Slashdot Mirror
Builder.com Writers Outsourced to India
An anonymous reader writes "Builder.com, which is part of CNet.com, is now outsourcing some of their writing to India. The funny thing is, the editor claims it's not as much about money as because he's 'getting a better interface with producers of the content.' He claims CNet isn't giving up control, but if they're the publisher, and he's the editor, and they can't hire and manage their own writers, why shouldn't the Indians just put up their own website to replace CNet, and we can all read what they write direct? I mean, we're all going to be buying software direct from Indian companies soon, so why not?" Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN. OSDN also runs sites like devchannel.org which are more-or-less direct competitors of builder.com.
Probably because CNet pays them more than they could make running their own web site. Running a web-site would involve getting out and selling ad space and buying lots of bandwidth. Both of these roles are probably more cost-effecively done from the fancy CNet building in San Francisco, because it's a better place to shmooze with advertisers and suppliers.
CNet still has a nice cushion of IPO cash that they can use to pay Indian developers well as well as buying more expensive things like Esther Dyson's EDVentures
I'm sure Esther didn't come cheap, so I think CNet's right when they say it's not just for the money savings. If a writer in India can produce better content for the same price they'll hire one there. If Esther can provide even-better content for a much higher price, they'll hire her too.
My guess is that the cost of the Indian writers to build out the sales side of the proposed website wouldn't be possible in the post-.com-ipo era.
read what the Indians think of their own abilities here.
BTW, "Coolie" is a word that roughly translates into menial laborer.
Magnus.
US gets more BPO work than India: US commerce dept
d line=US~gets~more~BPO~work~than~India
US commerce department data quoted in a news article in The Wall Street Journal show that a lot more work is being outsourced to the US in comparison with other countries like India.
http://us.rediff.com/money/2004/mar/18bpo.htm?hea
Concerning the charge that nations enacted retaliatory tariffs against the United States for passing the Smoot-Hawley bill, historical documents do not support this view. Great Britain did not release any formal protests since it regarded the United States as a sovereign nation that did not look favorably upon other nations meddling in their affairs. Great Britain was also concerned that a formal protest might encourage still higher tariffs, which might work to the disadvantage of their exporters. Great Britain was one of Americas leading trading partners, and avoided any formal protest. Sir Esme Howard, the British Ambassador to Washington at the time, informed London that "official representations...against the proposed tariff increases...[would be] a mistake."
Foreign diplomats generally avoided specific threats of retaliation against the United States since any such language would be considered an infringement upon national sovereignty, and it was not the place of foreign governments to protest the Constitutionally enacted laws of the United States. Furthermore, the word "protest" during the time of the Great Depression did not automatically express dissatisfaction with U.S. trade policy. The word "protest" usually represented the argument that treaty rights of a foreign nation had been violated.
Canada briefly discussed retaliation in 1929 with U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg. Canada warned Kellogg that upwardly shifted tariff rates might result in a high probability for retaliation. Canadian Minister Vincent Massey was encouraged to release an official statement representing Canadas position, but none was ever written. Canada did not want to antagonize high tariff legislators in Congress. Instead, Massey decided to go a more discreet route via the American press. After meeting with the editor of the New York World, Massey was "impressed" by the position of the editor "that Canada will never be taken seriously by the United States...until she is prepared to strike back." This author supposes that a similar opinion is shared by the Chinese about the United States today. The United States repeatedly languishes over its huge trade deficit with China, but our market remains open to their goods while their market is virtually closed to ours. China will never take the United States seriously until we have the courage to take a stand, strike back, and apply higher tariffs on Chinese goods like the Chinese have applied to our goods!
Many nations of that time embraced the idea that retaliation would be counterproductive. They feared antagonizing Congress or a grass roots brushfire of national patriotism among U.S. citizens that might lead to discrimination of their imported goods. Historical records show that the Smoot-Hawley tariff did little to encourage foreign countries to retaliate with high tariffs of their own. In May 1931, the State Department report found that "by far the largest number of countries do not discriminate against the commerce of the United States in any way." Data from the U.S. Commerce Department show that the reason for the severe drop in exports in almost every American export industry was because of economic problems related to the depression, not foreign retaliation for higher U.S. tariffs. Some U.S. exports, however, did see significant gains in foreign market share. Exports of apples, pears and grapefruits increased. Exports of prunes went up 31 percent, and exports of dried apricots soared higher by 72 percent. Exports of raw materials such as cotton and rayon held steady. Exports of American films increased 49 percent, and exports of false teeth rose 24 percent.
I would like to emphasize that some foreign language skills plus computer skills can make you VERY valuable to the right employers, especially eastern languages like Japanese/Chinese/Korean. Many positions require (near) fluency, but the pay is good and there's little compitition (in my experience).
My US based company, in the Fortune 1000, went through the following cuts
2000 - cut US headcount
2001 - cut US headcount
2002 - cut US headcount / hired India software developers to 'help out with maintenace'
2003 - cut US headcount down to 1 USA developer per product, and 1 USA QA person per 2 products / Tripled India headcount - India somehow manages to go from 'helping out' to 'leading develoment'
This took the company from 5,000 USA based developers, qa, doc, sales, etc down to less than 1,500 of which most of them are in Sales, accounting, HR, and executive management.
This left the entire USA based development, QA and doc with less than 20 percent of the original headcount.
Our development schedules accross the board slipped 6 months to 2 years. This includes a dramatic reduction in functionality enhancements.
Guess what, that means that many critical high sales dollar generating products are solely dependant on 1 USA developer.
If we lose 15 key people in the US, our company will have 33 percent of its total sales at risk.
All the while the executives, who are sad that their stock options have been under water for 4 years, have been saying:
The IT spending environment is bad - it's not our fault
India development is comming on board.
Many of us USA based developers are looking to exit this company since the company does not even want the software products it develops to suceed.
This is from my experinces in:
1. Listening to management parrot some powerpoint cheerleading 'our company is great. We care about our employees.' complete BS
and most importantly
2. Seeing how the actual actions of the management do not agree with the words, beliefs, and corporate agenda presented by upper management.
I look forward to 2005 when stock options will have to be carried on the balance sheet as a future expense.