Discussion
Was always suspicious of this concept. I think the idea is you share space with strangers and probably 90% of the people there are trying to glom onto someone doing something useful.
I have personally seem sites I worked at for one company housing hundreds previously (the glory days) that have now been converted to this model by the building owner. Branding went up and seems to have disappeared now.
Next stop homeless conversions unless the council are sharp.
This truly is a rotten economy kept afloat by lies and bull.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct...
I have personally seem sites I worked at for one company housing hundreds previously (the glory days) that have now been converted to this model by the building owner. Branding went up and seems to have disappeared now.
Next stop homeless conversions unless the council are sharp.
This truly is a rotten economy kept afloat by lies and bull.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct...
Nothing wrong with the very general concept.
The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
shopper150 said:
It's a great concept. I've visited a couple of sites for meetings, I'd love to work in that type of environment.
One of our suppliers/partners has offices in one of the London WeWorks. I'm imagine the novelty of eating your own weight in biscuits and the free beer wains once your body weight doubles.I've also commented to others that having all glass walls means very little privacy as other tenants walk past. I did notice on a recent visit some offices now have opaque film to add privacy though.
Some of the charges are mad - I was told ~£75 for an additional RFID access card
Edited by Harpoon on Tuesday 29th October 11:31
Hoofy said:
Nothing wrong with the very general concept.
The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
I don't think WeWork were even trying to undercut competitors. When I looked at their fees, there were the same or often more than other serviced offices.The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
I think their problems were that they expanded too fast, apparently they were one of the largest office tenants in several major cities and they couldn't meet their occupancy targets. As a result they were haemorrhaging money.
CzechItOut said:
Hoofy said:
Nothing wrong with the very general concept.
The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
I don't think WeWork were even trying to undercut competitors. When I looked at their fees, there were the same or often more than other serviced offices.The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
I think their problems were that they expanded too fast, apparently they were one of the largest office tenants in several major cities and they couldn't meet their occupancy targets. As a result they were haemorrhaging money.
Hoofy said:
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
It works because he still held the cards at the last round of the poker table before he got up and walked off into the proverbial sunset...How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
SoftBank, who has now bailed out the company already had invested eye watering sums. So they had the choice:
(A) pay AN off so they can pump even more money in, to keep the thing afloat and ‘only’ write off $5bn (potentially temporarily if they believe in the upside still); or
(B) call AN on his bluff that he would let the thing go to zero if they didn’t give him what he wanted and in the process destroy $10bn of value permanently and potential ruin everything they are trying to achieve
Ego poker is an interesting game when you play someone who has nothing to loose, no shame and potentially has sold his moral compass along the way...
sammyb349 said:
Hoofy said:
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
It works because he still held the cards at the last round of the poker table before he got up and walked off into the proverbial sunset...How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
SoftBank, who has now bailed out the company already had invested eye watering sums. So they had the choice:
(A) pay AN off so they can pump even more money in, to keep the thing afloat and ‘only’ write off $5bn (potentially temporarily if they believe in the upside still); or
(B) call AN on his bluff that he would let the thing go to zero if they didn’t give him what he wanted and in the process destroy $10bn of value permanently and potential ruin everything they are trying to achieve
Ego poker is an interesting game when you play someone who has nothing to loose, no shame and potentially has sold his moral compass along the way...
CzechItOut said:
I don't think WeWork were even trying to undercut competitors. When I looked at their fees, there were the same or often more than other serviced offices.
Thing with We and their coworking, shared space, small dedicated offer is that they included so much more additional stuff beyond just desks and internet. All the extra stuff, the expensive (to we) designer interiors and premium locations are not then reflected in price levied so yes rents are compatible to Regus, Spaces, my office in the city etc but not like for like. It also had and has a particular affinity for renting new build office blocks, don't get me wrong new build is great but not when your trying to sublet and add "value" by refurbishing and reinvigorating. Its brand new not some knock down price, life expired block that can be rented cheaply on basis large sums need to be spent to bring it up to standard.
I go to WeWork a lot to fix their printers... it seemed like I was in a student refectory with no one who had a clue what's going on... a hipsters dream, where there's high end Apple laptops as far as the eye can see, cosy lighting which seemed to defeat the concept of work...
It seems to be organised chaos, more locked down than their printer's control panel, so no surprise that things are unravelling, but not like the spectacular implosions we've seen with other firms that have gone to the wall. Is it being scaled back, or shut down?
It seems to be organised chaos, more locked down than their printer's control panel, so no surprise that things are unravelling, but not like the spectacular implosions we've seen with other firms that have gone to the wall. Is it being scaled back, or shut down?
Hoofy said:
Nothing wrong with the very general concept.
The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
He owned the company and had a watertight contract that gave him (and his wife) some pretty incredible rights over and above what the board could do.The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
So his $1.7bn "reward" is mostly Softbank buying him out of the company that they've already plowed tonnes of money in to.
There's value in the company, and co-working spaces work very well. It's just not worth anything close to what it was valued at at few months ago and Softbank have had to buy him out to try and rescue the company to get anything back on their investment.
jammy-git said:
Hoofy said:
Nothing wrong with the very general concept.
The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
He owned the company and had a watertight contract that gave him (and his wife) some pretty incredible rights over and above what the board could do.The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
So his $1.7bn "reward" is mostly Softbank buying him out of the company that they've already plowed tonnes of money in to.
There's value in the company, and co-working spaces work very well. It's just not worth anything close to what it was valued at at few months ago and Softbank have had to buy him out to try and rescue the company to get anything back on their investment.
shopper150 said:
It's a great concept. I've visited a couple of sites for meetings, I'd love to work in that type of environment.
You'd love to go there or you'd love to work there?I've only been to one and the impression I got that there were a lot of people about who didn't really care about the cost of things.
We work is a towering mass of overvalued vacuous s
te built on a foundation of bks.
Scot Galloway wrote an entertaining summary:
https://www.profgalloway.com/wewtf-part-deux
te built on a foundation of bks.Scot Galloway wrote an entertaining summary:
https://www.profgalloway.com/wewtf-part-deux
I think this is probably a very good concept for my kids' generation when they hit the workforce in a few years from now, but the problem I see with it is one of location.
The majority of this sort of office space is in major towns and cities in already affluent areas. You know... The sort of place that the majority of my kids' generation will never be able to afford to buy a house in. The stupid thing is, I'm hardly ever in the office any more, and for my kids' generation, I suspect that it will be increasingly unheard of. The downside to that, though, is that it can get pretty lonely.
My thinking is that someone could make an absolute killing out of this sort of product by putting it in currently cheaper areas of the country with little of their own industry, and as a result, cheap housing. You attract tenants not by being close to big centres of trade, but specifically by NOT being close to them.
Individuals can rent a desk in your facility with high speed internet and video-conferencing facilities, and you also lay on a bunch of social stuff - after work hobby clubs, beer nights, whatever, so people actually want to come in to work and meet other people even if those other people work for a completely different company doing a completely different job, yet they're not having to sacrifice the dream of owning their own home to do so.
The company wins because they can make a profit out of young people getting on the housing ladder, young people benefit by being able to more easily get on the housing ladder, and local economies benefit because they have an influx of young people rather than an exodus.
The majority of this sort of office space is in major towns and cities in already affluent areas. You know... The sort of place that the majority of my kids' generation will never be able to afford to buy a house in. The stupid thing is, I'm hardly ever in the office any more, and for my kids' generation, I suspect that it will be increasingly unheard of. The downside to that, though, is that it can get pretty lonely.
My thinking is that someone could make an absolute killing out of this sort of product by putting it in currently cheaper areas of the country with little of their own industry, and as a result, cheap housing. You attract tenants not by being close to big centres of trade, but specifically by NOT being close to them.
Individuals can rent a desk in your facility with high speed internet and video-conferencing facilities, and you also lay on a bunch of social stuff - after work hobby clubs, beer nights, whatever, so people actually want to come in to work and meet other people even if those other people work for a completely different company doing a completely different job, yet they're not having to sacrifice the dream of owning their own home to do so.
The company wins because they can make a profit out of young people getting on the housing ladder, young people benefit by being able to more easily get on the housing ladder, and local economies benefit because they have an influx of young people rather than an exodus.
ILikeCake said:
We work is a towering mass of overvalued vacuous ste built on a foundation of bks.
Scot Galloway wrote an entertaining summary:
https://www.profgalloway.com/wewtf-part-deux
That's brilliant. te built on a foundation of bks.Scot Galloway wrote an entertaining summary:
https://www.profgalloway.com/wewtf-part-deux
Having worked in both Regus and WeWork offices and having followed the ups and downs of the respective valuations I concluded that the whole Wework valuation was utter bollx. Especially when they became a "tech" company. FFS....
Kermit power said:
I think this is probably a very good concept for my kids' generation when they hit the workforce in a few years from now, but the problem I see with it is one of location.
The majority of this sort of office space is in major towns and cities in already affluent areas. You know... The sort of place that the majority of my kids' generation will never be able to afford to buy a house in. The stupid thing is, I'm hardly ever in the office any more, and for my kids' generation, I suspect that it will be increasingly unheard of. The downside to that, though, is that it can get pretty lonely.
My thinking is that someone could make an absolute killing out of this sort of product by putting it in currently cheaper areas of the country with little of their own industry, and as a result, cheap housing. You attract tenants not by being close to big centres of trade, but specifically by NOT being close to them.
Individuals can rent a desk in your facility with high speed internet and video-conferencing facilities, and you also lay on a bunch of social stuff - after work hobby clubs, beer nights, whatever, so people actually want to come in to work and meet other people even if those other people work for a completely different company doing a completely different job, yet they're not having to sacrifice the dream of owning their own home to do so.
The company wins because they can make a profit out of young people getting on the housing ladder, young people benefit by being able to more easily get on the housing ladder, and local economies benefit because they have an influx of young people rather than an exodus.
Isn’t this exactly what hipsters do? They invade low cost inner city areas and drive up rents?The majority of this sort of office space is in major towns and cities in already affluent areas. You know... The sort of place that the majority of my kids' generation will never be able to afford to buy a house in. The stupid thing is, I'm hardly ever in the office any more, and for my kids' generation, I suspect that it will be increasingly unheard of. The downside to that, though, is that it can get pretty lonely.
My thinking is that someone could make an absolute killing out of this sort of product by putting it in currently cheaper areas of the country with little of their own industry, and as a result, cheap housing. You attract tenants not by being close to big centres of trade, but specifically by NOT being close to them.
Individuals can rent a desk in your facility with high speed internet and video-conferencing facilities, and you also lay on a bunch of social stuff - after work hobby clubs, beer nights, whatever, so people actually want to come in to work and meet other people even if those other people work for a completely different company doing a completely different job, yet they're not having to sacrifice the dream of owning their own home to do so.
The company wins because they can make a profit out of young people getting on the housing ladder, young people benefit by being able to more easily get on the housing ladder, and local economies benefit because they have an influx of young people rather than an exodus.
Hoofy said:
Nothing wrong with the very general concept.
The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
It’s exactly how many new businesses work. You find a big, traditional market and you undercut it, taking their clients by subsidising them with investor capital. The aim is to build enough market share using that capital to either become a problem for the incumbents that one of them buys you out or you raise your charges and become one of the incumbents. The article is interesting:
"WeWork’s strategy wasn’t simply to fulfil a practical need: its aim was market domination, to be achieved by undercutting its competitors in a race to the bottom, using investor capital as oxygen to sustain losses while other serviced office-space providers ran out of breath and expired. "
So WeWork were basically selling £1 coins for 99p. I knew it was a good way of making a large turnover quickly!
"Adam Neumann, WeWork’s now ejected founder, is making off with a $1.7bn reward for failing to achieve his vision and appearing to lose investors eye-watering sums of money."
How's that work? He basically runs off with the investment money? The investors lose? Is this because the investors are desperately trying to flog the dead horse?
The other model is just to use the investor capital to pay you a salary until the money runs out and you set up another enterprise with fresh capital for another 5 years of salary.
An awful lot of these enterprises are just non businesses making use of the vast amounts of global investment capital.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff