Imagine you’re the CEO of a publicly traded corporation that is legally required to maximize profits for shareholders. Do you
A) choose an option that will earn less gross profit or
B) choose the option that will earn more?
If you chose “A” because you’re a good person and not a greedy capitalist, congratulations. You’ve just been fired as CEO and the major shareholders just picked a replacement who will choose the second option.
Revenue growth down from 3% to 2% is significant, especially considering that’s an even bigger hit to growth in profits. They want to make their investors happy, they have a perfectly reasonable PR cover to raise their prices by a few dollars a month, so they’ll do it. What part of this is confusing?
The guild then compared these costs to companies’ annual revenues and calculated the percentage that these costs would represent compared to those profits. The costs would account for 0.091 percent of Disney’s revenue, 0.214 of Netflix’s, 0.108 percent of Warner Bros. Discovery’s, 0.148 percent of Paramount Global’s, 0.028 percent of NBC Universal’s and 0.006 percent of Amazon’s, the WGA claims.
Are you really going to claim that 0.214% less revenue justifies a price hike?
one of their large investors saying “hey, hike prices” justifies a price hike. A profit reduction equal to .214% of revenue (and other concessions that could hurt the company in other ways) is far more than the amount of justification they need.
They will have higher overhead from the writers demands, that cost is usually passed onto consumers
Bullshit. What they have to pay to the writers is minuscule compared to their profits. They’re giving up less than 1% of their revenue.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/wga-strike-union-estimates-how-much-deal-would-cost-1235493055/
I’m just telling you how it works, man.
Gotta show quarter over quarter growth. You don’t have to like it, but don’t take it out on me
They will still have that growth. Just a fraction of a percent less. And they are using that to justify raising their prices.
Imagine you’re the CEO of a publicly traded corporation that is legally required to maximize profits for shareholders. Do you
A) choose an option that will earn less gross profit or
B) choose the option that will earn more?
If you chose “A” because you’re a good person and not a greedy capitalist, congratulations. You’ve just been fired as CEO and the major shareholders just picked a replacement who will choose the second option.
Revenue growth down from 3% to 2% is significant, especially considering that’s an even bigger hit to growth in profits. They want to make their investors happy, they have a perfectly reasonable PR cover to raise their prices by a few dollars a month, so they’ll do it. What part of this is confusing?
Again, less than 1%. Read the article.
Here, I’ll even paste the relevant part:
Are you really going to claim that 0.214% less revenue justifies a price hike?
Are you new to the idea of corporations?
Does “corporation does something that isn’t illegal” equal “justifiable?”
does “corporation does something @flyingsquid would prefer it didn’t do” equal “unjustifiable?”
one of their large investors saying “hey, hike prices” justifies a price hike. A profit reduction equal to .214% of revenue (and other concessions that could hurt the company in other ways) is far more than the amount of justification they need.
I guess your definition of ‘justified’ is much more capitalistic than mine.