Why companies suck

[Stiganator]

I have a theory that most companies suck because they are publicly owned. They "owe" it to the investors to make money. So, they will always gouge you just as much as you will tolerate. Where as a private company can just offer it at this price and people will be pumped, we don't make quite as much, but more people bought it and their lives are somehow improved my this.

Is it just really difficult for private companies to make it big? Why don't companies realize that if they acted like nice people, people would treat them like nice people. Instead, you all we have is hostility towards big companies.

 

[imported_Tick]

Um... me thinks you need to take some economics classes.

 

[compuwiz1]

So are you advocating we get rid of all companies, so you have nowhere to buy your products and services? Brilliant! I'm all over it. :roll:

 

[Stiganator]

Not at all. Just that they act like people instead of unfeeling money machines.

 

[Epic Fail]

We have that in our society already, it's called charity.

 

[compuwiz1]

If you're implying that they should be more customer service oriented, I agree. Profit is core of why anyone goes into business. What's gouging and what is not, depends on who's opinion you ask.

Profit is even the core of why I go to work. I want to get paid.

 

[bwatson283]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
Not at all. Just that they act like people instead of unfeeling money machines.

cause we are all people.
every single solitary company is out to make money, that is how it works. Even churches are out to make money.

Were you born in a barn?

 

[her209]

Wal-mart PWNS!

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: her209
Wal-mart SUCKS!

Fixed

uh, and arguing the pros and cons of Wal-Mart is like having a religion or politics discussion. Nobody wins.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
I have a theory that most companies suck because they are publicly owned. They "owe" it to the investors to make money. So, they will always gouge you just as much as you will tolerate. Where as a private company can just offer it at this price and people will be pumped, we don't make quite as much, but more people bought it and their lives are somehow improved my this.

Is it just really difficult for private companies to make it big? Why don't companies realize that if they acted like nice people, people would treat them like nice people. Instead, you all we have is hostility towards big companies.

I think what you are trying to communicate is that publicly owned companies really only have one product they sell and that is their ticker symbol.

Intel really only sells INTC. Intel's decision makers, executive management, focus solely on doing whatever it takes to make the customer (the stock holder) value their product (the ticker symbol INTC) more today than they valued it yesterday.

If that means selling quad-core chips to drive ASP's to $X then that is what they will do so long as it makes the true product of the company, INTC, more valuable. If that means announcing layoffs to bolster consumer (stock buyer) perception that INTC will increase tomorrow under the steady hand of today's management then there will be layoffs.

It has nothing to do with profit, nothing to do with sales, nothing to do with people or products, it has everything to do with the ticker symbol (the ONLY product of the company) and the value of that product on wall-street.

Many people think they are the customer of Intel because they buy an Intel processor. You are not a customer. That is why when you call customer support you get to talk to a machine or someone in India. The customer is the shareholder, the stock holder. Do you think mutual fund managers call Intel and get greeted by the service dept in India?

This is the fundamentals of the internet stocks fueling the bubble of 2000 - profit was not an objective, selling a consumer product was not necessary for your ticker symbol to increase in value.

This is not the case with privately held companies. Privately held companies solely exist for making money. They do not exist to increase sales, market share, ticker symbols, etc. They live and die by their bottom-line, and thus their focus is naturally on ensuring people are buying their products so the cash-flow stays positive.

 

[mugs]

I have a theory that you suck, because your theory sucks. Privately held companies are out to make a buck too. Main difference I've seen is that publicly held companies care more about making a buck NOW.

 

[Cogman]

Welcome to the capitalistic society, we hope you enjoy your stay. If you ever want out of capitalism, go find the nearest communist country and join. Thanks for your cooperation.

Really dude, that is what capitalism is all about, We work so we can get money to improve our lives, we don't work to make ourselves miserable while making everyone else happy. Just not the way the ball rolls. The only reason there is any customer support is because you make a better profit by being more friendly to the public, but if you are too nice your profit gained is minimal while your cost increases. Not to mention that nice guys almost always get abused by those looking to take advantage. If your service is really great an personal it is bound to be abused.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Stiganator
I have a theory that most companies suck because they are publicly owned. They "owe" it to the investors to make money. So, they will always gouge you just as much as you will tolerate. Where as a private company can just offer it at this price and people will be pumped, we don't make quite as much, but more people bought it and their lives are somehow improved my this.

Is it just really difficult for private companies to make it big? Why don't companies realize that if they acted like nice people, people would treat them like nice people. Instead, you all we have is hostility towards big companies.

I think what you are trying to communicate is that publicly owned companies really only have one product they sell and that is their ticker symbol.

Intel really only sells INTC. Intel's decision makers, executive management, focus solely on doing whatever it takes to make the customer (the stock holder) value their product (the ticker symbol INTC) more today than they valued it yesterday.

If that means selling quad-core chips to drive ASP's to $X then that is what they will do so long as it makes the true product of the company, INTC, more valuable. If that means announcing layoffs to bolster consumer (stock buyer) perception that INTC will increase tomorrow under the steady hand of today's management then there will be layoffs.

It has nothing to do with profit, nothing to do with sales, nothing to do with people or products, it has everything to do with the ticker symbol (the ONLY product of the company) and the value of that product on wall-street.

Many people think they are the customer of Intel because they buy an Intel processor. You are not a customer. That is why when you call customer support you get to talk to a machine or someone in India. The customer is the shareholder, the stock holder. Do you think mutual fund managers call Intel and get greeted by the service dept in India?

This is the fundamentals of the internet stocks fueling the bubble of 2000 - profit was not an objective, selling a consumer product was not necessary for your ticker symbol to increase in value.

This is not the case with privately held companies. Privately held companies solely exist for making money. They do not exist to increase sales, market share, ticker symbols, etc. They live and die by their bottom-line, and thus their focus is naturally on ensuring people are buying their products so the cash-flow stays positive.

And... what about publicly-held companies that go private and get "made up" so they can be sold for more $$$ when it goes public again?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: her209
And... what about publicly-held companies that go private and get "made up" so they can be sold for more $$$ when it goes public again?

I would contend that those businesses are really just temporarily delisted from the exchange for all practical purposes unless they have a complete overhaul of the entire executive team.

Once a corporate culture has been centered around wall-street and not their product-line you really can't take the trailer back out of the decision-makers.

Also most of those "was public, now gone private after massive buyout" companies still do not have to worry about their cash-flow (outside of the negative effect a negative cash-flow has on stock value once they "IPO" again) because the private equity firm will ensure the power bill gets paid.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Tick
Um... me thinks you need to take some economics classes.

Taking classes isn't the solution to the world's problems. Sometimes plain old common sense is in order.

 

[spidey07]

And it's my theory that by being publically owned you are held to higher standards. Make money. That's the standard. Nothing personal, it's just business.

And what do you say about the large percentage of "public" companies where the majority is held by a single party or family?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: spidey07
And it's my theory that by being publically owned you are held to higher standards. Make money. That's the standard. Nothing personal, it's just business.

And what do you say about the large percentage of "public" companies where the majority is held by a single party or family?

And with a publicly traded stock most of your laundry is hung out in the front yard for people to see. With a private one you don't have that same open disclosure available.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

You fail at logic and common sense. And that's just for starters.

 

[manowar821]

I like pie.

 

[CPA]

uh, dude, take a look at the Blackstone Group and some other very large private companies. They are buying up public companies left and right. It's big news because they have a tax advantage over public companies that Congress is now looking at taking away.

I don't mean to be offensive, but people who don't have a concept of economics, the market or watch/read any financial news should not be discussing the rights and wrongs of business models.