Patch seems to have started around the same time.

rdl2• 12 years ago

In addition to the "firing people by conference call is a douche move", her voice is an excellent argument against hiring any non-Australian with the high rising terminal mode of speech.

sp3322• 12 years ago

I would say "American" (edit- instead of "non-Australian"). It's pretty common in other English dialects. There's a great series called "The Story of Film" which is narrated by an Irish guy who uses rising inflection on nearly every sentence. It's difficult for me to get used to but I wouldn't give anyone a hard time about it.

edit2 - fixed title. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Film:_An_Odyssey It's available on Netflix

mitchty• 12 years ago

Its an american dialect, but its not quite right to call it american.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_rising_terminal

JonnieCache3• 12 years ago

The irish and welsh accents have always been like that. The welsh accent in particular modulates in pitch strongly throughout sentences, going up at the end is just part of it.

There's a thing where it plunges right down in pitch and timbre at the end too, for a different kind of emphasis. I love welsh voices.

skannamalai• 12 years ago

I'm an American and I can't stand the mode of speech you've described. Unbelievably grating and disingenuous.

rdl2• 12 years ago

The best way to wipe it out would be to do parody YouTube. Keeps of famous/consequential speeches or events recast into HRT. And hypothetical situations like HRT from an oncologist proposing treatment options.

vehementi• 12 years ago

That has always enraged me, thanks for putting into words.

diydsp• 12 years ago

It's not only unaesthetic, but also ^makes it harder to distinguish when people are actually asking questions^.

For example, when someone says, "So, we're going there" with the high-rising terminal, uptalkers have polluted that resource which is spoken language to the point that it makes it harder to tell if the sentence was a question or an imperative.

davidw• 12 years ago

As an aside, I once met this German guy who spoke English pretty well, but tended to raise the pitch of his voice throughout the phrase (I think he may have done this in German too, but it was a long time ago and I don't really recall). But I guess he didn't know English quite well enough to get his timing 100% right, and sometimes on long sentences, he'd start running out of high notes to hit, which was kind of funny. Nice guy though, and he'd smile through it.

munificent2• 12 years ago

That whole recording reads like:

Yeah, so, like, we're firing you? But you can check your email until 5:30? Today? And we'll let you use your computer until the end of this week? Starting today? Best of luck?

rayiner3• 12 years ago

Food for thought: http://jezebel.com/5973869/women-stop-talking-old-men-dont-l....

I personally find both vocal styles (along with very strong accents: http://paulgraham.com/accents.html) off-putting, but I don't really like the reasons why I do.

pvnick• 12 years ago

Wow. That was incredible. The monotonous way in which the message was delivered, the complete lack of emotion and empathy, is appalling. Notice she did not apologize nor express any condolences beyond declaring the new unemployed state of those people to be "unfortunate." Without knowing much about the situation (I only listened to the recording), and leaving myself wide open to be corrected by someone with more insight into the background, I believe the word cowardice would be a pretty good description of what's going on here.

giarc• 12 years ago

I was confused to whether this was real or in fact just someones audition tape for the George Clooney movie "Up In The Air".

maerF0x0• 12 years ago

I've often heard that apologies in various contexts can be used as evidence for litigation (eg, saying "oh sorry" after an auto accident) . Its a sad state of affairs, but people have to protect themselves from idiots and the courts they convince.

tedivm• 12 years ago

I hear this all the time but have never actually seen evidence for it. Can someone actually back this up?

fragsworth• 12 years ago

That doesn't apply here, the context is very different.

streetnigga• 12 years ago

Citation would be needed since I've never seen court insist that the ability to feel sorry (or just saying it to placate others) means guilt for an accused act.

Edit: Wouldn't that be something though? It would enable someone to argue innocence due to lying wholesale to someone's face saying you were sorry.

Sure you'd have to admit to being a liar in court but whatever. After winning slam dunk since this venue is apparently void of evidence, say sorry to the court for the problems (leave the judge wondering) and call it a day.

smackfu7• 12 years ago

I think that's more in the sense of "oh sorry, I didn't see you!" Which is an admission of guilt.

rayiner3• 12 years ago

Lawyers tell you not to apologize for fear of what else you might say while apologizing ("oh I'm so sorry, I was on my cell phone!"). It's not because courts or juries will interpret a mere "I'm sorry!" as an admission of guilt.

jyz2• 12 years ago

"Best of luck!"

sneak4• 12 years ago

I heard it as coldly professional. What, do you think they'd want a hug? I object to your use of "appalling".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7zkd0kRS4

ChristianMarks• 12 years ago

I'm appalled by your objection to the use of 'appalling'.

vernie• 12 years ago

My what a contrarian you are.

smackfu7• 12 years ago

You say "coldly professional" like it's a good thing.

notahacker2• 12 years ago

One can avoid outpourings of faux sympathy without treating their email account termination as a higher priority than saying thank you.

rizzom5000• 12 years ago

I agree, and if I were the one losing my job I'd prefer to hear the cold hard facts rather than artificial consolations from someone I've likely never met before.

The fact that those cold hard facts were disseminated via conference call, however, is not something that I find professional unless we are talking about the layoff of remote workers etc. - and even then I'd prefer a personal phone call.

zhengyi13• 12 years ago

Still better than the time we were called into an all hands to find out our entire business unit had been sold, and the VP responsible for the sale joked in front of everybody "hey, I still have a job!"

codegeek4• 12 years ago

Why do professional and being nice have to be mutually exclusive ? Why do we have to be "coldly professional" and not "morally/humanly professional" ? No one is complaining about layoffs here. What is being complained about is the way companies are treating their employees. I don't expect a handout or a hug and can find my own work if I get fired. But if you fire me the way these guys did, you will surely never be on my list of good people. May be that does not matter to some.

znowi• 12 years ago

I can relate to "coldly professional". Up front, succinct - all good. But I can also relate to people who might have spent 10 or more years in the company. Loyal, motivated, emotionally invested. I think they wouldn't actually mind a hug in the end.

stock_toaster• 12 years ago

I think it was more likely that she was simply reading from a prepared text/script.

leterter• 12 years ago

Some people are more equal than others.

mesozoic• 12 years ago

In today's highly litigious environment managers and employees don't get the luxury of sympathy many times.

omegote• 12 years ago

Could any of you transcript the call? My english is not good enough for <48kbps transmissions.

smackfu7• 12 years ago

"Hi Everyone, it's (HR person). Patch is being restructed, in conjunction with the creation of a joint structure with Hale Global. Hale Global has decided which Patch employees will receive an offer of employment to move forward in accordance with their vision for Patch, and which will not. Unfortunately, your role has been eliminated and you will no longer have a role at Patch, and today will be your last day of employment with the company."

The rest is just general termination junk like turning in laptops and turning off email.

ama729• 12 years ago

Not the complete transcript, but at least the beginning (I couldn't understand it):

http://jimromenesko.com/2014/01/29/hale-global-lays-off-patc...

czbond3• 12 years ago

To do it via a conference call? What a piss poor leader and dick move.

czbond3• 12 years ago

Crunchbase even says they only have 19 employees. http://www.crunchbase.com/company/patch

EdwardMSmith• 12 years ago

I'm assuming this was a call with all the remote staff that edit the individual sites and live in the communities that the sites cover.

I don't think they were going to fly them all into a central location to fire them.

saalweachter• 12 years ago

For a small company, I wonder how much that would add to the wind-down costs. Fly everyone to Las Vegas for a company offsite/conference, announce the firing at the 10am meeting, give everyone $X00 in extra termination pay up front and tell them to hit the slots.

If you're already planning to spend $5-20k per employee for X weeks severance, an extra $1-2k per employee for the offsite firing might only increase your wind-down costs by 10%.

czbond3• 12 years ago

I simply meant that if it were my company with remote staff - I would individually call them and not have an HR rep tell them on a conference call.

knodi2• 12 years ago

Laying people off is never easy. I'm sure many people will poopoo this call but this is a clean and a clear message.

tylerlh• 12 years ago

Except it wasn't delivered face to face, which in my mind is worth 'poopooing'... and my goodness, the monotone voice...

TeMPOraL• 12 years ago

Sounds like something I'd expect to hear in Aperture Science (seconds before the floor gets flooded with neurotoxin), not in a company staffed by human beings. Poopoo well deserved, IMO.

knodi2• 12 years ago

It doesn't matter if it was over the phone, in a letter or in person. Its nothing personal its a business decision.

snydeq• 12 years ago

"Hello, and welcome to AOL Moviefone. To be acquired and laid off, please press 1."

wlll3• 12 years ago

The next one is a gem too:

~1:55 in: "Abel, put that camera down right now. Abel, you're fired, out."

https://soundcloud.com/jim-romenesko/aol-ceo-tim-armstrong-8...

jyz2• 12 years ago

yea, what a dick!

sp3322• 12 years ago

At least that guy later apologized and didn't actually fire Abel.

Edit: I guess he was actually fired.

wlll3• 12 years ago

I didn't see that anywhere, is there a source?

Edit: Found one: http://jimromenesko.com/2013/08/13/aols-tim-armstrong-apolog...

Edit again: "Tim Armstrong has publicly apologized for the firing of [Abel] since then, but did not offer to reverse the firing or any compensation"

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Armstrong_(executive)

JonnieCache3• 12 years ago

What was the context there? Was abel part of the group being fired in the call? Or was he fired on the spot with that remark?

wlll3• 12 years ago

It seems that Abel was part of Patch and Tim Armstrong is CEO of AOL. This second call was from some time last year and not related to the OPs link other than it's the same set of companies, and another dubious action made on a conference call.

f0under• 12 years ago

He was on a call about not leaking information related to Patch and was using/playing with a camera while Tim Armstrong was speaking on the topic.

reqres2• 12 years ago

There's evidence that power can change how the brain functions - tending to make those in power less able to experience things from the perspective of others. This guy is clearly another corporate sociopath

smackfu7• 12 years ago

Here was the HN thread on that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197081

Zancarius• 12 years ago

I like how just 30 seconds prior, he mentions somewhat off-handedly that he doesn't care if anyone leaks anything to the press.

mikeg8• 12 years ago

I noticed that too, I guess he does care.

elwell• 12 years ago

Sorry but that was hilarious.

sergiotapia• 12 years ago

This made me sick to my stomach and I don't even work there.

"Hey you're fired tomorrow, thanks for your work!"

Frostbeard• 12 years ago

It seems pretty harsh to do it this way, but from the sounds of things these were pretty sweeping layoffs ("hundreds" is what's being said). Doing it on a personal level probably wasn't even remotely viable, even just in terms of time.

munificent2• 12 years ago

If you have hundreds of employees who can find the time time to work for you day-in and day-out, every week, you can find the time to let them go in person.

Tehnix2• 12 years ago

who can find the time time to work for you day-in and day-out, every week

It's not like they do it out of good will. They get paid for it. That said, I agree that it should be done face-to-face.

rjv• 12 years ago

I've never heard of Patch. It's unfortunate that I had to learn of them this way, because the premise seems useful. I don't think I would participate now based on these bad vibes.

IvyMike2• 12 years ago

The fact that it was over the phone is a legitimate insult.

The fact that it was 100 seconds long is a mercy.

aaronharder• 12 years ago

Honest question, why is a phone firing such an insult? I may need some sensitivity training, but putting myself in the shoes of the person being fired I think I'd probably prefer phone. Maybe someone can help me see the other point of view more clearly.

IvyMike2• 12 years ago

As smackfu says, it is not always possible to do a layoff or firing in person, especially in this case. I still think they should have been done in one-on-one phone calls at a minimum.

But people have a spectrum of reactions to being fired, and I think being able to address their immediate concerns one-on-one is important. They may have done it this way in the name of efficiency, but some times it is better to just take the hit and do things the old fashioned way. Nobody is happy about being laid off, but six months from now both employer and ex-employee will feel better about it than the impersonal conference call.

smackfu7• 12 years ago

Most of Patch's employees are remote, since they are "hyperlocal" reporters in small towns around the country. I don't think an in-person lay-off was going to happen.

at-fates-hands• 12 years ago

I've had worse.

One company I worked for was acquired by a much larger tech company. We were already had about a 1000 employees. After the big announcement that we were being acquired, we all got an invite from the new company to meet the new executive team at their big corporate HQ.

Got bused over, we were all shepherded into a huge auditorium only to have the CEO of the larger company tell us we were all being let go and turn in our ID's to the security folks now standing at the exits.

It was the quietest bus ride I've ever been on during the return trip.

talove• 12 years ago

I don't see anything wrong with this. It conveyed all the information you'd probably need to know right away. It was direct.

From my experience the worst thing you can do is empathize and apologize. Just break the news, and move forward.

It's a business.

Yver• 12 years ago

This would be funny if it wasn't so infuriating. I tried to listen to it but I cringe too easily so I'm waiting for a transcript. Based on the first few sentences of the call, here's how I expect the rest of the speech to go:

"...you no longer have a role in the company. And by role I meant job. You no longer have a job. Unless you had another job, in which case you still have at least one. Point is, you're fired. From this company. It's Patch calling by the way."

codegeek4• 12 years ago

This kind of behavior (promoted by HR/Legal) needs to stop. Period.

It is not about firing people by conference, phone or whatever. It is about the thanklessness and the attitude that sucks. Does it really hurt to genuinely feel and say "sorry we cannot keep you any longer. Hope you understand". No one is going to sit and whine about being laid-off but the manner of layoffs (in america at least) is getting shameful, appalling and disgusting.

However, not shocking at all. Companies have too become risk/lawsuit averse when it comes to firing/lay-offs that they all have scripted things to say because they don't want to risk a potential lawsuit. My friend was laid-off by my ex-boss (I referred him and left). I know that my ex-boss was a really nice guy who would at least apologize. During the lay-off, all my friend got was "Your position has been eliminated. Please do not use any company device and leave immediately. We will ship your stuff to you". He was even told not to talk to any co-worker while leaving. Poor guy was so heartbroken that he could not even say bye to people he worked with. You know what he was not sad about ? Finding another job.

May be I am overreacting but this is when Capitalism starts to bite. I am all in for profits, competitions, fierce business but if I ever have to layoff someone specially for no fault of theirs, you bet I will say sorry in person.It may not mean much but it is called "being human".

ScottWhigham• 12 years ago

Companies have become risk/lawsuit averse when it comes to firing/lay-offs that they all have scripted things to say because they don't want to risk a potential lawsuit.

Absolutely. Every time I've had to let someone go, the first person I call is my HR person. They walk me through the dos and don'ts which always include, "Don't say this and don't say that otherwise they could use that either in a wrongful termination lawsuit or in filing for workman's comp."

Tehnix2• 12 years ago

May be I am overreacting but this is when Capitalism starts to bite

what on earth does harsh layoffs have to do with capitalism?

gaius2• 12 years ago

Because in socialism you go on pretending to work and they go on pretending to pay you.

protomyth3• 12 years ago

Its not Capitalism, its Lawyerism. The sad fact that you can get sued for being something other than a robot is horrible. The HR / Lawyer part of our economy is one heck of an anchor compared to the legitimate wrongful termination and employment discrimination.

001sky• 12 years ago

What's crazy is that the US is an "at will" employment law. Which means you can get fired (or quit) for any trivial reason at all what so ever (the meaning of 'at will'). The only people with legal recourse are protected classes (ie, minorities). But it would be both improbable and abusive if mass-lafoffs were only legal fodder in this context. Who the heck else is suing and for what? Or is it just the threat of lawsuits (bad pr) and no-fee lawyers (1/3 ransom) that facilitates this as some sort of "greenmail"? What an odd system!

rayiner3• 12 years ago

I think you're really underestimating the stupid shit companies say and do when dealing with employees, and its the potential for stupid shit that drives the excess of caution. Say an HR drone lays off a woman with kids (or a pregnant lady), and says "sorry! Well at least you'll get to spend a little more time with little Jimmy!" Or, take many blue collar jobs. If you lay off a black or Hispanic employee, there is a very good chance he or she has experienced racism at work. Factories are not exactly politically correct places, after all. In my opinion, a lawsuit in response to something like this is not frivolous litigation. Some of those people really do have legitimate claims, and you can't tell a priori who they are.

coldcode• 12 years ago

I'm guessing they were not covered by the WARN Act.

orsenthil• 12 years ago

How many people are working at Patch? Sounds like an internet startup with less than 30?

smackfu7• 12 years ago

They had 1100 people in August 2013, at which point they laid off 500.

chubot• 12 years ago

I don't think it's that bad. It was formal and distant, but not insulting. It's more insulting when someone pretends they are sorry, but actually aren't. If she's not actually sorry, and there are perfectly valid reasons not to be, then it actually shows more spine to just say it like it is.

Actions speak louder than words, and we don't know what the "separation packages" are. They could actually be good, for all you know.

We don't have the context on what it was like working there. Some places/professions are more "mercenary" than others. In Silicon Valley people are used to "company culture" and "team building", but not all companies need that.

sdegutis• 12 years ago

I bet this woman was really upset that she had to layoff that many people at once (she probably lived in another state so she couldn't do it in person). I imagine that's the reason she said it like she was ripping off a bandaid.

ciokan• 12 years ago

Up in the air anyone? :)) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1193138/

mrjatx• 12 years ago

I was thinking of Company Men, another great movie.

benched• 12 years ago

I think I would be literally incapable of saying those words in that way under any circumstances. I know that everybody is different. Things like this just make me really, really curious what it would be like to be inside the mind of someone capable of speaking like this, seriously.

joeblau2• 12 years ago

OUCH! That hurt me and I don't even work there. That was as cold as a block of ice, but I'm sure workers at Patch had to see this one coming after the last fiasco.

bonemachine• 12 years ago

Soulless and robotic, to be sure. And eerily so.

But what else should we expect from the owners of a news portal that was, from the outset, itself nothing other than soulless and robotic, to its very core -- and whose passing almost no one is likely to mourn?

("No one", that is, except of course those who've recently found out they "no longer have a role with Patch", along with their unlucky dependents).

Patch's new owner lays off staff in 1:39 conference call

Related Stories