Gregory's Server@pluralistic I am actually suprised that Vice lasted that long.
Your article supposes that Vice leaders were gullible for following FB "pivot to video" when everybody with half a brain knew that strategy to be doomed from the onset. Except that:
1) it is not a unique case
2) they must have known about FB plans, because it mirrors their own only plan: lock-in people and then extract revenue.
(1/5)
|
Top-level
Jerome
4 comments
Jerome
@pluralistic Then, of course, everyone will notice that Vice used to be valued at 5.7 billions and that burning all that cash is proof of incompetence. I will simply answer that burning billions in cash is not a problem, when it is not your money.
Jerome
@pluralistic Do you really know who was owning these billions in today's opaque financial world? Haven't there been enough scandals about bankrupt companies where it was found that valuable assets had been siphoned out before the leaders started a chain of apparently stupid moves? Aren't there enough ways to let the small investors alone with the empty bag?
Jerome
@pluralistic Last but not least: there is an obvious reason to destroy Vice: it published good articles. If there is one thing that people in power hate, it is good journalists. They are the people who tend to discover scandals, they are the people who write articles about things they prefer to keep hidden. At the very least, they write stuff which is more interesting to read than advertisements and in the ideal corporate world out eyeball time would be 100% used for propaganda. |
@pluralistic Incompetence cannot explain CEOs' behaviors. In particular, it cannot explain why they are hired again and again when when their résumé is a long list of "sunk that firm, then sunk another one". If my résumé where a list of public failures, I would not be hired again. Yet these people are.
The only explanation which makes sense is that running corporate entities into bankruptcy is not an accident happening again and again: it is their job.
(2/5)