...Money. It blinds the eye, and this is just another example of that.
-wraith808
Well, it's an inability to see all right, but an inability to see reason, and the cause is arguably attributable to just not thinking things through - a human trait that we may all share until we've learned to do otherwise. A backlash would otherwise have been a pretty predictable likely/potential outcome, and thus it would seem unsurprising that that (amongst other things) is what happened. It was unwittingly self-inflicted harm.
Any CEO who approved taking steps like that without considering the potential marketing consequences (which is apparently what happened) would arguably need to have rocks in his head. I think that's what is cynically referred to as a "career-defining moment", or something.
-IainB
Something bothers me about this evaluation, so I think I disagree with it. Maybe a little of it is semantics, but here goes. In a different order than the paragraph:
"...without considering the potential marketing consequences..."
I am quite sure the consequences were "considered". I am also quite sure they knew there would be a backlash. I am quite sure no CEO would think "Hey, we can lock it down and our customers will luv us! Yay!"
Instead, a theme I see slowly grinding across lots of otherwise seemingly unrelated news is that there is a profoundly broad and "Jungian-ly Conscious urge" (to struggle to coin a phrase!) to force the entire economy supply-demand curve towards power on the supply side. To the extent they do this, the broad "bullying powers" of barriers to entry and "talk to the first level reps" leave consumers helpless.
So instead of "not considering" the effects, instead I propose they *were* considered, as something like a balancing equation: The long term deep boosts of profits with greater supply side control, vs the localized and short term "tactical risks" of backlashes and local losses of profits.
The CEOs have pretty thick skins - so they're quite used to the fact the media loves the "local tactical backlashes". So meanwhile the C-level team just gauges the risks and they just laugh at things like "backlashes". Even if they get one specific equation wrong, their multi - level parent corps or friends have the money, it's not like a 4 man company that's gonna tank if their only flagship product tanks.
The rise of viral activism is putting a little more power into the hands of consumers, making these calculation much weirder than they used to be fifteen years ago.
The last side of "not considered" is something to the lines of "Come on, the 22 regular members of DC can't be that much smarter than professional managers in these companies". If proposed policy floated around, I'm sure any company would have a random guy who would raise our objections.
Instead, I think there's a bit of a power-lust in the urge to do all this supply-side control, and arrogance, that can over-ride "consideration".
Recent Posts
