In a recent New Yorker Magazine (August 12/19, 2013) I noticed a two page advertisement that struck me - the ad was so drab, so unispired, so gray, so boring - something was suspicious about it.
The ad was a total turn off for the product that the ad was allegedly "promoting" - showing flashlight batteries in a schizoid graffic? Huh?
Could a Corporation actually have an incentive to "promote" the FAILURE of one of it's products in order to maximize profits?
Why not?
A corporation's actions are not judged by whether the action is humane, ethical, fair, civilized, or civicly beneficial. A corporations actions are not judged by whether the actions are "reasonable" in terms of human being's usual understanding of "reasonable".
A corporation's actions are judged by whether the actons are profitable.
A complete disconnect between what is "reasonable" (as reasonable is used between people's actions with one another) is not "crazy" for a corporaton.
A corporation is never crazy or unreasonable if the actions of the corporation are designed to, or do, promote profit.
General Electric owned the patent to the compact flourescent light bulb - and mothballed the patent for the 21 years of the patent in order to maximise the profits of GE's incandescent light bulb factory production.
General Motors crushed all their batter powered electric cars in California [1] rather than allow the cars to remain in use.
RCA scuttled their own laboratories research into LCD televison displays in order to preserve RCA's cathode ray tube television display production.
How 'bout it folks - have you seen adversing meant to terminate the production of a corporaton's own product?
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Chevy-Volt-ad-from-New-Yorker-Mag-P1630964.jpg [2] | 34.82 KB |
