newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
 ·Vonage
| reply to rudnicke
Re: Nasty
said by rudnicke  :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? Greed. |
|
hopeflicker
They all belong in the trash
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by newview :said by rudnicke :Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers? Greed. x2
--
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent. |
|
spewak
Kiss It, Kiss It Real Good
Premium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA | so very sad....  |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to newview
Corporations are looking out for:
a) bottom line (profits)
b) corporate assets (name)
c) stock price (upper management's pay is tied to stock)
Corporations do not care about people, and in general, even their staff, if it affects any of the above items.
Don't forget, there's a flip side, where many consumers attempt to take advantage of large corporations as well. Other corp will attempt to erode 'a' and 'c', and activists will attempt to smear 'b'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| Minor correction on the first item on your list. Most corporations are looking out for short term bottom line.
This is because that growing your business slowly and steadily won't please your investors/stock holders. Also, many executives will "company hop" so they want to maximize the company's earnings while they are there. The executive doesn't care if this just sets the company up for a big crash, they'll be safely on to the next company with millions.
It would be like a pilot on a commercial jetliner trying to get his route done faster. When he saw that his speed was going to lead to the engines blowing out, he would merely strap on a parachute and jump out safely without any cares as to the dozens of people aboard (employees, stockholders) who didn't have parachutes.
Very few companies buck the trend and grow their business slow and steady. (I think Google is one.)
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | True... companies are really into short term (quarterly) profits and results. Its a time vs. money equation.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to en102
You forgot about EBITDA which is often more spoken about on conference calls. That's the real driver in the telco/cableco space these days.
said by en102 :Corporations are looking out for: a) bottom line (profits) b) corporate assets (name) c) stock price (upper management's pay is tied to stock) Corporations do not care about people, and in general, even their staff, if it affects any of the above items. That doesn't make sense. Corporate goals vary by their business, their position within it, and their ownership.
Your statement about people doesn't make sense either, to me at least. Best talent recruiting corps will care about people until it is a position where it believes it can get the best for less in return for perceived security, if that corp is willing to emphasize profitability. Stock price valuation on the other hand is way beyond a single post discussion, but I would agree, at times Corps will care less about their people and customers in the proper circumstances (which are generally anti-consumer). Private businesses are no better (think the shady mechanic in a big city...)
said by en102 :Don't forget, there's a flip side, where many consumers attempt to take advantage of large corporations as well. Other corp will attempt to erode 'a' and 'c', and activists will attempt to smear 'b'. A consumer taking advantage of a corporation is a david and goliath story. Has a large corporation ever been bankrupted by it's customers? More likely, large corporations have failed due to hubris and incorrect motivations like your C example. Paying the CEO on stock price at any cost is akin to paying the salesperson a commission regardless of the profitability (or loss) of a sale. Sometimes the best laid plans aren't right  In either case, the CEO/Salesperson still comes out ahead in every instance...would it be possible if there wasn't such a high level of nepotism without corresponding government oversight (if the gov themselves could be freed from the same problems?).
Perhaps I'm just an old jaded MF. |
|
