| |
In article <G8J3nH.7Ct@lugnet.com>,
Tomas Clark <tomas.clark@america.lego.com> wrote:
> I've worked for more than one company where the bottom line really was the
> only concern -- some companies are proud to say that, and in some cases it
> makes sense. But I don't think LEGO would have gotten as far as it has if it
> had been one of those companies. On the other hand, I don't think LEGO would
> have gotten anywhere at all if it had ignored the bottom line. As a
> business, LEGO is interesting to me because it's one of many companies
> trying to balance financial concerns with quality, creativity, and a set of
> values. I may not always agree with the values, and I may wince sometimes at
> the financial concerns, but I still have to admire the balancing act.
And let's face it: profit has to be a primary motive in any company. It
doesn't matter how altruistic you are, how much good you do, or how
right you are-- if you don't turn a profit, you only get to do it once.
Even though LEGO has no shareholders to report to, they're no exception
to this rule, the resources of the company are limited, and if they are
not used to make profit, then the company will die. The bottom line
_has_ to be an issue.
-JDF
--
J.D. Forinash ,-.
foxtrot@cc.gatech.edu ( <
The more you learn, the better your luck gets. `-'
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Let's be realistc
|
| (...) Honestly, I think that many of us who are still "inside" TLC can relate to this worry. It's a very good point and I'm glad you brought it up. With any company -- from a restaurant to a multinational corporation -- it's a little difficult to (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
