Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

There is a very big difference between making a new business successful by hiring a lot of people and making a struggling old business profitable by firing a lot of people.

Part of that difference is that the former - creating opportunity - is much, much harder.

When a business gets into the mindset that the only solution is retreat - quite literally, "losing and laughing" - it won't be long before another round of layoffs and store closures are necessary. And another.

"Players win, and winners play". If you are not playing to win then you have no business playing at all. It is true of games, and it is true of business as well. Business strategies predicated around inevitably losing to their competitors are the very epitome of failure.

American investors like these fail strats because they increase profits in the short run. But those short-sighted fail strats have done this country some of the most grievous harm. You cannot fire your way to increased market share, let alone international dominance, and the implication that is what this "businessman" believes instantly disqualifies him as capable of understanding the problems of the American economy.

After all, what brand was the last pizza you ordered? Guessing it wasn't Godfathers.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I look at it from a different angle.

When Cain became the CEO for Godfather's Pizza the chain was on the verge of bankruptcy. Cain changed the marketing campaign, the menu and made cuts to the number of stores in order to get to a point where the company could be managed and could grow again. If we're going to say "half the company lost its jobs" then we can also say, "half of the company kept their jobs because Cain kept it from completely failing." Since the era of Cain, the franchise gained a couple hundred more stores (meaning more people got their jobs back) and another company bought the chain. Just because Godfather's Pizza didn't overtake Domino's, Pizza Hut or Papa Johns doesn't mean Godfather's wasn't a success through sacrifice, cuts and change of strategy.

In contrast, Obama (when faced with a jobs and budget crisis) has increased spending, hasn't created jobs, and continues kicking the same can down the same road. His 'jobs bill' was based on spending another 400B but that died in the senate. Remember how Moody's said we had to slow spending, create jobs and get our deficit under way? We're projecting a 1.3T deficit AGAIN, unemployment is still high and spending (if Obama has his way) is still on course to eclipse Bush's (in half the time).

It most definitely does. If you're not playing to win, you have no business playing.

What has made Domino's successful?
-Quality
-Speed
-Menu items that appeal to consumers
-Promotion/market placement
-Online ordering
-Exploitation of illegal immigrants (but come on everyone does that)

Is there a REASON he couldn't have done what Dominos did?

Is there a REASON McCain couldn't have come in and said, "Hey, let's play to win. Let's think big. Let's come out punching, with new product lines, stuff people want to buy, and new ways of getting our name and our products to our customers"?

Instead he played to lose. And that's why I doubt anyone on this board has had a Godfathers Pizza half as often as a Dominos. And it's why he has no place opinionating on American business.

Counter-example: Steve Jobs. What if, when he took over Apple, he tried to win by endlessly trimming the company, retreating back into their stronghold of video editors, elementary school teachers and fanboys? How long till that stronghold would be taken by storm by Linux/Windows? Instead...he came out punching...reinvented the wheel...and put Apple back on the map.



Because Moodys knows all right? I mean they TOTALLY knew what was up with Enron, Lehman, BoA home loans, etc, right? Because they're holding the country hostage, they must be right, no? Stockholm syndrome much?

A siege mentality is self-defeating. Investment is the only road to growth and prosperity.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You're right, we want someone in office who wasn't successful at anything beforehand.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but honestly reading McCain's CV, which I'd never browsed before (former industry lobbyist? former member of the Fed?) leaves me fully convinced he is the wrongest possible man for the job.

Success? Do we say that sort of "success" has put this country on a path of "success"?

Is McCain a story of American success or a story of American failure?

As one who advocated invading Iraq? Who has played an active and directing role in the Fed's malfeasance? Who has been an active contributor to the corruption and cronyism in DC? Who now we learn knows no way to grow profits but by cutting jobs?

I don't know about you but that seems damn like failure to me. And mind you: I didn't form my opinion until I read what Jubber linked.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

It's Cain, not McCain. Do you even know who the fuck we're talking about?



So, in your mind, the only person who 'wins' is the person who is sitting at the top of the industry and all the other competitors (who do well enough in their own right or regional markets) are the losers? In my mind, a company that is turning a decent profit, is capable of growing and has a demand is winning. Since Cain turned Godfather's pizza around the company has been turning a profit and it's been growing.

How did he turn Godfather's Pizza around? Well, he said he wanted to trim the menu so they could focus on Pizza and the quality and ingredients of the pizza. He also over-hauled his marketing and advertising by pitting different advertising companies against each other to get the best bang for his buck. Lastly, he cut the stores that weren't doing well in their respective markets so they wouldn't be a financial burden. (I'm not going to entertain why he didn't use online ordering...) Essentially, Cain went into Godfather's and did exactly what you suggested he should do. He went in, took control, saved the company, started it growing again, etc.

Consider the story of Five Guys. I was eating it long before most people on this forum ever tried it because it was a regional success. Five Guys opened somewhere in the DC area and then it started growing from there. Now, two decades later, they have hundreds of stores all around the US and in Canada and they're pulling half a billion in annual sales (as of 2009). They're not McDonalds (who is constantly re-inventing themselves) and they don't have stores in dozens of countries around the world... but you can't tell me Five Guys isn't a successful business because people might not have tried it.

Are Five Guys and Godfather's Pizza at the top of their respective markets? No, they're not... but that doesn't mean they can't get there. If they had your mentality they's say, "Well, after a couple years we haven't made it to the top yet so I guess we should just close shop!" Burger King, McDonalds, Pizza Hut and Domino's all sprung up in the late 1950's. They've had a lot more time to establish a global dominance than Godfather's Pizza (mid 1970's) and Five Guys (mid 1980's)... but that doesn't mean the 'winners' in the market's are always going to retain first place and that doesn't mean your 'losers' can't fill that void, should it ever come about.


In the early 1990's Apple was in trouble. Microsoft was able to deliver a less costly product while Apple continued to have an expensive machine. Apple was losing market share rapidly and other vendors were jumping into the fray. The company, in the middle of the 1990's was losing over a billion dollars a year and their stocks were falling to $14/share (from $70/share). To cover the cost of the losses, Apple tried suing Microsoft over the GUI and they also cut 1/3 of the payroll (meaning people got laid off). When Jobs eventually made his return they got things going again with the iMac and the iPod. (Let's not forget about the little boost Microsoft gave to Apple in 1997.)

Your example of Jobs is much to the tune of Cain - man comes into a failing company, changes are made, image is re-invented and the company turns itself around.

PS: Moody's doesn't know everything... but they know how to change the rating of a country if a country isn't performing. They've done it once to us... they're warning they'll do it again. In your opinion, is Moody's wrong about the American economy - do we really have nothing to worry about on our current track?

PPS: You guys that don't like Cain are racists. (lolol)

Do some reading about Romney's Bain Capital.

Dvergar /
Quisling

You are making the choice to narrow your field of inquiry such that the response satisfies your preconceived notions. The question of why he decided not to innovate is worth engaging, because it is innovation, improvement in product quality, that is the POINT of enterprise.

I am not saying the winner must take all, or that there is no such thing as winning short of taking all. I am saying that there is no such thing as the losing winner.

Jobs didn't just cut, cut, cut, and he didn't back Apple into a corner. He innovated. It's apples and oranges, and if you can't see that then further discussion on the subject is useless. If you want another good positive and negative example, I'd offer Nintendo as a positive example and RCA as a negative example.



If they are threatening to do us harm because we are not doing what they want, declare them in contempt of the state and revoke their business license. Simple as that.

If terrorists threaten to mobilize hordes to destroy America, we take action. I don't see why we should humor an institution that is extorting the American people. If we didn't indulge blackmail during the World Wars then why should we do so now?

In answer to your question, "are they wrong about the economy", I think it is a meaningless one because they don't give a damn about the economy one way or the other.

What they are doing is extortion plain and simple. If we give into the extortion, their revenues from corporate loans go up as taxes and public services are cut. If we don't, they raise rates and they get more money from federal debt. They have no interest in what is good for the American economy in the long run, only how they can exploit the American people, and therefore, their analysis is not driven by the actual condition and needs of the economy.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

...And as I've told you, Cain made a point to improve quality (of pizza and ingredients) and re-invent the image through marketing. Pizza joints don't need to sell burritos, sea food, ice cream or hamburgers... they need to sell Pizza. They need to sell GOOD pizzas. That's about it and there doesn't have to be any 'innovation' other than creating new pizzas.

From what I have been reading the menu of Godfather's was a little too ambitious and that's part of the reason it went down - they were trying to do too much instead of being great at making pizzas. With a little down-sizing and refocusing, the company turned around. If you've ever watched Chef Ramsay on Kitchen Nightmares then you'd see this is a common problem with failing restaurants.

Who says he didn't innovate? He changed their methods of operation and their menu. Just because he didn't make the one change (one that is very recent for both Pizza Hut and Dominos at that, and he hasn't worked at Godfather's in who knows how many years) you bring up doesn't mean there wasn't innovation and QA going on.



Then explain how the company is/was "losing," when the changes made turned the company around and made it profitable.





No, there wasn't any 'cut-cut-cut,' Jobs apparently did it the same way Cain did, all at once. One-third of the payroll, gone, no matter how you might like to attempt to spin it, is a pretty big cut.



Wow...just...wow. Do you even have any idea what Moody's does? This isn't an issue of 'them hurting us because we don't do what they want,' that's the way a fucking child thinks. It's a matter of an institution that assesses the risks of loaning to governments stating that if we continue on our current course, their assessments of the risk of loaning to us are going to change negatively. It's not what 'Moody's is threatening to do to us,' it's what we are doing to ourselves.



You're right, their only concern is providing accurate risk assessment for their clients. Suggesting that we force them to commit fraud (by lying about the state of our finances by not downgrading us when warranted) or face charges of treason is the height of boobery.



Moody's is doing nothing to extort anyone. Their business is risk assessment. They aren't telling us our ratings will go down if we don't give them some sort of ransom, they're telling us that our behavior is risky and that if it continues their assessment of our situation is going to be downgraded. I'm not sure how you can say that "they have no interest in what is good for the American economy in the long run" when what is not good for us in the long term is continued deficit spending, which is what they're warning us against.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

so you don't like moodys because they're out for their own financial gain, yet you damn us for thinking the global warming alarmists are doing the same?

Can we really compare running a pizza chain to running the United States? Just wondering. Also, Obama was a senator long before he became president, I never really understood where the whole "he had no experience" thing came from. I can't recall a single person having presidential experience when running for office, save those who are incumbents (and of course Grover Cleveland). This guy is quite successful, but has no political experience. Yes I know, I guess that means he'll be different and stand up to those mean nasties yes? I don't think so - I think that if he gets into office, he'll realize he might have bitten off way more than he could chew (kinda like Obama - he wanted to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan until he got into office and realized how tough it would be).

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

It's experience as a chief executive of a large organization, so I'd say yes. Nothing is ever going to compare with being president, but there are corollaries. I hope we're not saying that a man with a masters degree who has successfully steered several large businesses is lacking the kind of experience we'd want in a president, because when people say that sort of thing about Obama (at least about the education, since he doesn't have any of the other experience), they're racists.



He was a senator for roughly two years, during which time he did what, aside from show up for votes? When he was in office in Illinois, he had a habit of voting "present." If I were in a position where I routinely showed up to avoid making decisions or accepting any responsibility/accountability, would you say I really developed any type of experience while serving in such a capacity?



Which is why it's such a big deal when (former) governors run, because they have experience in a similar role.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

What I got from this is that if Ramsay did better in the private sector than Cain (which he did), Gordon Ramsay should run for president.

EDIT: The only thing that Cain has on Obama is running a pizza place. Starbucks is a WAY bigger company than Godfather's Pizza (never heard of it before this). Does this mean that the Starbucks CEO is more qualified to run than Cain?

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Maybe. Did the person in question start Starbucks from scratch and turn it into the monster it is, save it from bankruptcy then turn it into the monster it is, or just get the position once SB was established and ride the status quo?