4 ms·
I'm surprised this is a common scenario. I would think, due to the pervasiveness of the sunk-cost fallacy, that companies would stand behind their aquisitions t
by vegashacker 16y ago
I'm surprised this is a common scenario. I would think, due to the pervasiveness of the sunk-cost fallacy, that companies would stand behind their aquisitions to a fault even--just cause they spent so much money on them.
- jfm3 16y agoA buyer might think they're buying your users, or your technology. In either case, the possibility that these things can become devalued if not further invested in might (wrongly) never enter the thinking. If you don't change anything, how could the value of a user or a technology depreciate? (This is obviously wrong, I'm just trying to paint a possible line of reasoning.)
- steveklabnik 16y agoNo, no, you've got it all wrong. If the startup just takes advantage of all of the institutional process and knowledge that the acquirer has to offer, they'll do _even better_ than before they were acquired! (This post is a good example of Poe's law...)
- jleader 16y agoAs long as the VP who championed the purchase remains in charge of the aquisition...