- This topic has 47 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Dave Jay
<br>
I think you may both be wrong, because business is all about getting a cut.
I agree, but it involves adding value in return.
Some people seem to think that all business is is buying at a lower price and selling at a higher one.
Businesses that I’ve worked with have failed, by and large for the following reasons,
Lack of Planning <br>Under Funding <br>Under Handed Customers <br>Under Estimation of, day to day business costs and the cost of finance. <br>Lack of WILL on behalf of company directors to compete. <br>Business Taxes.
Dave, I would lump the following into "poor business model":
Lack of Planning, Under Funding, Under Estimation of, day to day business costs and the cost of finance, Business Taxes (these are inevitable and, therefore, should have been planned for in the business model).
And under "bad management": Lack of WILL on behalf of company directors to compete.
That leaves underhand customers.
I would say that this is bad fortune but only accounts for a small minority of business failures.
Steve
Steve, business models are only as good as the information that they are based on. A poor business model will usually be based on incomplete information, what was known at the time it was written.
You are correct of course when you say that only a small minority of failures come from Under Handed Customers but when the minority are companies like Enron .. they tend to affect more people than their minority status would suggest.
Steve, business models are only as good as the information that they are based on. A poor business model will usually be based on incomplete information, what was known at the time it was written.
True.
However, how much of that is down to the information being impossible to obtain and how much of it is down to relying on speculation instead of doing the legwork?
Steve
In my experience, people in general, like to believe their own bull $hit and when they are securing funds on their own property, banks tend to not really care. If you fail or not because their money, plus fees is recoverable.
But when there is more investment being offered and there is risk on behalf of potential investors then, the leg work must be done, several times over.
Well said, Hoofski.
We shouldn’t be thinking about our lives or the way the world is headed.
We should just keep shopping, that’ll make us happy.
And if we ever feel the need to discuss something, we can talk about celebrities.
So, what does everyone think? Is Tom Cruise gay or not?
Steve
Neither did I sharkboy .. I don’t believe in charity or public mourning, it’s like shelf flagellation.
Davros, I agree entirely with your statement, yet am surprised at the same time.<br>Grasshopper Posted on 9:47 pm on Feb. 23, 2005
<br>How so suprised, this whole thread is about angst and not liking companies that screw you and less fortunates over. When in reality they are only after the cash and they don’t mind what they do to get it, or who dies and suffers in the process. At least they’re more or less honest about it.
The public mourning scam is attrocious IMO. Politicians pretending to care, now that is a joke. What they are trying to do is capitalise on our empathy for the suffering of others, who as you say are just the same as we are. They’re trying to turn mourning into an industry, that they’re fronting up …
Give ’em nowt, say I.
Quote: from stevedvg on 12:50 pm on Feb. 23, 2005[br]Well said, Hoofski.
<br>At Last!!!!!!
Back to basics now.
I boycott Walkers crrisps ‘cos they pay Gary Linneker, who already has a few bob and a few well paid jobs, oodles of money in their adverts (and sometimes include the likes of Gascoigne).
Why don’t voice over adverts use cheaper impressionist rather than paying vast loads of money to the likes of Wogan?
Des
Why don’t voice over adverts use cheaper impressionist rather than paying vast loads of money to the likes of Wogan?
Because they could be open to legal action.
Tom Waits sued someone succesfully for using a soundalike a number of years ago.
American law is obviously different to British law, but similar laws must exist here.
Otherwise, why pay Beckham to advertise boots if could just mock up a picture so it looks like he’s wearing the boots and use a voice impressionist to claim they’re the best?
It would be a false endorsement and must surely be prohibited by advertising legislation.
Steve
A lot of American Democrats are very purposeful about boycotting Bushco supporters, and have websites devoted to listing their contributions, Kotkijet.
That’s what I like to see. Tories don’t need to be told what to do, nor should socialists or genuine social democrats. I won’t cop Scottish Gas at any price, and have been following Cedric’s British Gas metamorphoses closely. Same with Telecom. I’d rather be out of pocket using another supplier – fat chance with those villains!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.