Forbes: US Publishers 2017 results

[frahse]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I must say, I don't really see the difference you are trying to draw. That's just the way corporations work.

Then I can only say, go in peace, and,

May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face;
the rains fall soft upon your fields and until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of His hand.

[darryl]

According to this post on Nate's Blog this report is basically useless.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I don't really see your point. Woolworth transformed itself into the Foot Locker. That really doesn't sound like suits ignoring change to me.

Sometimes when you have made a mistake or misinterpreted something, particularly when it is obvious, it is a good idea to politely acknowledge this and perhaps even thank the relevant person for pointing out your error. We are all only human.

Just a suggestion.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Sometimes when you have made a mistake or misinterpreted something, particularly when it is obvious, it is a good idea to politely acknowledge this and perhaps even thank the relevant person for pointing out your error. We are all only human.

Just a suggestion.

What mistake are you talking about? That I misunderstood that he was talking about the execs rather that the suit making division? If so, yes you have a point. I should have acknowledged that. My bad.

Do you mean the other point about rebranding and spinning off foot locker? I really don't understand why he thinks that's different or significant. It really does happen all the time in the business world.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

At one time (at least some) corporate heads took pride in the number of employees they hired and how well they treated them. Now they brag about how much they've reduced their workforce and enhanced their corporate bottom line. (Often right before going under, selling off the pieces to vultures and sucking out the marrow from the bones.)

That's certainly true enough, but as far as I can tell that certainly is not the case here. They simply rebranded one of their divisions. It seems to be quite successful and employees quite a few people.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

What mistake are you talking about? That I misunderstood that he was talking about the execs rather that the suit making division? If so, yes you have a point. I should have acknowledged that. My bad.

Do you mean the other point about rebranding and spinning off foot locker? I really don't understand why he thinks that's different or significant. It really does happen all the time in the business world.

The former, which you have now rectified. Thank you. I don't know enough about the latter to have formed any opinion.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's certainly true enough, but as far as I can tell that certainly is not the case here. They simply rebranded one of their divisions. It seems to be quite successful and employees quite a few people.

No, they didn't simply "rebrand" one of their divisions. As far as I can tell, Foot Locker was not rebranded at all. What they did was create a new company and siphoned off the money-making divisions from the old company. In other words, they were preparing to let Woolworth's (proper) founder, while they built a life-boat to watch it sink. They didn't fix (or attempt to fix) the problems with Woolworth's, they gave up on it. This kept the suits happy, but the employees and (probably) the investors in the original F.W. Woolworth Company were screwed.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

No, they didn't simply "rebrand" one of their divisions. As far as I can tell, Foot Locker was not rebranded at all. What they did was create a new company and siphoned off the money-making divisions from the old company. In other words, they were preparing to let Woolworth's (proper) founder, while they built a life-boat to watch it sink. They didn't fix (or attempt to fix) the problems with Woolworth's, they gave up on it. This kept the suits happy, but the employees and (probably) the investors in the original F.W. Woolworth Company were screwed.

Hum, that's not what the linked article said. It said the company first renamed themselves Venator Group, and then Foot Locker, Inc. The department store had a pretty long run, from 1879 to 1997. Not many companies last that long.

[taosaur]

I've sacrificed too many IQ points to Forbes' writers in the past. Those links don't get clicked anymore.