> because the only thing people measure or care about as a meaningful indicator of improvement is increased profits. This hasn't been my experience of large co

> because the only thing people measure or care about as a meaningful indicator of improvement is increased profits. This hasn't been my experience of large corporations, at all. Tons of things are measured besides profit, tons of other things are considered, and whole careers are staked on contentious debates over strategy. Again, you seem to be treating Disney as a singular entity -- but it's probably more accurate to view it something like Europe: a squabbling mash of fiefdoms that happen to be loosely forced together, which occasionally go to war with each other, and have some sort of overarching body screaming at them that most fiefdoms half-ignore or drag their feet on implementing the directives of. (This really describes most large corporations -- which isn't surprising, considering that corporations emerged from that period of Europe.) > I'm not sure you intended this but the wording of this pretty offensive The implication was that it was laughably naive, yes. (I actually laughed when I read it.) Because viewing a corporation as a singular entity is a naive view: corporations aren't people, don't behave like people, and have internal conflicts that would send actual people to the mental hospital. You also seem to have a really strawman view of how executives operate, how corporate decisions are made, etc. It's like the comic book version of dramatized court decisions. What we see here reeks of that model failing -- a snap decision made by a department VP which didn't align with the overall plan, immediately axed when the CEO + senior execs heard of it. I'd guess that there's probably a destroyed career, but Disney isn't interested in airing their dirty laundry, so we won't hear about it. That actually happens a lot -- corporations firing staff for things the public thinks they should be fired for, because the corporate executives are actually of the same opinion about the (former) employees being incompetent in how they handled an issue. They usually just don't air it (and delay it a few months), because training the public to seek the blood of your staff when offended is absolutely insane. > that is my point: if something is actively producing profit, the plan is to increase profits. The company I work for likes to decrease short term profits for long term ecosystem health, because a vibrant system is fundamentally more valuable than extracting the maximum wealth in a straightforward way. I don't think we're alone or even particularly unusual in that belief -- though no corporation (including us) lives up to that ideal fully, either. Corporations aren't angels, but they're not devils either. They're more like forests -- kind of dumb, not particularly coherent, capable of reshaping entire landscapes.