5 ms·

What a mess. Was it just a historical accident that for a few decades in the 20th century, brands really meant something?

colechristensen 4y ago
There have been a few waves of overdoing mergers. The more you allow companies to acquire other companies and sometimes just trademarks, the more you dilute the meaning of brands. In particular the pattern is to build a high quality brand and then sell it to someone who will suck every penny of that built up goodwill by gradually reducing quality taking advantage of the perception of quality until it’s all gone. Sometimes this is actually forced by fiduciary duty.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > Sometimes this is actually forced by fiduciary duty. No, it’s never forced. That’s a meme.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Please prove me wrong with more than the word “meme”.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      Literally every time any large company invests in the future rather than selling off all of its assets. (See apple with the M1 chips, etc) If you think that is true, show the the thousands of lawsuits that would be happening literally every day because stuff isn’t short term cost optimized.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    "that's a meme" is no stronger.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      Of course it is. Random people repeating it is literally the only evidence of it.
- mulmen 4y ago
  > Sometimes this is actually forced by fiduciary duty. There’s no way that “run the company into the ground” is fulfilling a fiduciary duty. Please stop repeating this tired meme.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    The fiduciary duty is to sell at a price when offered, whether or not the buyers are hatchet men.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
    - mulmen 4y ago
      That’s insane. If I offer you $5.00 for your company are you obligated to sell? No, of course not.
mkhpalm 4y ago
This guy (bear?) does a good job explaining who makes what and what is really what. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrzmkSVNh4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrzmkSVNh4

colechristensen 4y ago

There have been a few waves of overdoing mergers. The more you allow companies to acquire other companies and sometimes just trademarks, the more you dilute the meaning of brands. In particular the pattern is to build a high quality brand and then sell it to someone who will suck every penny of that built up goodwill by gradually reducing quality taking advantage of the perception of quality until it’s all gone. Sometimes this is actually forced by fiduciary duty.

kortilla 4y ago
> Sometimes this is actually forced by fiduciary duty. No, it’s never forced. That’s a meme.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Please prove me wrong with more than the word “meme”.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    Literally every time any large company invests in the future rather than selling off all of its assets. (See apple with the M1 chips, etc) If you think that is true, show the the thousands of lawsuits that would be happening literally every day because stuff isn’t short term cost optimized.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  "that's a meme" is no stronger.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    Of course it is. Random people repeating it is literally the only evidence of it.
mulmen 4y ago
> Sometimes this is actually forced by fiduciary duty. There’s no way that “run the company into the ground” is fulfilling a fiduciary duty. Please stop repeating this tired meme.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  The fiduciary duty is to sell at a price when offered, whether or not the buyers are hatchet men.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  - mulmen 4y ago
    That’s insane. If I offer you $5.00 for your company are you obligated to sell? No, of course not.

mkhpalm 4y ago

This guy (bear?) does a good job explaining who makes what and what is really what. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrzmkSVNh4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrzmkSVNh4