/biz/ - Business & Finance

Marketing BS. Companies exist to make profit.

>>647764
so why isn't that said, whats wrong in that?

Just feels like it's causing confusion on what the company should be focusing on.

>>647762

At the end of the day that mission statement doesn't matter if the profit isn't coming in.

Think of the mission statement as your "dream". When Nike first began I'm sure Knight and Bowerman wanted to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world. Now they're focusing on how they can leverage the low costs from wage slavery to increase marketing to increase revenue.

While I'm a fan of capitalism these are some of its flaws. In my opinion, I would prefer capitalism to honor truth and transparency but when shareholders hold power over which executives get appointed, then those executives will find the best way to get the most money at that time. This isn't true for all corporations and thus investors recognize what they're approaching. For example, investors in Costco obviously value their approach of paying workers higher wages, else they would not own stock because lower wages could in turn increase profits (this is intuitive, there isn't actual raw data to support this as far as I'm concerned).

In the "good" world, a company will only make decisions so that all of the following would benefit:

1) Owners, investors, shareholders
2) Creditors
3) Employees
4) Management
5) Customers
6) Partners
7) Community

However, as explained earlier, some stakeholders (not to be confused with shareholders) hold more leverage than owners. The community and customers tend to lack power as they are divided, as are workers (which is why owners tend to disapprove of unions).

So at the end of the day, I'd say yes, it is more or less bullshit in some cases. It's a simple way of pleasing the community and possibly making everyone sleep better at night.

>>647777
It doesn't need to be said. It's both implied and actually required by law. The mission statement is more for customers and maybe to give investors an idea of how the company goes about making profit.

>>647777
There's nothing wrong with that. The liberal cancerous tumor that's in your left lung has metastasized to your head and making you believe this.

>>647784

is it really implied?

as an employee I don't where the focus would be when we have a mission statement which is kind of the opposite to 'making a profit'.

the required by law bit is absolute bs btw

>>647786
There's nothing wrong in confusion? why not be blunt and to the point, so the employees know what to focus is on to achieve the companies highest purpose - to make a profit.

I AINT NO LIBERAL FAG

>>647810
>is it really implied?
Yes.
>the required by law bit is absolute bs btw
It absolutely is. Management can be sued for not putting shareholder interests first.

>>647812
see > http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-myth-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/2014/02/11/00cdfb14-9336-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

>>647812
How is it implied when you've got shit like this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA

and articles like this http://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/inspiring-company-mission-statements

Are they all just lying to themselves?

>>647818
"corporate law simply dictates that directors are supposed to help the company prosper"
Prosper = long term increase in shareholder value

Management doesn't have to maximize shareholder value each quarter. They do have to maximize shareholder value in the long run.

>>647820
How is that relevant?

>>647822
okay fair point.

>>647826
just to show it maybe implied but there is a school of thought that is spouting out this bs against it.

>>647833
To be clear, companies do provide products and services. These products and services can be extremely beneficial and help society.

They just also have to make money if it's a for-profit business.

>>647764
It can also inspire employees. Increasing pay for employees isnt as effective as making sure a employee knows that their work is meaningful.

By giving the company a sense of purpose rather than just making shareholders money, the employees are less likely to leave.

>>647762

Look at it as one message. Instead of separating the goal of them wanting to make profit and the goal of them to bring inspiration to every athlete, combine them.

Their goal is to maximize shareholder value by bringing inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world.

I think it depends on the company and who runs it. Sure some companies are only built on the purpose to make as much dosh as possible, or to be sold at as high as possible.

Then there are some companies that have become so big, their focus isn't just to make as much profit as possible but actually be the driver for mankinds future eg. Google, Apple

In the end, much as a company and its directors might be legally obligated to generate value for the shareholders, it's not like there's only one way they can do so. Things like mission statements are an insight (though a simplistic one) into the vision that the company has for creating that value. A CEO and board of directors can justify almost any course of action in those terms, so long as the share price is improving.

There is a big difference between privately owned and publicly traded companies, of course, but it's simpler to assume that we're talking about publicly traded ones here.

>>647762
>>647762
Imagine there was a big bank whose mission was "We just want to use the clients money".
Some people on 4chan might find that funny and cool but the average dipshit (80% of the population) won't open an account at this bank because they feel offended or just think this is the only bank who does that.

That's why no company will ever grow big by being completely honest.

>libertariantard: let us legally scam people
>liberaltard: let us manage people's money
Both retards.

>>647777
>so why isn't that said, whats wrong in that?
Because wealth and social status that comes along with it/lack of it is a sensitive issue in our society.

>>648551
What do you suggest then? Anarchism?

>libertarian
>scamming
What's the connection there?

>>647762
Companies exist to enrich their owners. Public companies exist to enrich their shareholders because those shareholders collectively own the company. Private companies (like the one I work for) exist to enrich their owners.

There's nothing wrong with this. A company provides useful goods and services which people willingly pay them for. They enrich the world with their goods and services and in exchange the world makes them wealthy.

>>647777
Can't believe i'm the first to say it after three responses. Nice quads

great question, ronald coase was the first economist to tackle this and he argued its because they reduce transactions costs. that make the most sense to me.

>>648670
People don't really care here. Too bent on making dolla bills and dreaming

>>648674

that makes the least sense to me because it doesn't answer the question WHY the company exists, why are all these people doing what they're doing?

The thread summary is: for enriching the owners but for being sensitive to society they make up some bullshit statement so they don't look greedy

>>647762
Limited liability.

>>647762
one day you may know what it feels like to build something.

>>647762
Actually "maximizing shareholder value" as we think of it today wasnt a thing until the mid to late 70's.

Companies used to understand long term thinking , now heads roll with every quarters earnings report so short term greed dominates.

Pepperidge farms and such

>>647762
>Why do companies exist?

To the limit personal liability of the owners.

>>647762
>Are these actually true for companies? do they genuinely exist for those reasons? or is it just marketing bs?

Yes to both. It depends on the leadership and at what level you ask the question. Most management and executives believe, are trying to believe, or trying to convince others to believe. It is important to believe in an idea bigger than one's self or team. That belief is how amazing things get done.

Regular rank and file line employees don't give a shit, usually.

Hell no. Its all about perception. If a company can be perceived as compassionate and caring, then people will buy from them, which will raise profits, which will raise salaries, which is why there are companies. If companies rsally cared about society as a whole, then they would lower their profit margins so more people could bemefit from their product, but they wont becaisd it all about da monehh

Google
>DO NO EVIL
buys Boston dynamics, a military robot company

>>650475
Well.. yeah. Google wants to build robots, and a robotics company would probably have some good IP it work with.