[satellites]

Yes, I’m sure an actor adds more real value to a SaaS company than engineers do. Recognizable talking heads who read lines into a camera are famously hard to find.

[notmindthegap]

"Real value" is an attempt to draw a distinction where there isn't one.

Kim Kardashian brings in more "real value" to a clothing company than any one seamstress.

Welcome to marketing.

[anonymouskimmer]

And yet a bad seamstress can tank a clothing company if a single bad article of clothing gets into the wrong hands.

This kind of makes Kim K a safer play than a bad seamstress. As unless you go full Kanye a spokesmodel isn't going to tank a company.

[wongarsu]

A single bad seamstress causing bad clothing to be delivered to customers is a process failure, the same way no single engineer should be responsible for Saleforce's production systems going down. And in most ways, implementing quality control on your product is a lot easier than controlling the personal life of your spokespeople.

[anonymouskimmer]

Any company that's paying $10M to a spokesperson will have (maybe I should say "should have") a lot of employees dedicated to that spokesperson and the campaign. They might have a clawback clause if the spokesperson shows bad judgement, and can also get some additional good marketing if they are proactive in distancing themselves from their Kanye-esque spokesperson.

So I guess, like you say, there is a quality control process regardless.

I think the larger issues are probably the decisions of the pre-seamstress process employees. Bad choices in materials or cost-savings measures can turn off customers.

[paxys]

If an actor can directly bring more revenue to the business than an engineer then yes, they are adding more real value.

[adamwong246]

given the hype-driven nature of our industry, that may well be the case.

[tekla]

Probably does. Most engineers are fungible