[speedplane]

Yeah, they have these crazy barometers of financial health like growth, revenue, and income. But no, snacks are the obvious better indicator.

[umeshunni]

Those are lagging indicators. Revenue can grow for months (or even years) after a company is on a declining path because of contracts, sales teams selling legacy products and so on.

The premise of the article is to find leading indicators of health.

[TAForObvReasons]

Those figures can be gamed. Snacks give a better impression about what management is actually feeling rather than the numbers they are projecting

[setr]

Snacks can be trivially gamed as well. The primary difference is that snacks aren’t a widely accepted metric, which is why they might be a good one; that is, once a metric is established, it ceases to be a good metric.

[speedplane]

> Snacks can be trivially gamed as well.

Snacks and other small perks are trivially gamed. There is a decent argument that companies that spend money on frivolous benefits to project an image of strength have something to hide. Often the frugal, conservative companies that count the pennies lead to more stability and long-term strength.

[raverbashing]

Don't forget non-paying customers.