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.

3 of 755 comments (clear)

  1. Why shouldn't the Indians... by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Informative
    Article wrote: why shouldn't the Indians just put up their own website to replace CNet, and we can all read what they write direct

    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.

  2. Before you get all worked up by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 5, Informative

    read what the Indians think of their own abilities here.

    BTW, "Coolie" is a word that roughly translates into menial laborer.

    Magnus.

  3. My USA Fortune 1000 software company take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.