Right. Because TSR actually had "strategy". Sure. And the market today is remotely similar to the 70s and 80s?
They called it an 'Aproach' rather than a strategy, IIRC.
The sales are remotely similar and the game remotely similar, sure. OTOH, there's no BADD or Jack Chick this time around, among many other differences.
Does that really seem lie a plausible posit, to you?
TBH, TSR had me wondering "what are they thinking?" back in the day as much as WotC does now, and they were far less communicative... but...
When they started with a bazillion settings, flooding the market with content aimed at segregated niches for each setting.. it all went to the outhouse, and the game only survived by WotC buying the thing.
...we do know that TSR's failure was not driven primarily by post-fad D&D sales dropping even more, right? I mean, it's complicated and a lot was going on, M:tG creating a fad of its own that TSR bet on with spellfire and dragondice, novels being returned by distributors, etc...
And, when WotC deviated from some of the basics of the game design with an edition, causing a Pathfinder/4e split... not the best plan either.
Which wasnt a split of official offerings - there were fewer settings, and only one version of the game, not even a basic set. Nerdrage is as unpredictable (yet inevitable) as fads & flops in the first place.
That time, D&D didn't thread the needle between accessible to new fans & acceptable to old, and the old fans nerdraged the edition war into being.
And, I suppose ironically, the strategy, or reaction, anyway, was to split out Essentials.
I guess it might be fair to say that so long as the flagship line keeps growing rapidly, any strategies or decisions will look good, until that growth falters, then the last set may be called into question.