5 ms·
Brands That Will Disappear In 2010
- michael_dorfman 17y agoI don't disagree with the general argument here, but the headline may be overstating things a bit-- I tend to think that some of these brands may be able to limp forward for a few more years before ultimately collapsing. There's an art to circling the drain...
- stilist 17y agoMust have been more than one writer involved—items 7–10 are in serious need of punctuation and general editing. (‘Kodak won’t cease to exit.’; ‘Its fate as a standalone company is however looking more and more like an inevitable fate.’)
- bitwize 17y ago‘Its fate as a standalone company is however looking more and more like an inevitable fate.’ It sounds like a 1980s videogame localization team wrote this bit of copy...
- sili 17y agoIn light of a recent content overload discussion (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=968101 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=968101), what are the chances that each of the 10 pages have been outsourced to some freelance writer for a few dollars?
- KWD 17y agoI hate when articles like this are split across multiple pages. Sure they want to increase the number of their page views for ad revenue, but I'd love to know the bounce rate on these multi-page lists. I did not bother to go further.
- bioweek 17y agoI have a brokerage account at etrade. Is my money in danger?
- forensic 17y agoWhy do they bother saying "Brands" when everyone knows that never happens? Motorola, Kodak, Newsweek... whether they get bought out entirely or sold piece by piece, those brandnames are not going anywhere. They may get new management or aggressively downsize but there will always be Kodak products to buy, Newsweek will always be on the stands, and same for Motorola. So why say the "Brands won't exist"? I don't get it.
- gcheong 17y agoWhy do you say that "never" happens? Brandnames definitely do go away when they become liabilities and not assets.
- forensic 17y agoWhich won't happen to the brands he listed. The only brands that have actually become net liabilities are a small handful of corrupt ones - Enron, WorldCom, stuff like that. But Newsweek "disappearing in 2010"? Impossible.
- gcheong 17y agoIs there some point to that photo of Buffet eating a popcicle?
- icey 17y agoIt's so frustrating to have to click 10 times to see the list. I thought "Hey, there's a printer-friendly version - I'll click that button!". Of course, it only prints the page you're currently on. Thanks for the amazing user experience, Business Insider.
- sili 17y agoAnd the strange thing is, they only put 4 adds per page, so it's not like they are breaking up the article to increase ad space. They do pimp their own content alot though.
- bep 17y agoThe source article, in one page: http://247wallst.com/2009/12/02/the-ten-brands-that-will-disappear-in-2010/ http://247wallst.com/2009/12/02/the-ten-brands-that-will-dis...
- bitwize 17y agoCan we just say that advanced smartphone manufacturers who attempt to compete with the iPhone will suffer massively for it?
- run4yourlives 17y agoNo. In fact HTC came out of nowhere post-iPhone.
- mbrubeck 17y agoWhat? HTC was the largest manufacturer of Windows Mobile phones as early as 2006, when it was #3 in BusinessWeek's IT 100 (and #11 in 2005): http://www.businessweek.com/it100/2006/3.htm http://www.businessweek.com/it100/2006/3.htm The company's sales and market cap grew explosively in the years just before the iPhone launch in 2007. Since the iPhone launch, its stock is down 40%: http://www.google.com/finance?q=TPE:2498 http://www.google.com/finance?q=TPE:2498
- run4yourlives 17y agoHrm, I stand corrected. There's a case of my own experience creating a bias. I don't ever remember seeing HTC products before the iPhone, and now I see them everywhere. Shouldn't assume I suppose.
- wkdown 17y agoIn an odd twist of irony, all ten companies post gains in 2010 while the domain businessinsider.com is sold for $200 to a porn company looking to bank on office affairs.