4 ms·

> Not sure why this is downvoted. publicly traded companies are legally required to go for maximum profit for their shareholders. This stupid meme needs to die

by unmole 5y ago

> Not sure why this is downvoted. publicly traded companies are legally required to go for maximum profit for their shareholders. This stupid meme needs to die. The management of companies has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of shareholders. That does not imply any legal requirement to maximize profit.

judge2020 5y ago
Perhaps it is exaggerated but ‘no ads’ means higher prices (due to lower revenue on the backend), and thus lower sales since people only really purchase TVs based on the shelf price. If the higher price doesn’t make up for lost overall sales revenue, that means lower actual revenue. There’s also the (maybe fictional) concept of selling the most TVs leading to more ad viewers, thus increasing the value your ad platform can provide compared to your competition.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  “We acted in the best interests of our shareholders by not fucking our customers over and tanking our reputation.” Companies can easily argue the point on stuff like this. Raw profit isn’t the only thing you can do for shareholder value.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Reputation only matters if it leads to a loss of sales. I’m sure ads don’t have enough impact to drastically lose more money than the ads otherwise make.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      As long as they can make a reasonable argument, they’re good. A legal requirement to maximize profits would be insane. Amazon couldn’t have spent a decade forgoing profits to build up R&D. Chipotle wouLd have to use cheaper chicken. Companies couldn’t donate to causes. It simply doesn’t work that way. (As someone else has pointed out elsewhere on this thread, the Supreme Court agrees.)
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  It's not exaggerated it's fake. You are obligated not to screw the shareholders not to service any fantasy that could hypothetically enrich them irrespective of long term effects.

by unmole 5y ago

judge2020 5y ago

Perhaps it is exaggerated but ‘no ads’ means higher prices (due to lower revenue on the backend), and thus lower sales since people only really purchase TVs based on the shelf price. If the higher price doesn’t make up for lost overall sales revenue, that means lower actual revenue. There’s also the (maybe fictional) concept of selling the most TVs leading to more ad viewers, thus increasing the value your ad platform can provide compared to your competition.

ceejayoz 5y ago
“We acted in the best interests of our shareholders by not fucking our customers over and tanking our reputation.” Companies can easily argue the point on stuff like this. Raw profit isn’t the only thing you can do for shareholder value.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Reputation only matters if it leads to a loss of sales. I’m sure ads don’t have enough impact to drastically lose more money than the ads otherwise make.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    As long as they can make a reasonable argument, they’re good. A legal requirement to maximize profits would be insane. Amazon couldn’t have spent a decade forgoing profits to build up R&D. Chipotle wouLd have to use cheaper chicken. Companies couldn’t donate to causes. It simply doesn’t work that way. (As someone else has pointed out elsewhere on this thread, the Supreme Court agrees.)
michaelmrose 5y ago
It's not exaggerated it's fake. You are obligated not to screw the shareholders not to service any fantasy that could hypothetically enrich them irrespective of long term effects.