Optics vendors concerned/not shipping orders?

I just got an email regarding problems Netshops is having with various optics vendors.

Maybe I should explain. Several of the ex-Thralow site vendors are concerned about Netshops handling of their product. I'm told the two biggest sunglass vendors are not shipping product. Problem? Hell yes! I'll bet Doug is spinning circles on his Segway right now. I pity the site manager of the optics sites. Good luck surviving the year. Better update that resume. (I predict Sync 08 Doug sez "We suffered some losses in the optics & Thralow sites. We didn't understand the categories, but we're starting to get them and we're making strides. We are a little off pace to make our IPO this year, but Amazon is aware of us." Sound familiar?)

I've also been told some of the sports optic vendors have set very low credit limits. Reportedly, the sport optic and sunglass vendors have very strict standards for how their products are sold. Netshops does not pass any of their tests.

Any of the current or past Netshoppers who have been through a holiday or two will know low credit limits = constant credit hold = delayed orders = pissed off customers. Pissed off customers = more calls. More calls to an understaffed & overworked call center = more temps to fill the gaps. More temps = less product knowledge and more 'order takers'. More order takers = more mistakes. More mistakes = more pissed off vendors. Pissed off vendors = orders not being filled. Circle of life at Netshops I guess.

We may see several key vendors drop the accounts, sooner rather than later. One vendor has already predicted that Netshops will run the sites into the ground. Much like I've been saying since I heard about the Thralow reps being let go.

Might be a good time for CSN or another competitor to get an optics related site going... (Nice site by the way CSN. Very professional & easy to navigate. It looks like all your links work - something Netshops should look into.)

Duluth centers closing down this week.

Some previous customers of Telescopes.com have concerns about the changes and how it wil impact customer service. Rightfully so. This is exactly the type of reaction I've predicted all along on many of the specialty Thralow related sites. They're way too technical for Netshops reps and supervisors to handle. Especially when they're high at work...

How to get high at work and get promoted at the same time

I'm glad you're all happy I'm posting again. Good to see you missed me. And for those reading from their desks at work, I'd try Nebraska Workforce, Monster.com, or CareerLink instead of reading this. It'll benefit you more in the long run if you start looking now.

On to Caleb and his Live Journal. He's got this high at work thing down. For all those who enjoy the ganja, you should take tips from him - and get your application in to Tina. She's hiring, since they're understaffed and the big Father's Day holiday push is in full swing. (Who's getting laid off in July this year? Can I get in on the office pool even though I'm no longer there?)

Caleb, I wonder, since you pulled the posts that I copied and linked to on your LiveJournal page, do you still have a job? (Buy Tina some shoes or a Coke and you'll be ok. Just ask Paulette.) I've heard you do, but you probably shouldn't be posting blog entries from work anymore. (Just FYI.)

Since you pulled those two posts (good thing I thought to copy them for posterity, idnit?) here are a couple more hits from Caleb's bong.

OMG MORE blogging? [Sep. 16th, 2006|01:30 pm]
One would think that having so much freetimeat work would suck a whole lot, but NO! I can sit here and write disjointed little nothings in internet blogs that will get run across by someone at some point. YAY!

So I spent last night in the apartment of some girl I don't know very well smoking out of a bong and watching the Boondock Saints... It was, believe it or not, decent. I may do it again tonight if the whole Spinal Tap thing doesn't pan out. I wanna go seet Spinal Tap at the Dundee tonight, but I want COMPANY GODDAMNSITALLTOHELL! Tired of amusing myself. I need NEW people to pick on. Joins me, people. Joins me....
link post comment

Well, you got your wish. Someone ran across your internet blog. Congrats. So, this bong smoking thing, I'm seeing a pattern here. Do you want to be on the executive board for Netshops? We think you have potential to grow with the company.

Here's another 'hit' from the past.

...Like Gargling With Bong Water [Sep. 16th, 2006|07:28 am]
It's been an all-together eventful week. I wanna be sleeping, but those who ration my monetary notes say I gotta be here at work.

You ever half-sleep for an entire night? It's exhausting. You lay in bed, not really sure if the noise you just heard was real or not. Maybe that's just me. I do have a lot that goes 'bump' in the night. The coffee's broken and it's not waking me up.
I wonder if I can trade myself in for a better model. I have to remember to ask my mom if she kept the warranty.
My initial thoughts this morning are like this: I'm going to THIS IS SPINAL TAP this evening, and whoever would like to come is totally fuckin' invitied. It is a sure-fired jolly time of Caleb-like proportions.


I'm really very bored with all of this and wish that I had someone to talk to or hang out with. But I don't. OH, ABBA-ZABBA! YOU'RE MY ONLY FRIEND! And the internet. The good old reliable internet.....
link post comment

Did I say 'hit'? Almost, like from a bong?

Hope you get that promotion you so obviously deserve. Yet another brilliant choice by Netshops management. Excellent evaluators of talent and potential I tells ya!

Oh, and me? Yeah, my new job is great. Fuck you Netshops.

Netshops not on Omaha's Best Places to Work list for 2007

Congrats Doug! You've taken a company that was on the list 2 years running and dropped them from the list. Is that the 'scalability' you were hoping to achieve with this recent round of layoffs? The 'efficiencies gained'? Who needs another award to clutter the office?

Back to the subject at hand. Netshops isn't on the list. I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with the recent layoffs, the increased work load on the remaining employees, the news that the Thralow reps weren't going to be allowed to stay in Duluth (like they were told when the purchase initially went through), the corporate churn - laying off employees just to hire more to replace them (in an attempt to appear more profitable in the short term), or changing people's jobs without regard to what their future goals are, either on a personal or professional basis.

I bet that last one is what really hurt Netshops in the voting. Yes, change is inevitable, but people also like some job security and knowledge that they are growing with the company. Moving someone from a position where they're the person resolving issues with vendors and talking about issues with store management to a phone rep position isnt going to win you points. Demoting an employee after they've busted their ass for you all holiday season (or longer in many cases) isn't much of a 'reward'.

Best Places to Work in Omaha 2007

Winning companies with 50-250 employees:
1. Lutz & Company, PC
2. Home Instead Senior Care
3. Olsson Associates
4. SilverStone Group
5. MSI Systems Integrators

Winning companies with 250+ employees:
1. Quality Living, Inc.
2. PayPal, an eBay company
3. Farm Credit Services of America
4. Marriott Global Reservation Sales and Customer Care
5. FirstComp

Quality Living Inc - a rehab based business - has been #1 three years running now, so it is possible to earn a spot on the list multiple times. I guess the difference between a company like Quality Living Inc and Netshops boils down to consistency.

Response to Dilios's comments

I was going to respond as a comment, but thought that there was enough in the response that was better in the main section of the blog, instead of being buried in the comments.

Dilios: I never tried to come off as 'objective' - not sure where you got that idea. I've got an issue with the way Netshops does business. I have issues with the way they treat their customers and the way they treat their employees. Shocking? Probably not. Would I have a different perspective if I'd survived this round of layoffs? Maybe. Maybe not. I know I'd have been asking - as I did after the last round of layoffs - if this was the end of the reorgs and job cuts. I wouldn't expect to get a response. I didn't last time - why would this time be any different?

Back then, I was simply a concerned Netshopper. This time, I've been laid off by Netshops. Drastically different situations, different response.

I eagerly await the results of the Omaha Chamber of Commerce's 'Best Places to Work' survey this year. Is Netshops on the list? Maybe they should open the survey up to employees laid off both from Omaha and those being let go from Duluth? How would they fair then? Makes you go Hmmm....

If I was 'layed-off' and not really fired??? Maybe you missed the entry about how prior to being laid off, I was an 'above average' employee - according to each review I'd gotten. (Yes, before you ask, I had more than one. I had to ask, prod and pry my managers to get them completed, but I got them. That's more than I can say for some folks employed by Netshops.)

Who said I was trying to 'stop' anything? If someone looking at Netshops as a potential employer sees this blog and reconsiders their application, or if one potential affilliate pulls their ads OR if one investor decides not to go forward with Netshops, then I've accomplished something. Can you say the same thing about your daily activites? How will your opinion change when you're let go without notice or reason? (Don't think it can't happen - anyone there is fair game.)

Yes, layoffs hapen. Generally they are a sign of a company that is either struggling to stay afloat or a company that's trying to look more profitable than they really are.

Look at it this way - let's say 1st quarter 2007 profits were down. Sequoia (or any other investors for that matter) isn't happy. Call center supervisors were being paid somewhere around $30,000 per year. Let's use that as our median salary - some folks laid off made more, some probably made less. $30k/12 (months) = $2500/month, yes? Ok. 1.5 months into the year, they've paid out approx $3750 per employee. 60+ employees were laid off. Those 60 employees would have cost Doug & Co $1,800,000 in salary. Since they were laid off and some received severance pay,we'll say 60 x $3750 = approx $225,000 in salary paid out. That's a savings of $1,575,000 - quick and easy profit. Who's going to make up the difference & do the added work of those 60+ employees? You are Dilios. You and those employees still there, getting a good laugh at this blog. Although, none of you are any more productive than those who were laid off, since you're spending HOURS each day reading this, rather than doing your job....

Ironic, isn't it?

Blogging and your rights

A couple of people have emailed me with concerns about what Netshops will do with their comments on this blog.

The statements made on this blog are covered under free speech protection. Defimation/libel requires a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

Apparently Doug isn't happy about this blog. Sorry. I'm not happy about being out of work. Cause & effect.

Question and answer time kids. Just let me get my sweater from the closet...
What are the elements of a defamation claim?
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Can my opinion be defamatory?
No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":

A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Who is a public figure?
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.

Examples of public figures:
A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events

Have I been laid off? Yes = truth = protected free speech. Also, since Doug is going to be a speaker at the upcoming Internet Retailers conference (How many people from Netshops are going to that conference?) and he's been the figure head in every article I've ever read about the company, I'd have a strong case that he is setting himself out as a public figure, much like (while not on the same level) Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Willie Thiesen or Bill Gates.

Also consider my terms of use/privacy policy and my important legal disclaimer. Doug and Netshops are welcome to use this blog to take me to court, but they'd need to be ok with paying that million dollars to use it. What, didn't they bother to read the whole terms of use statement? Guess they know how customers feel when they find out about 50% restocking fees on items purchased at Netshops stores...

Netshops assigned parking spots are coming soon!

Who gets the parking spot this week?

Hodgepodge of Netshops layoff related info today

A little fun for all you Netshoppers reading right now, because I know you aren't doing anything job related....

Take this quiz

Duluth News Tribune picks up on the impending layoffs.

Thralow employees offered jobs in Omaha
Jane Brissett Duluth News TribunePublished Friday, March 16, 2007

NetShops, the Omaha, Neb., company that that bought Web sites from Proctor-based Thralow Inc., has begun offering jobs in Omaha to employees of the local e-commerce firm. Those who aren’t hired will be given a severance package, said NetShops’ human resources director.

All operations from Proctor are moving to Omaha, said Dana Coonce, human
resources director at NetShops. Dan Thralow, who founded Thralow Inc. and now
works for NetShops, said that 35 of the 39 employees who work in Proctor elected
to go to Omaha at NetShops’ expense to see the headquarters and learn about the
company.

NetShops is just beginning to assess how many people it needs and to make offers to workers in Proctor, Coonce said. If Proctor employees aren’t hired to work in Omaha and aren’t retained by Thralow Inc., they will be cut from the payroll and given a severance package, she said. NetShops, which has more than $100 million in annual sales, bought 40 of Thralow Inc.’s Web sites — but not the company itself — in November. The sites include Binoculars.com, Telescopes.com, Peepers
.com and others.

Thralow said the company named for him will remain in Proctor at 9803 Westgate Boulevard in the JOBZ tax-free zone where the company’s warehouse building was recently completed. Thralow said he “can’t answer” what Thralow Inc. will do or how many people it will employ. “There will be a payroll,” he said.

Thralow said he has no plans to move to Omaha.

When the sale was announced, NetShops said it would keep all of Thralow Inc.’s employees. NetShops is a private firm that owned about 120 retail specialty sites — such as PatioUmbrellas.com, Hammocks.com and Dartboards.com — at the time of the acquisition. It was named Inc. magazine’s 13th fastest-growing company in America in 2006.

Thralow Inc. started as a retail outlet called Peepers in downtown Duluth’s Holiday Center. The company began selling sunglasses online in 1996 at Peepers.com and expanded to binoculars and other optical products with various Web sites. Thralow sold the business to Eye City Inc. in 1999, then bought it back at a fraction of the
original sale price when EyeCity folded in 2001. Thralow Inc. was named the
203rd fastest-growing company in America in 2006 by Inc. magazine.

The Omaha World Herald reported on Feb. 7 that NetShops laid off about 50 people to achieve efficiencies and didn’t plan more cuts. Coonce said that was due to a
reorganization unrelated to the current transition.

The integration of the Proctor and Omaha work forces probably will take several months, she said.

Read the comments on the article here.

On a positive note, Laura Erickson's new blog appears to have been pulled. Maybe she's getting Birderblog.com back? Right now, Birderblog.com goes to Binoculars.com, so I have to assume something's going on with the two sites. Laura, if you can, please give us details.

Another person not happy with how they were treated by Netshops.

Amanda Collier's blog

As always, feel free to email me or post a comment.

Netshops has been banned from Wikipedia

A bit about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is literally an open book. It can be written and edited by anyone on the internet. It can be a great resource for information but ONLY if everyone using it is being honest and abides by Wikipedia's policies. If individuals (or companies in this case) are only using Wiki to further their own agenda, Wikipedia becomes less of a valid resource.

Back to Netshops being banned from Wiki. This isn't news for any of the older employees. That bit of information made the rounds about the office back in late September/early October '06. Apparently they had been banned for spam linking - linking articles to Netshops sites to try and increase their own organic search rankings via external links.

I've been looking for proof of this since I was laid off. Its one thing to hear about it at work through the grapevine - quite another to write about it on a blog about Netshops and their questionable ethics.

Luckily, one of my readers did the legwork for me. Thank you!

A bit of info and then the screen caps. Netshops main IP address is 66.37.239.14 - anyone with a halfway decent hit counter on their web page can figure this info out.

Here are a couple of screen captures of Netshops' activities on Wiki



Wiki Netshops user talk



Netshops Spam

And here is a list of all the changes made by Netshops to various articles on Wikipedia. Notice a pattern?

Unfortunately, the ban was for a 6 month period and Netshops will soon be able to edit posts on Wikipedia again. (Well, from the company IP that is. They've been editing it even over the past 6 months, but it has been from employee's homes or other networks.) I wonder how quickly they'll go back to their old tricks?

Karma's a bitch.

Piss one person off and they'll tell 10 of their friends. Piss two off and they'll tell 20 people, those 20 will tell another 5 - 7, those 5 - 7 will tell 3 -4, and soon, hundreds will know about problems within a company.

I wonder how many more people we'll see start to speak out about Netshops and Thralow now....

Just read the blog after the jump

Laura, good luck in your fight. Go get 'em.

Funny - I don't remember hearing anyone say the 60+ people laid off by Netshops were 'not growing with the company'. Is that what Doug and Co said to the Thralow reps when asked about the layoffs? If so, I've got performance reviews to prove otherwise. Heck, I've even got year to date store performance reports from some of my stores. If I wasn't 'growing with the company' I wonder why my stores were all profitable.

Makes you go "Hmm..."

One last thought for the day. Duluth is about 2.5 hour's drive from Mall of America - the biggest mall in the United States, not to mention these other attractions. Knowing that, why would Netshops take the Thralow reps to area malls (and Chuck E Cheese - mustn't forget Chuck E Cheese) as a selling point of moving here? Talk about not understanding the people you're selling to. Could be an indication of how well the current Netshops staff will understand Thralow's group of sites...

As always, I look forward to your emails and comments!

Decision day and my reply to "D"

How many Thralow reps decided to make the move? Is it really 3 of 50 like I've been hearing?

For those of you electing to be laid off, here is information on how to file for unemployment benefits.

Now, onto D's posts.

D said

Communication definitely broke down with the old org chart. Since the
layoffs and the revised org chart, the structure makes a lot more sense, in my
humble opinion. Also, depts are now being tasked with creating SOP (standard
operating procedures) which is par for the course with most companies of this
size. The SOPs are going to specifically address accountability and provide
training material. We are long overdue for them.

The old (August 06 - Feb 07) 'stage' org chart was similar to the store management way of doing things. That 'style' of management worked well in stage 1 & 2. Stages 3 & 4 seemed to lose something - in my opinion it was because of a reduced # of staff in each area working on the sites.

SOP's should have been something done over a year ago when the operations team was in place. Accountability and real, definable measurements of job performance was something that should have been handled by that team as well. (Maybe then we wouldn't have the fraternization issues we have now. Is Paulette going to KC on a shoe run again anytime soon? How many days off did she take unpaid last year? Did all the employees get treated the same way or was she given special treatment?) Yes, Netshops is a 'growing' (or is that immature?) company and 'these things take time to develop' - sort of like the supplier score cards. When I was there, I didn't find a single one that had been completed. I hope Doug hasn't been led to believe that they were....

Maybe if someone was actually accountable for getting these projects done, Netshops wouldn't have needed to lay off 60+ employees in February. Those employees would have moved out of the company on their own based on clearly defined criteria based on their jobs, instead of just a (seemingly) random bloody swath being cut through the work force.

D also said (about the layoffs)

I went directly to the exec in charge of my department and asked for an
explanation. And I got one.
NetShops is not a failing business nor is it run
solely by Doug. Doug is a visionary leader who often asks for the seemingly
impossible while the other two's pragmatism provides the balance. NetShops also
has a unique business model - only our copycats like CSN come close - and we're
still trying to figure out how to make it run like a well-oiled machine. Growing
pains with such rapid expansion were inevitable. At one time only human bodies
could get the job done but now with so many technological advances being made
internally, humans are being replaced by computer applications. Do you think it
was a coincidence that the first layoff occured immediately after Site Manager
was rolled out? You may recall a chunk of merchandisers were let go or
repositioned.

Very interesting thoughts D. "Growing pains with such rapid expansion were inevitable." Sure. I can appreciate that. However having fewer people to do the same amount of work is insanity. Having fewer people to do more work (if Netshops rolls out another 50 - 60 sites again this year) is just plain stupid. Now, Netshops has applied for some tax breaks, namely the Nebraska Advantage Act. As you can see from the article, Netshops indicated they are going to invest 9.2 million and create 440 new jobs. So, if "growing pains with rapid expansion" really was inevitable and those laid off were being replaced due to technological gains, such as the use of Site Manager, why would Netshops need an additional 440 employees? Again, this strikes me as an easy way to look profitable for the investors. It is corporate churn and an example of how little the employees doing the job day to day are really valued by Doug and Co.

NetShops is getting itself ready to go to the next level. Much like when you
negotiate a mortgage with a banker they talk accounting ratios to get an
approved loan amount. The same is happening to NetShops - we had ratios that
made us unattractive to investors and they needed to be fixed. You can bitch and
moan all you want, but these rules are applied to any business with the goals
NetShops has. Doug telling potential investors that he couldn't let go of
employees because they're good loyal workers would have meant proverbial doors
slammed in our faces and the inevitable tanking of NetShops as a whole.

Again, "ratios that made us unattractive to investors" does not make sense when Doug is applying for tax breaks and claiming he's going to add 440 new jobs. If the ratio was wrong in the first place, why would he need to hire new people? I don't know about you but when I bought my house, the bank didn't tell me I had too many children and I'd need to let some of them go.

Once you go "corporate", there's no going back and the Dougs of the world don't
make all the rules anymore.

That's true. Why do you think Netshops isn't as fun as it used to be anymore? Why did a special 'activity committee' need to be created? Where are the patio umbrellas on the call center side? Where are the hammocks/daybeds and adriondack chairs where people can meet and exchange ideas? Those have been traded for more traditional conference rooms to look more 'corporate'. I guess that's what we need to do when the Buffetts and Blumkins of the world come to tour the office.

I once worked at a plant that was profitable for 33 years straight with no
layoffs. And what happened? The plant was shut down for the better of the entire
company. Fair? Nope. Look at the Big 3 and their job security policies - all
three are so far in the red they may never recover.

By 'big 3' do you mean Doug, Julie and Mark? If you think they aren't making money in this venture you're crazy. Do you think they're doing this for the fun of it? Also, how do you know they're 'in the red'?

I'm still working at NetShops but I admire the balls it takes to follow through
with a very difficult decision.

A 'difficult decision'? It wasn't a difficult decision - it was a quick fix. If profits were really down, why weren't more of the upper managers let go? Why was it store managers on down? If things weren't working, why are the same people still in place in the upper portions of the company? Tina, Dave, Marina, Dawn, etc are all still in their positions. While the store managers and buyers had input on what happened to the sites, ultimately the responsibility falls on the stage directors. If the 'stage' approach wasn't working, why is the person who thought of it still there? Oh wait - she's an owner. (Not that she's going to be there much longer from what I've heard. Once she leaves for the baby, I've heard rumors that she may not come back...)

A healthy, growing company does not let 60+ people go because of 'technological advances'. Especially not when they're applying for tax breaks and claiming they'll be adding 440 new jobs to the city/state economy. (So, really after Netshops lays off the Thralow reps, that will bring the total laid off to approximately 100 employees let go in 90 days. In reality, they're only creating 340 new jobs, not the 440 as submitted on their application.) Netshops has issues and those issues start at the top and roll down from there. As always, I look forward to your emails and comments.

So, what would you say...ya do here?

I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the store managers* don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

* Yeah, I changed it to be more Netshops specific. So what?

I just wish I could have taken a copier with me when I left....

Netshops affiliates have become aware of this blog...

Apparently the Netshops affiliate network has become aware of my blog. If you want to read the thread, do so here.

To those reading from the affiliate forum, no, I'm not Peter Peter. Leader, you make some very valid points - I'll touch on those in a moment.

Layoffs at Netshops?
I just put together two bits of information and got
nervous. A few weeks ago, Spilsbury went bankrupt and left a bunch of affiliates
unpaid in the lurch (http://forum.abestweb.com/showthread.php?t=86242).Now it seems
that Netshops is having layoffs:http://laidoffbynetshops.blogspot.com/2007/02/missed-this-article-in-omaha-world.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetShopsIs everything OK? Should
affiliates be worried? Is there any information other than what is doubtless the
party line of "Don't worry, everything's fine"?Pete

Nate - your response

NetShops is a very healthy, rapidly growing company. Most people don't know
we recently purchased another company and inherited about 50 employees. Plus,
because we are still a young company (just turned 5) in a rapid-paced market, we
frequently make necessary structural changes. So yes, some employees were
transitioned to new roles within the company and some were let go. But NetShops
is NOT going anywhere but UP, and you needn't worry about not getting your
commission checks!By the by, we were #13 on Inc. 500's list of fastest growing
companies last year, and the company we purchased was #244.

That's great and all, but the layoffs were of existing employees - not those inherited from Thralow. How many of those 50 'inherited' employees are going to make the transition from Duluth to Omaha? Estimates I'm hearing put the number at, oh, about 3. The song and dance Netshops put on - touring the Netshops office, going to the Henry Doroly Zoo, scavenger hunting at Chuck E Cheese pizza, etc - really didn't 'sell' the 'inherited employees' on moving. So, if 3 of the 50 Thralow reps don't move, they'd have to be laid off, so that would put the 90 day layoff total at about 105 employees released in less than a 3 month period. This is not a sign of a 'growing company'.

"Frequent structural changes" = frequent changes in direction, reorgs and layoffs (in layman's terms). It also confirms what I've been saying all along - there is no job security at Netshops, there is no possibility of a long term career path for employees and the only direction Netshops is going is in a balls to the wall, flat out, mad rush to look profitable for investors.

Now, if this were just a blog by one person and I was bitching and moaning about how unfair it was to be laid off, I didn't deserve it, etc, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, for Netshops, this blog has started to take on a life of it's own. People are sending me information on a daily basis - the current reorg, what the Thralow reps feel like (and what they're doing) and questions they'd like me to throw out there - because they don't feel safe in the current environment asking them themselves. It's really too bad.

Don't believe me? Take a look at all the comments posted to the blog. There isn't a single one done by me and that just scratches the surface.

Leader, your comment -

With anything negative you read: You need to pay attention to WHO is talking,
and JUST WHAT their beef is. Then decide if you think the complaint(s) are
reasonable, and if you should consider the complainers to be credible.

These are mostly former employees talking. However, I am getting information from current employees and some of those 'inherited employees' Nate mentioned. (I wonder how the Thralow reps feel about being called 'inherited'?) Nate does need to tow the company line and I understand that. (Glad I didn't have to be in the meeting about this blog...) Sorry about any additional pressure you might find yourself under Nate. You always seemed like a decent guy and I hope I haven't put you in an uncomfortable position.

Employees get disgruntled when something SUCKS! A company shouldn't have
any/many hugely disgruntled employees, and when they do, that in itself is a
sign of a problem.

Employees at Netshops have been disgruntled for a long time now.

After the layoffs in August of 06, people were pretty upset. Some quit as a result, some were put into positions that weren't what they were doing before and they weren't given much time with the Christmas holiday looming to learn their new roles very well. (They weren't given choices in these new roles either by the way - we came into the manager's office and were told, "Here's where you are on the new org chart. Hope you like it." Even more people quit. Those that didn't and weren't happy were made to apply and interview for, essentially their old jobs as the people who quit were replaced. Nice, huh?) By the time October hit, Netshops employees were asked to do extra work - taking calls in the call center, answering customer service emails they weren't trained to handle, and working in the warehouse - usually 50 - 60 hours per week - along with their normal duties. It was called the "Lend a hand" program. Worst. Idea. Ever.

Many of us thought with a profitable holiday (more profitable than any before - up 85% year over year) we'd be safe from a reorg and layoffs. Unfortunately, we weren't able to hit our gross margin or our profit goals. (Is this because of something the employees did/didn't do, or, because of wildly inaccurate & unattainable goals? That's a subject for another blog, another time.)

And the problem's not the employee (assuming that the angry employee is
reasonably sane). The size of the company is important to consider, though; any
big company probably has several employees who hate it and who will usually be
quitting soon anyway, but a small one ( under 50 people ) only needs a couple of
antis to indicate a problem.So the question is "what is it?" What sucks so bad
that someone has been made angry enough to write blogs and wiki entries about
it?! It's a mistake to assume in favor of the company in these cases. Usually
when the employees start to say a place sucks, it's because it does! (Sometimes
it's just some kook or lamer who had unreasonable expectations, but I haven't
seen that too often.) Personally I find it quite relevant , and would like to
know if promoting NetShops means promoting a bad employer. (And I don't see any
keywords on that blog that'd count towards a what I'd consider a G-bomb...it
doesn't seem to have any "choice" words directly linked to NetShops' URL. )

Again, very good points. At one time, Netshops had approximately 440 employees. In less than a year, I'd estimate they're down to about 300-ish based on the people I saw leave between August and February, and the February layoff. Not a 'growing' company in my opinion. Yes, they're adding more stores. Great. Without the staff to handle the stores they have, how are they going to continue to grow? How will they handle customer service issues? (Off on a tangent here, how do customer service issues/failures effect affiliates?)

Something else to think about. Netshops purchased Thralow, like Nate alluded to. Good company, good people, good sites. Binoculars.com, Telescopes.com, Pans.com, OperaGlasses.com, EMetalDetectors.com, Utensils.com, etc, etc. Those sites are drastically different from hammocks, diaper bags, slippers, pajamas, beds, christmas trees, and adirondack chairs. The technical knowledge needed on the Thralow sites is an important part of selling product on those sites. Netshops reps aren't going to have the experience needed to make an educated guess, much less an informed opinion on what a customer should do. How well do you think Netshops is going to do in categories they don't fully understand?

Last thing for tonight.

"D" - since you've asked that I don't repost your comment, I won't, but I do have a reply I'm working on. I'll need to repost some sections of your post, but I won't repost it in full. That's the best I can do.

Eric - yes, I'm still interested in continuing our conversation - I'll email you soon. Sorry for the delay in responding - interviews have been taking up my time these past few days.

Did you know...

the federal government considers a 'mass layoff' to be any layoff of 50 employees or more (within a 90 day period)? The recent layoff at Netshops would constitute a 'mass layoff' and Netshops could be required to pay you 60 days wages.

I can hear you thinking "Why?" "How?" "What chu talkin' 'bout Willis??"

Let me explain.

In 1988, Congress passed the WARN act. Warn is an acronym for Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification. This act basically states employers must give employees 60 days notice - in writing - in advance of the proposed layoff.

I know I'm looking into this. I don't know if I have a claim or not, but 60 days pay sure would be nice to have.

You might take a look at this site for assistance.

**Keep in mind - this is not legal advice. I am not an attorney. Consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation.**

Hope the meeting with the Thralow reps goes well...

You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision, determination and an endless supply of expendable labor.

Busy weekend!

LOTS of emails over the weekend! Just want to answer a few questions - both from emails and from comments posted below.

"CrazyMama" said

Just a thought, but maybe if you had put this much time and effort into your job at Netshops, you would still be there. Then again, the largest portion of this blog was coppied from someone else, so maybe that says a lot about your work.

Actually Crazy (I can call you crazy, right? If you are who I think you are, its a fitting name..) this blog has taken all of, 20 minutes to post. That's about the length of one of your 3 smoke breaks per day, isn't it? I never took a break. I was at my desk 9+ hours a day. The only time I was gone was for lunch - and that was usually 30 minutes, not to mention any work I did from home after leaving the office. How's that teaching degree coming?

Then "CrazyMama" said

I couldn't disagree with Leigh more. Many of the efficiencies created by the layoff and the upgrades / changes made to the systems and procedures were to the benefit of the customer. As for loyalty to the employees, Netshops is loyal to those employees who are loyal to Netshops, not those who give 8 hours notice of their departure (and that notice was given only when confronted). Those employees who work hard, help find solutions to the inefficiencies and truly see the future of Netshops are rewarded and valued. Those who show up everyday in their pajamas and slippers only to bitch and moan about what is wrong have/had no loyalty to Netshops, and were probably on the list to go. Of course money and profit are important; this is a business, not a slumber party. It is understandable to see resentment from those let go, but maybe those people should take a hard look at the time they spent with Netshops and the value they actually contributed. This isn't to say that everyone let go was not a good employee. I am sure there were many cases where there was just a need to reshape positions and processes and some positions were no longer necessary. I have no doubt that those people will find great things at another company.

Pretty lengthy way to say what I've already said.... I said (in an earlier post) 'Were some of those individuals let go due to be released based on poor performance? Possibly.' However, I went on to ask, "Were any of them told about their poor performance? Only one that I've heard about - and that was through her comment on this blog. If the employees let go were distracted, unmotivated or just simply in the wrong position, perhaps a solid career path would have helped motivate them." Maybe you missed reading that. Where are you going to be in the company in 6 months? Will you even be with the company in 6 months?

Oh and CrazyMama? Your jealousy of Leigh won't get you very far in life. Just because she had a backbone and stood up for herself when a member of upper management decided to mane an unwarranted negative comment (FYI, Leigh's immediate supervisor heard the comment and failed to do anything about it. Could that be because the two managers are dating? Can you say 'fraternization policy'? I knew you could...) doesn't mean you get to try to talk down to her here. My respect for Leigh jumped about 100 points when she told Netshops she was done. She remained professional - which is more than I've ever seen out of you.


On to other questions.

To "J" who emailed from a far off place, yes, last I heard Paulette is still employed. I guess buying shoes for the call center manager gets you some job security at Netshops. Maybe I should have given her a Coke bottle for Xmas.

Oh well, live and learn.

Lastly, here's a fun message that was sent to me. All of you still employed at Netshops should give this a try at Doug's next all company meeting.

Before (or during) your next meeting, seminar, or conference call,
prepare yourself by drawing a square. I find that 5"x5" is a good size.
Divide the card into columns-five across and five down. That will give
you 25 one-inch blocks.

Write one of the following words/phrases in each block:

* synergy
* strategic fit
* core competencies
* best practice
* bottom line
* revisit
* expeditious
* to tell you the truth (or "the truth is")
* 24/7
* out of the loop
* benchmark
* value-added
* proactive
* win-win
* think outside the box
* fast track
* result-driven
* empower (or empowerment)
* knowledge base
* at the end of the day
* touch base
* mindset
* client focus(ed)
* paradigm
* game plan
* leverage
* scaleable
* on track (or on pace)
** last, but certainly not least, that ol' Netshops stand by, it is what it is

Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words or
phrases. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally,
stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!"

That's all for now. I've got some jobs to apply for. As always, I look forward to hearing from you!

Thralow reps being asked to transfer to Omaha?

That's what I've heard from a few sources. Unfortunately the people that were on their way to check out Netshops Central were stranded by the blizzard. Perhaps as many as 20 people stranded on their way here to Omaha is what I'm hearing. My advice? Stay warm and wait it out.

***Update*** I've been told from another source that there are not 20 people on their way to check out Netshops Central. (I'm not there, so all I can go by is what info is given to me. If they are or aren't on their way to Omaha to check out the 'home office', either way my advice to wait it out and stay warm remains the same.

There are people who are considering the transfer however, so the information below remains the same. I've been told those individuals need additional information to properly decide if they want to make the move. Email me or post a comment with what info you need and I'll do what I can to get it for you. ***End of update***

As far as transferring to Netshops Central, good luck to the people up north. I hope they go into this decision with their eyes wide open about how things are done at Netshops. (Keep your resume up to date gang, because if you think you're anything more than an employee number, you're dead wrong.)

Now, keep in mind, you're going to have to move all your stuff from Duluth to Omaha. That's approximately 380 miles. I've done some checking (since I have nothing better to do with my time now that I'm unemployed) and an approximate cost to move from Duluth to Omaha is $3072.00. That's if you pack and load everything by yourself. If you have someone do it for you, the cost jumps to between $3792 - $4032. If you want someone to unpack your stuff for you, the cost jumps again to $4032 - $4392. Not a small cost to incur especially if you aren't guaranteed to be employed long enough to recoup that cost.

Who knows? Maybe Netshops can have your stuff shipped via Home Direct.

Here it is. My first blog.

Let's see....a nice Netshops green should work well for my blog. Almost makes it look...official.

Now, where to begin?

I guess we'll start at the end. That's probably the best place to start the tale.

Netshops laid off over 60 employees on February 1, 2007.

After a profitable holiday - one where the company was more profitable than ever according to Doug Nielsen (President and CEO) - more than 60 people lost their jobs. The message was clear. "Thanks for your contribution this holiday season. We'll be seeing you." No reason given - just "Here's your compensation package. There's the door."

Kind of takes some of the 'shine' off of that "One of Omaha's Best Places to Work in 2006" award now doesn't it? Tough to be one of the "Fastest Growing Companies" when you lay off almost a third of your work force. I don't think we'll be seeing the Netshops name on those award lists this year.

Oh, by the way, I was one of those let go. This is my story. As I tell the story, hopefully some of the other people let go in this lay off (and previous layoffs) will choos to comment on their experiences. Feel free to email me (laid_off_by_netshops@yahoo.com) as well if you have questions or comments.