Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9109453" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I'm not attempting to minimize it, but it doesn't seem to have been a huge blunder. See this headline[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwie2tjrgPyAAxWgATQIHfbcBBkQFnoECC4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F1995%2F04%2F11%2Fbusiness%2Fcompany-news-ten-years-later-coca-cola-laughs-at-new-coke.html&usg=AOvVaw0RI2AXkLfPIU0AkWly4dP8&opi=89978449[/URL]Ten years later, they were laughing about it and claiming that good things came from it. Sure, it cost the company a total of 34 MILLION dollars, and that's huge, right? Let's see their net worth in 1995 was... 3 BILLION. It was a blunder that cost them... 1% of their net worth. And now they are worth... 261.15 Billion. I didn't account for inflation, but they are almost 100 times more profitable now, and they claimed that the New Coke release actually helped them.So, yeah. I'm not downplaying it at all. It was a big, short lived and fixed blunder that had no lasting impact on their profits.I'm pretty sure the biggest ones get consulted, but whatever. The larger point still stands.Hasn't seemed to work with Musk, seems like if you are rich enough, they can't toss you out. And, again, this is all because you seemed to take offense at the fact that I recognize "Musk regularly makes terrible decisions" is different than "Big Businesses regularly make terrible decisions"Unless the contract was that they would buy toys from a specific designer, who had a good track record, and it was only later that this toy came, and despite being bad they were forced to sell it like all the other good toys. Because you never would make a contract with a prolific designer for a single toy, that's dumb.Again. EVIDENCE!! You need that thing, called evidence, to make a claim. You can't just state something is true without knowing the situation and knowing the evidence.Now show me the study where it says it can happen and be sustained for multiple years completely and totally without skill. I mean, I wonder what all those management research and education classes are teaching if the only factor that can possibly matter is luck? Fortune Telling? Tea Reading? Crystal Ball Cleaning? Again, just like Mamba, you are treating this like a binary. Like I some how stated that Luck plays zero role in success, and therefore by showing me it happens you will get one over on me and embarrass me into admitting you are right. But what I ACTUALLY said was the luck ALONE does not account for sustained success. That to be a large company that lasts multiple years, you need more than luck. Just like I never claimed that all large corporations are utterly perfect and divine beings without fault, I simply claimed that once you reach a certain size, you end up rarely making the kind of fundamental mistakes like making a survey that provides useless data withoutrealizing it for a decade, and that you need evidence of the surveys failing to produce results to actually prove your point. Because "I think I found something" is not strong evidence when compared with "They likely considered that, considering it is a fundamental part of all survey taking and any college graduate would know to account for it."</blockquote>

Verification