Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Changes Its Mind, Will Keep Profiles Feature

Posted by timothy on from the you-can-finally-sleep-at-night dept.

xChange writes "I too was disappointed at Netflix's decision to remove the Profiles feature, and let them know via email and telephone. I was surprised to find the following email in my inbox today: 'You spoke, and we listened. We are keeping Profiles. Thank you for all the calls and emails telling us how important Profiles are. We are sorry for any inconvenience we may have caused. We hope the next time you hear from us we will delight, and not disappoint, you.' I thought that it sounded too good to be true, and went to their blog to confirm, finding this entry. Netflix decided to listen to its customers, and keep a feature that many of us find essential for our use of their service. I am surprised, and very pleased."

41 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Kudos to Netflix by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Making a bad decision is one thing. Recognizing that bad decision and listening to your customer base is another, and admirable in this day and age when fewer and fewer companies seem to care at all about the people they service.

    1. Re:Kudos to Netflix by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bad decisions are made all the time. A lot of time, companies will listen to consumers if enough of their customers scream and holler.

      Situations where you end up with bone-headed decisions get pushed through despite what the consumer thinks are places where consumers are essentially hostages anyways. For instance, Microsoft... "What? Are you just going to mass migrate all of IBM from Windows? HAH! We'd like to see you try. We'll talk to you again in a week, after you realize it's financial suicide." or "What? You're going to Linux/Mac? Who cares, we have IBM, bitch." Also, gas stations, and oil companies, "You don't want to pay $4.40 a gallon? Hah, let's see you not use gas then..."

      The later really bugs me a lot... it's like every year the oil company has been saying things like "we're only making 7% profit, which is the average for a company like ours in a different business." But what they don't see is that they're making a profit in a situation where they SHOULDN'T. Your costs are exceeding the price we're willing to pay... the only reason we still are is because we don't have a choice.

      There were a bunch of large companies in IT that imploded because they weren't making money, and this happens all over the place (where companies don't have hostage consumers), so the question should be, "do you deserve to be making 7% profit even though your model is technically failing?"

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:Kudos to Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your costs are exceeding the price we're willing to pay...

      The market says otherwise.

    3. Re:Kudos to Netflix by kidgenius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OK, what should appropriate profit margins be then? Would you rather discuss actual profit instead of a margin? Whom, and by what authority, should decide this, and with what criteria?

    4. Re:Kudos to Netflix by mdmkolbe · · Score: 3, Informative

      In a free market the economic profit should indeed tend toward 0% but the 7% you mention is accounting profit which doesn't include things like opportunity costs.

      Also, "willing to pay" doesn't mean "the price you think is fair". It means "the price at which you stop buying". It would be better termed "willing to buy". But actually that doesn't matter since a true free market actually charges less than some people's "willing to pay" price and more than other people's "willing to pay" price because some people are willing to pay more than others even though the price the item is sold at is (usually) the same for everyone. (Exceptions include coupons, student discounts and a whole host of tricks known as price descrimination.)

      ECON 101, possibly the most important course anyone who wants to have an informed political opinion could take.

    5. Re:Kudos to Netflix by prockcore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No they didn't. They tried to remove profiles because it was making upgrades to the frontend more difficult and only 3% of their users actually used the feature.

      So by removing a feature that fairly few people used, they could speed up development. That's how it benefits us, and they told us this up front.

    6. Re:Kudos to Netflix by mattack2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do have choices:
      * Mass transit/carpool
      * Bicycle/walk
      * Buy a more fuel efficient vehicle
      * Much more drastically, change jobs so you are closer to your work and can use one or more of the above.

      None of those are easy, and I admit I'm mostly just paying the higher prices too, but for a long time I've known that my next car (I drive relatively little, my first new car is 10 years old and only has around 56000 miles on it) will at the very least be a hybrid...possibly a used one.

    7. Re:Kudos to Netflix by stussymo · · Score: 4, Informative

      In ECON 101 you should have learned that the Petroleum Industry does not follow "market economy" rules. I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price. We pay what they tell us to pay because we don't have a choice. OPEC decides the price per barrel. OPEC decides how many barrels to produce each day (as a way to alter or skew the S&D curve). There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc. Sure, people are cutting down the amount they drive as much as possible, but in many cases you can't cut out a substantial amount of driving (i.e. oil consumption). I think what the original comment was saying is that due to the 'nature' of this market, the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice, the Oil companies are not forced (by normal market conditions) to increase efficiencies or compete for the lowest price per barrel. OPEC shields them from being forced to compete for consumers' monies! If a company makes a widget for $1 and the market is willing to pay $10 for that widget, then yes, the company deserves 90% profit (obviously not taking into account other costs & distrution scenarios). In this case, the consumers have a choice to buy the product and normal 'market economics' takes effect. There is no 'market economy' in oil. Period. So, do the oil companies still deserve 7% profit? It's debatable. Btw, how accurate is that 7% number? How much has the price of Oil increased over the last 10 years? Has the cost to produce and distribute oil gone up that much also....why?

    8. Re:Kudos to Netflix by mdmkolbe · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price.

      There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, etc.

      As I indicated in my post, if they are still buying the product then by definition they are willing to pay. It's called an inelastic demand and market forces work just fine there. Maybe you forgot that from ECON 101.

      I never said that Petroleum is a free market, but rather that the GGP has an incorrect understanding of "willing to pay" (which you seem to share). Petroleum is indeed a prototypical example of an oligopoly based market. However, the reasons it is not a free market have nothing to do with whether you buy gas (i.e. elasticity) and everything to do with from whom you buy gas (i.e. oligopoly). The GGP is blaming the wrong cause which is no help to anybody.

    9. Re:Kudos to Netflix by jnana · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where did you get the 3% number from?

      I'm curious because the first night that they announced profiles were disappearing, customer service initially said to many users that "only 1%" of users used profiles, and that half of those who used it were employees (don't ask how a company with less than 2,000 employees can have 0.5% of 8 million users [40,000] be employees).

      After a few hours, customer service started saying that "only 2%" of the users used profiles. And then they stopped giving numbers altogether, and the next announcement said it had nothing to do with upgrades or the backend but was being eliminated solely because users found it too complicated.

      Did you get the "only 3%" number from Netflix? I'd be seriously impressed if they changed the numbers yet again.

    10. Re:Kudos to Netflix by Abattoir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "What? Are you just going to mass migrate all of IBM from Windows? HAH! We'd like to see you try. We'll talk to you again in a week, after you realize it's financial suicide."

      Uh, that isn't really out of the question. IBM has an internal IBM-ified Red Hat Enterprise Linux distribution that any employee who wants to use that instead of Windows is welcome to.

      This has evolved over the years and when I last worked for IBM, I used it on my company-issued laptop for the last year I was there. All the IBM-required tools, like Lotus Notes and Sametime, work perfectly well. Office is handled with OpenOffice (integrated into Notes w/ version 8).

      Of any of the companies out there with a large deployment of Windows, IBM is the best postured to switch to Linux. Given IBM's contributions to the open source community and their respect of open standards, I wouldn't put it past them.

      Disclaimer: I am not an employee of or affiliated with IBM. I worked there a year ago. They might have migrated everyone to OS2 at this point, I don't know.

    11. Re:Kudos to Netflix by joshuaobrien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In ECON 101 you should have learned that the Petroleum Industry does not follow "market economy" rules. I don't think anyone in America believes they are paying less than their "willing to pay" price. We pay what they tell us to pay because we don't have a choice. OPEC decides the price per barrel.

      No. OPEC and you decide the price per barrel. By definition, nobody pays more than they are willing to, so it's reasonable to say most people are paying less than they are willing to pay. Watch the price rise next week. Watch people continue to pay.

      OPEC decides how many barrels to produce each day (as a way to alter or skew the S&D curve).

      OPEC can influence supply. Consumers control demand.

      There is no choice. We *must* drive to work, we must take our kids to the doctor, we must go to the grocery store, etc. Sure, people are cutting down the amount they drive as much as possible, but in many cases you can't cut out a substantial amount of driving (i.e. oil consumption).

      There are many alternatives you've chosen not to pursue. There are many choices you've made in the past and are now experiencing their outcomes. You decided to risk a livelihood that was exposed to the price of oil. You decided to live far from work in a city with poor public transport. You decided to live further than walking distance from the doctor and the grocery store. You made those choices and now you are paying for them. But you still have choices. Choose a more efficient car. Choose a motorcycle. Choose public transport. Choose to move closer to the grocery store. Choose to get a job closer to home. The longer you think you have no control over your life, the longer you will be at the mercy of others. But I think you'd still rather pay high fuel prices than make any real and difficult change to your life. It will be when the price gets much, much higher that you and many others will decide to change.

      I think what the original comment was saying is that due to the 'nature' of this market, the fact that the consumer doesn't have a choice, the Oil companies are not forced (by normal market conditions) to increase efficiencies or compete for the lowest price per barrel. OPEC shields them from being forced to compete for consumers' monies!

      You don't have much power to effect lower oil prices. Not even your government has much power in that regard. You can continue to rail against the evil oil companies but it won't change them. Find something else to do.

      If a company makes a widget for $1 and the market is willing to pay $10 for that widget, then yes, the company deserves 90% profit (obviously not taking into account other costs & distrution scenarios). In this case, the consumers have a choice to buy the product and normal 'market economics' takes effect. There is no 'market economy' in oil. Period. So, do the oil companies still deserve 7% profit? It's debatable. Btw, how accurate is that 7% number? How much has the price of Oil increased over the last 10 years? Has the cost to produce and distribute oil gone up that much also....why?

      It's harder and more expensive to extract oil from the ground now. There's less of it. We're finding less of it. This is all very simple stuff. The cheap oil party is over.

  2. zOMG by PakProtector · · Score: 5, Funny

    And if you should find businesses listening to their customers, be not afraid, for you are in Elysium, and already dead!

    --

    Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
    man: no entry for woman in the manual.
    "Qua!?"

  3. Isn't it a little sad ... by TechnoWeenie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that it is surprising that a company listens to its customers.

    1. Re:Isn't it a little sad ... by Maltheus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In general yes, but I'm not too surprised that Netflix is one of them. They are one of the few companies that haven't pissed me off to the point of looking for alternatives. I've always been happy with their customer service.

    2. Re:Isn't it a little sad ... by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hear hear! Netflix are one of the only big businesses I've ever dealt with that treats their customers like humans.

      I was absolutely shocked last year, when Netflix sent me a tiny postcard informing me that they were cutting my bill by $1/month.

      These days, it's a pretty standard practice to lock customers in to multi-year contracts, and not pass on any price-cuts to existing customers. Kudos to Netflix for doing the honest thing. I also move around a lot, and they don't seem to have a problem with updating my address every few months to keep track of me, or suspending my account if I leave the country for an extended period.

      Similarly, they're astonishingly trustworthy of their customers when it comes to lost or missing DVDs. If a DVD doesn't show up, or you get a bad disc (a rare occurrence, but not completely impossible), simply fill out a web form, and a new one will be on its way immediately. There's no inquisition, and no accusations of theft. They apologize and fix the problem right away.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  4. I think it's funny by tacokill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I applaud Netflix, I think it's odd/funny/sad/hilarious that we make a big deal when "companies listen to their customers".

    Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing?

    Thanks for fixing the issue, Netflix (really). I'm not trying to pick on you individually. I just find it hilarious when we write headlines about things that are supposed to happen. (cue Chris Rock jokes)

    1. Re:I think it's funny by SputnikPanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's really unfortunate that so few companies do customer service right these days. Off the top of my head I can think of only two that have provided me with exemplary customer service: Amazon and American Express. You call either with a problem and it's quickly resolved. Practically everyone else and it's like pulling teeth.

    2. Re:I think it's funny by Scutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Practically everyone else and it's like pulling teeth.

      That's because with practically everyone else, you're dealing with people who can't figure out change for a dollar. It takes 45 minutes of explaining the problem before you get to the end of their script and they escalate you to someone capable of understanding what's wrong.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    3. Re:I think it's funny by BLKMGK · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree and would add that service for my Thinkpad via Lenovo was also outstanding. I erred when I filled out the online form, they called me within an hour to clarify (operator in Texas), offered to send me a part (!) for it or let me send the machine in, included a checkbox to NOT allow them to reformat it in the shipping box, and it was fixed FAST. The DHL driver actually picked up the box with the laptop in it within hours of my calling it in as ready to be taken - at like 7:00PM. I thought sure it would be the next day so his beeping the horn in my driveway was a pleasant surprise. Oh and the laptop was fixed on the first try and NOT formatted. Wow!

      Likewise Amazon has been good. $50 coupon for my HD-DVD purchase, good service when things have gone wrong, they don't SPAM me to death, and in general do it right. Even their product recommendations are for things I might actually like instead of crap. not the cheapest but I like them - ordered a Kindle tonight actually.

      I use AMX for corporate travel. Once when stranded due to an airline FUBAR I called them. The ticket guy told me, loud enough for the AMX guy to hear, that it was too late for the agent to book the flight. The agent said in my ear "watch this" and I was ON that flight - boy was the ticket guy pissed off! AMX ain't cheap but they DO customer service WELL.

      So yeah, some companies do it right and those that do stand out and get talked about. I like many others was thrilled to see Netflix reverse on this - my SO doesn't lose her movie list as a result :-)

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    4. Re:I think it's funny by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is easily the most annoying thing about phone support.

      First the automated system asks you to enter your account number, telephone number, or what have you. Then you get to sit on hold while they scare up a human.

      Then you get to the human. What's the first thing they ask? "What is your account number?" My god, I could just kill them!

      But it doesn't stop there! First-level support is useless, so you get past them and they transfer you along to someone more useful. Once you arrive, what's the first thing you hear? You guessed it! "What is your account number?"

      Doesn't this repetition cost these companies valuable time and thus money? Is it really that hard to make a support system that will hold on to my information as my call is transferred through your organization?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  5. Damn by morari · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was really hoping that tons of people would end their subscriptions over this. I wouldn't have to fight to receive my own rentals then. Seeing "very long wait" beside so many films in my queue is awfully annoying.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  6. Coke II by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hahahha. Sorry for the laugh, but I thought the whole shebang was a Coke II ploy from the get-go.

    I.E., Netflix was never going to cancel profiles. Instead, they pretend they are going to do so, which brings attention to the fact that they offer profiles, unlike one of their competitors.

    Just like Coca-Cola introduced the "New Coke" in the 80s simply to draw attention to their brand, meanwhile planning all along to reintroduce "Coke Classic"... which eventually became the only Coke available. (Though I'm still not sure if the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup had anything to do with it.)

    Well, what can I say, Netflix... it appears to have worked. As a Blockbuster Online subscriber, I'm thinking of changing to Netflix because of profiles, which I wasn't aware of. It turns out the advantage of Blockbuster (being able to pick up rentals/drop them off at B&M stores) hasn't been heplful to me, so maybe I'll switch over.

    Good jorb on the marketing ploy.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Coke II by statemachine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure why you were modded troll.

      Saying you're going to take away a feature, then backtracking, does not make you a hero.

      Other analogies:
      1) "Unleaded" gasoline. When unleaded gasoline came on the market, it cost more than leaded, even though lead was an additive. But the refineries acted like it was some new process to "remove" lead.

      2) When a US federal budget is proposed that cuts funding for a program, then in the final spending bill funding is restored to the previous year's level (which may itself have stagnated for many years), and Congress acts like it added funding. What really happened is that funding still gets cut because it doesn't get adjusted for inflation.

      While it's still news (because it negates their previous announcement), Netflix does not deserve to come out looking good. At best, it's neutral, because they're simply doing their job and nothing happened!

    2. Re:Coke II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought the whole shebang was a Coke II ploy from the get-go.

      I used to work there, and I assure you that that was not the case. Profiles caused pain with almost every product development / feature planning session we/they ever had, and I'm surprised that it got a reprieve given the tiny fraction of the customer base that uses/used it.

    3. Re:Coke II by statemachine · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lead was added because older engines benefitted from the lead coating. It had to do with high compression ratios and unhardened blocks. I found an article that seems to support my conclusion that lead was simply added, and not some necessary component for refining oil.

      Tetra-Ethyl Lead: The End of an Era for a Well-Known Molecule

      But I also learned something new. I didn't know NASCAR was burning leaded gasoline as recently as last year.

    4. Re:Coke II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think he was modded troll because he was spreading a ridiculous urban legend.

    5. Re:Coke II by noidentity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Unleaded" gasoline. When unleaded gasoline came on the market, it cost more than leaded, even though lead was an additive. But the refineries acted like it was some new process to "remove" lead.

      The cost of something isn't just production; it's also affected by demand and one-time costs of ramping up production. By the above logic, I should be able to get milk in the store without vitamin D added (but otherwise just the same product) for cheaper, or orange juice concentrate in an 11.5 oz container for less than the 12 oz container.

    6. Re:Coke II by statemachine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The urban legend was the "conspiracy" part. Coca-cola was just merely incompetent. The facts are that they switched formulas, then they switched back to the "original" formula, except that cane sugar was dropped for high fructose corn syrup.

      Despite what Ms. Mikkelson says about blind taste-testing, there were still many people who could tell the difference and didn't like New Coke. I could always tell the fast-food joints that had New Coke over Coke Classic. I'd order a "coke" and in an unmarked container would be the beverage. Because I was in a drive-thru, I wouldn't know ahead of time or see the name on the tap. New Coke had a definite weird aftertaste.

      Pepsi is another that claims people can't taste the difference between Coca-cola and Pepsi. But, I was able to taste the difference when I was at one of their "taste-test booths", with a cold, too.

      The problem with these taste-test results is that I think there are a lot of people who can't taste the difference between X and a cow's backside. Can I prove that? No. But I know that at least for me (and a few of my friends), it wouldn't be an issue.

      And yes, I can taste the difference between cane sugar and HFCS, too.

    7. Re:Coke II by MerryOtter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd like to understand why Profiles should cause any pain. It's all a database, right? How hard could it be?

    8. Re:Coke II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's all a database, right? How hard could it be?

      Oh, if only there were a "+1, Sadly Hilarious" moderation. I'm guessing you're not a database programmer.

    9. Re:Coke II by CTachyon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I understand it -- and I may be off base here -- when leaded gasoline was phased out, fuel refineries had to stop using cheap lead as a substitute for expensive octane.

      "Pure" gasoline, before additives, is a hodgepodge of various no- and low-branch alkanes that averages around 6 to 7 carbon atoms per molecule. But linear heptane burns a bit too fast for the liking of a lot of engines, and hydrocarbons with even slight branching burn much faster than that. Enter "octane", which burns slower than "pure" gasoline and autoignites at a higher temperature, thus preventing premature detonation, or "knocking". ("Octane" is in quotes because, in the context of gasoline, "octane" is a function of the burn speed, not the number of carbon atoms. "Octane" doesn't strictly mean 8-carbon linear alkane, as it can also include heavier molecules with a small amount of branching.)

      Raising the "octane rating" requires a more involved refining process, because the alkanes in the gasoline-diesel-kerosene spectrum all have very similar boiling points and are hard enough to distill cleanly when making "pure" gasoline. 8-carbon molecules are toeing the line, and heavier ones push pretty solidly into diesel territory. As an educated guess, refining high-octane gasoline probably cuts into diesel yields and reduces overall profits. It probably also requires a more expensive hydrocarbon cracking process, because branches are even less desirable in high-octane gasoline than they are in "pure" gasoline, and a lot of catalytic cracking processes are quite happy to spew out branched hydrocarbons.

      Presumably, the reason "regular unleaded" gasoline is more expensive than "regular leaded" is the same reason that high-octane grades of gasoline are called "premium", and priced accordingly.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  7. alright by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Congrats to those who wrote in about this. Now we just need to convince them not to charge a higher price to those of us who rent Blu-rays.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  8. To fast for my own good. by heresyoftruth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I appreciate that they kept profiles. I found them invaluable. Unfortunately, when I was told they were going away, my husband and I painstakingly moved his profile to a different account. Instead of a 3/3 = 6 account, we now have two 3 disk accounts. Damn for being so quick and efficient, I guess.

    --
    Nothing hides evidence like a stew. -Gus Pratt
  9. Re:woot by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was pleasantly surprised to find the same email (and submitted to Slashdot) on this. I look forward to continuing to use this feature.

    Same here. I look forward to continuing to use the slashdot submit feature, too!

  10. Netflix is a great company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every time I've ever had a problem with Netflix, namely receiving broken disks or having disks stolen/lost in the mail, they've always sent me new disks right away, without any fuss.

    Once when they continued to charge me after I'd canceled (poor student, blah blah), I was forced to email their billing support. Amazingly, my email was answered within about an hour by a *real person*. No form emails, no PR bullshit, just a terse plain-text email. This blew my mind. Not only were they polite, but they refunded my money the same day.

    That said, this doesn't surprise me at all. Netflix has always been a pleasure to do business with.

    (I don't work for them or anything. Hell, I'm not even a customer anymore. They're just one of the few companies that I don't mind giving my money to.)

  11. Re:Good PR? by brjndr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    2. Announce feature will not be pulled.

  12. Rather than reply individually to multiple posts.. by porcupine8 · · Score: 4, Informative
    For those looking for the Profiles feature, he says in the blog (linked to in some comment above) that they had already deactivated adding new Profiles for anyone who didn't have them already, and it will be back up in a couple weeks.

    For those who have them already, the rest of us don't have an "Account Profiles" link in on our Your Account page. I guess we'll get one in a couple weeks.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  13. Re:So... by Chrismith · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, that link just takes me to my account page -- I think that since they were going to cancel the feature, they removed the profiles capability from accounts that didn't already have it set up (so that people didn't start using it just before it was removed). This makes me think that this is probably a real case of backpedaling due to customer feedback, and not just a marketing ploy. If they were trying to push profiles, there'd be a big link on everyone's account page.

  14. Stupid. by Trelane · · Score: 4, Informative
    So they'll bring back a feature that is used by "1-2 percent" (http://blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/2008/06/25/netflix-courts-heartbreak-with-end-of-profiles) of their customers. But they won't provide "instant watching" to Mac and Linux users (5-10% of the global userbase, let alone the tech-savvy Netflix base), rather they'll charge the same price for fewer features?

    FAIL. You may now no longer claim that Linux or Mac marketshare is negligible.

    --

    --
    Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  15. Re:Isn't that what they are supposed to be doing? by hazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, they're supposed to be maximizing shareholder profits.

    Actually, their fiduciary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. Adidas could make a lot of profit (for a while) by firing most of their employees and licensing their brand for use on all kinds of things like power drinks, car air fresheners, condoms, and breath mints. This would, however, diminish the brand as well as the value of the company to the shareholders.

    While value and profitability are closely linked, they are not the same thing.