Quote:
Originally Posted by RHWright
This may just be semantics, but I think there is a difference between "bean-counters" and "knowledgeable staff who keep a business financially sound."
Bean-counters are the ones that say, for example, "We could be more profitable if we outsource editing." Without regard to the quality of the product. Not that editing can't be done in-house and still make a profit*, but more profit is better right? Quality be damned!
*Full disclosure: I have no knowledge of the economics of in-house vs. outsourced editing, I'm just using it as a hypothetical example of quality being a largely dismissed factor in the bean-counter mentality.
To a certain extent, some bean-counterism is needed in large organizations due to scaling issues. A mom 'n' pop burger stand that cuts back from 2 to 1 pickle (costing .01*) on a burger, selling 10000 burgers a year, would shave $100 off their costs. McDonald's,selling 23,652,000,000 hamburgers per year, would save $236,520,000. Even with profits of ~$5B, that's still 4% on just one little thing.
*Another theoretical for example. I have no idea about actual food costs, and I am sure they are different for single-unit and multi-unit organizations.
Big businesses need to look for ways to save on little things, because the impact scales up to considerable costs.
Small businesses have more wiggle room, it seems, as long as their overall financials are good. They need someone good to keep an eye on costs to keep them profitable, but you see a lot less bean-counting and more passion about quality.
Every big business I've ever seen will accept lower quality (if it does not significantly impact sales) if it means increased profits. Not the difference between being profitable or not, just the pursuit of maximum profits.
But I'm one of those wackos who sees an important distinction between achieving a reasonable profit as part of overall business goals and pursuing maximum profits as the primary focus. |
Yes, to paraphrase Robert Pirsig, it's that focus on Quality that makes the difference.
Maybe "beancounter" isn't quite the term for those who are seeking to wring a business dry, maximise short-term profit, and then disappear into the horizon with full personal pockets when the short-termism finally busts the business as a whole...
So, perhaps the intentions of the "beancounter" are crucial - whether a genuine intent to look after the business long-term, sustainably...(which would entail looking after authors/readers in the publishing business)....or just an attempt to mine a decade or two of unsustainable profit from a business that will then predictably flounder.
A bit like modern politicians, who are too afraid to think long-term, and plan policy correspendingly...because their eye is on the short-term profits that come through re-election...
And then, as with banking when Quality was thrown out the window...there is the problem of Quantum Beans...(derivatives etc)...Beans which are spoken of as Real, but which do not exist as such...
Magic Beans, like those Jack sold his cow for, and grew a Beanstalk from...are probably more "real" than these Quantum Beans...
I think politics/banking/publishing...and all in the same sort of 30 year time frame...could be shown (by anyone interested in taking up the project!)...to have floundered on the same Rocks of short-term thinking/aborting of Quality to chase quick unsustainable profit - and worship of some invisible Quantum Bean only the "initiated" can see.