I read that to include cuts to general and administrative expenses, as well as underperforming marketing and business development. I think engineering was at the top because it's the core asset, while products and other functions are less and less unique to a given firm.
Comments
Interesting, and disturbing, that Sequoia only suggest reducing head count in the engineering department (slide 47).
I read that to include cuts to general and administrative expenses, as well as underperforming marketing and business development. I think engineering was at the top because it's the core asset, while products and other functions are less and less unique to a given firm.
Perhaps they know something you don't.
What are you implying?