e-limbo, e-zine de informacion y analasis de modos de vida actual
 
19.08.2017 / Sesión no Iniciada 
_Economía

 _enviar articulo

e-mail emisor
e-mail receptor
Ayúdanos a evitar contactos automáticos
Anti Spam
Texto
 

En estos tiempos de hipercomunicación bastaría la invitación de enviar a un amigo cualquiera de los textos que consideres interesantes algo redundante: demasiada comunicación, demasiados textos y , en general, demasiado de todo.
Es posible que estemos de acuerdo... pero cuando encuentras algo interesante en cualquier sitio, la red, la calle, tu casa, o un lugar escondido y remoto, compartirlo no sólo es un acto (acción, hecho) de amistad o altruismo, también es una manera de ahorrar tiempo a los demás (y de que te lo ahorren a ti (si eres afortunado) a costa del tiempo que tu has podido derrochar (emplear) y el gustazo de mostrar que estuviste ahí (o donde fuera ) un poco antes (el tiempo ya no es más el que era).
Comparte con tus conocidos aquello que encuentras, es evolución.
America's most-hated companies
23-12-05 Revista de Prensa  

 
From The Economist print edition

A roll-call of commercial vilification

AMERICA loves a winner. Almost every business magazine and trade publication compiles its annual list of the fastest-growing or the finest-managed or the farthest-seeing companies in its universe. But what happens at the other end of the scale? Which are America's most hated companies, and why? None claims the title publicly, yet some must deserve it. This deeply unscientific stab at an answer relies mainly on a searching of databases, a trolling of blogs, and conversations with business-school professors across the country. Polling and focus-group data have been sought but not always obtained. “Our clients would so like not to be included in this project”, explained one corporate-reputation consultant. Any conclusions which may inadvertently be reached should be viewed as provisional, anecdotal and, above all, not actionable.
James Hoopes, a professor of business ethics at Babson College in Massachusetts, suggests reaching back to the end of the 18th century for the first enterprise to provoke public loathing. That, he says, would be the First Bank of the United States, founded in 1791, which did the work of a central bank even though private investors held most of its shares. Jeffersonians denounced it as an unconstitutional victory of commerce over farming. Refounded in 1816 as the Second Bank of the United States, it over-lent wildly and then called in its money, sparking financial panic. President Andrew Jackson ended its special status in 1836. Five years later, as an ordinary commercial bank, it went bust.

That was a true one-off. Big business in a rough-edged version of its modern form arrived with the robber barons of the late 19th century. That era's most-hated company, though by no means the worst of them, was Standard Oil, a monopoly founded by John D. Rockefeller in the 1870s, and finally broken up by court order in 1911. Standard Oil was America's “first and reigning champion of public wrath”, says George David Smith, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business.

To corner the market in infamy (as well as in refining capacity) might seem a harsh fate for a company that was not particularly malevolent by the exacting standards of its time, and really quite laudable in an historical perspective. (For a bona fide bad-hat, Jay Gould was probably the top contender; see article.) The efficiencies and economies of scale achieved by Standard Oil helped the whole world to industrialise and grow richer. The firm's success may well have left all Americans better off, save for the competitors that it drove out of business.

But still Americans chafed at it, says Mr Smith, because “Throughout our history we don't mind that people become rich but we do mind that people become powerful. Standard Oil had the first real problem with that among public companies.” Rockefeller's empire became, says Mr Smith, “a proxy for everything that Americans feared—and what they feared was a concentration of power.”

Here Americans diverged sharply from Europeans, who have been much more comfortable with concentrations of power manifested in big government and nationalised industries. Where Americans fret about trusts and combinations that stifle future winners, Europeans fret about unbridled competition that guarantees future losers.

To be fair on Standard Oil, it could also be a pretty nasty operator when it chose. Rockefeller conspired with railway companies to ensure that his rivals would pay much higher freight charges than he did, and that their payments would secretly cross-subsidise discounts for Standard Oil. That cost disadvantage left independent refiners with a choice between going bust over time, or selling out to Standard Oil for the scrap value of their plant. And the more Standard Oil grew, the more people's feet it stepped on. If it cut prices, competitors complained about unfair competition. If it raised prices, consumers complained about gouging. A top Standard Oil manager, William Warden, wrote in 1887 that the firm, albeit “a success unparalleled in commercial history”, was viewed almost everywhere as “the representative of all that is evil, hard hearted, oppressive [and] cruel.”

The Wall Street Crash of 1929 spread its shock and misery so indiscriminately that no one corporation could be held accountable for it—though National City Bank, and its president, Charles Mitchell, did more than their share of running the market up. The system took the blame, as it did for the depression which followed in the 1930s. The 1940s and 1950s were golden decades for big business, when America's leading companies basked in the admiration of a diligent public. Prosperity was advancing more evenly across society, and no industrial revolution intervened to create a provocative new monopoly in a leading industry, in the manner of Standard Oil and, later, Microsoft.

Hostilities between business and society resumed in the 1960s with the Vietnam War and the rise of rebellious baby-boomers. Student demonstrators marched against many things that decade, but rarely as often as they did against Dow Chemical, maker of napalm and Agent Orange. Dow was on its way to earning a lifetime achievement award for the courting of controversy. In the 1980s and 1990s the silicone breast implants which it produced jointly with Corning, a glass company, gave rise to an unfounded public health scare and class-action suits costing up to $3.2 billion. In 2001 Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide, operator of a plant at Bhopal in India, where a leak of toxic chemicals in 1984 produced the biggest industrial disaster of modern times. If Dow Chemical did not find itself in the headlines from time to time, that was scarcely for want of trying.

No smoke without fire
Between the mid-1960s and the mid-1990s the American public went sour on a whole industry: big tobacco. Fair enough, many would say. “If you are killing people, it doesn't matter whether you are creating shareholder value, you are still bad,” observes Mason Carpenter, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Business. Yet the American public has gone on liking alcohol companies and, for the most part, fast-food companies, even though their products also ruin many people's heath. The key difference, probably, was the growing belief in the dishonesty of tobacco firms. The industry had fought off private lawsuits for 30 years by insisting, in effect, that it knew no more about the hazards of smoking than anybody else did. But as scientific evidence mounted and company documents were leaked, the public lost faith. Now, “probably everybody thinks of tobacco companies as being intrinsically bad,” says Stern's Mr Smith.

Set against big tobacco, Microsoft looks positively benign. And, in every significant way, it is. Its frequent designation as a most-hated company from the late-1980s onward always owed more to the quality than to the quantity of its critics—computer users with infinite scope to air their views through e-mail and the internet. Probably never was a company insulted so ingeniously and elaborately. Type “hate Bill Gates” into Google even now, and you will probably get over 15,000 hits. Type “love Bill Gates”, and on a good day (for Mr Gates) you may get 2,000.

The ubiquity of Microsoft's operating system was frustrating enough for consumers accustomed to exercising choice elsewhere in their lives. The company made things worse by managing its ruthlessness clumsily, trying to conquer every other software and internet market worth having. But the verdict of history will be kind. By popularising and standardising personal computing, Microsoft laid the foundations of an industrial and technological revolution too big for any one company to control. Most Americans applauded this achievement, even while the federal government was trying to break up Microsoft (see chart).

But enough of even-handed judgments. The end of the 1990s brought a company with nothing to be said for it whatsoever. Few would dispute Enron's right to the title of America's most-hated company, at least since Standard Oil. Nominally an energy company, Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001 after inflating its balance sheet with so many dodgy asset-financing deals that nobody outside the boardroom understood quite what it was doing other than misusing shareholders' money. “Basically bandits”, says Mr Carpenter. “There is a BS factor there that makes people feel very strongly negative,” says David Kirsch, a professor at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. “An authentic emblem of corporate corruption, and will remain so another hundred years from now,” according to Stern's Mr Smith.

Much the same might be said of WorldCom, a telecoms firm which combined the worst features of the dotcom boom with those of an Enron-style accounting scandal. After declaring bankruptcy, Worldcom was reborn as MCI, then bought in 2005 by Verizon, another big telecom firm. Its former boss, Bernie Ebbers, was jailed for 25 years.

A straw poll by Fred Bateman, a professor of economics at the University of Georgia's Terry College of Business, brings us to the present. He asked three classes in economics, about 100 students in all, which company they thought was the most hated in America. They almost all said Wal-Mart.

And, in its darker moments, Wal-Mart might almost half-agree. For the past two or three years it has endured spikes of public hostility provoked by labour unions that want to organise in its stores, communities that want to shut it out to safeguard local commerce, and by periodic rows over claims that Wal-Mart was using illegal immigrants as cleaners, paying its staff so little that they relied on welfare benefits, and systematically underpaying female workers. Having tried at first to stare down its critics, Wal-Mart has moved in the past year to recruit a high-powered team of lobbyists and consultants, including former advisers to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, to manage its image and interests more actively.

As with Microsoft, Wal-Mart is loved at least as much as it is hated, often by the same people. You can hate its market power while loving its low prices, though these are two sides of the same coin. “What they do, they do really well,” says Mr Kirsch, “and they share the benefits. If they can get a thing 10% cheaper, then 5% goes to the shareholders and 5% to the customers. It's that simple. But we get back to the inherent problem of size. Big boxes in small towns. When you get very big you are bound to do things that will piss people off.”

Any trot this brisk through a century of pissed-off people will risk neglecting many corporate reputations worthy of separate discussion—Manville, McDonald's and Martha Stewart, for example, to pause only at the Ms. But still, a few general truths emerge. The main one is that Americans are generally accepting of big business, but only so long as they feel in control of it, as citizens or as consumers. They lose that sense when a company wins a monopoly for its products, or when it comes busting into a community and displacing local commerce, or when its officers break the law. When that happens, they are disproportionately shocked and hostile, because they see it as a violation both of the natural order of things, and of their trust. But so long as that does not happen, business can get on with its job of making and selling things, almost whatever they may be. Americans are not unduly excited about arms makers, for example, or sellers of genetically modified crops. Monsanto may be the most-hated American company in Europe, but it is scarcely noticed in America.

Where is public hostility turning next? Big oil is one target. Unlike in Europe, where governments get most of the blame for high petrol prices, because taxes account for so much of the final cost, the American public holds oil firms mainly responsible. No surprise, then, that while oil prices have been soaring in 2005, esteem for oil companies has been plummeting. A Gallup poll in August found that 42% of Americans disliked the oil industry, including 35% who disliked it very much indeed. Plus ça change, as John D. Rockefeller might say.

   
 

Rating: 4 - 1 voto(s).

   
_COMENTARIOS
No existen comentarios.
Comentario / Comment:
  atención: para realizar comentarios tienes que ser usuario registrado.
        

_HistÓrico_Economía

15-01-12_ "Recapitalizar a los bancos por tener deuda de su país es absurdo"
15-09-11_ LA DEUDA GRIEGA
24-01-11_ Sociedad Estatal de Demoliciones Culturales
18-09-09_ LA comercialización de la cultura
10-05-09_ The FINANCIAL CRISIS
26-10-08_ Solbes: «2009 va a ser peor, no cabe la menor duda»
02-01-09_ The Story of Stuff
05-10-08_ SOROS * entrevista
21-05-08_ Why People Don't Trust Free Markets
02-05-08_ Zimbabue compra por Internet para sortear una inflación del 100.000%
24-03-08_ IDEIA DEKOT * Manual de supervivencia para montártelo por tu cuenta
04-02-08_ ¿'CRACK' 2008?
24-03-08_ Copia privada, ese derecho virtual
24-03-08_ The Pirate's Dilemma: A Review
23-12-07_ Así en la SGAE como en la Iglesia
17-12-07_ Dos asociaciones denuncian que la SGAE financia al poder judicial
16-12-07_ RECIPE: Five Great Lunchbox Favs
25-11-07_ Invitation to the OpenBusiness Community
29-11-07_ BIRTH OF THE NATION OF PIRATE PRIDE
15-11-07_ Trade-offs of offering content for free
16-11-07_ Climate change * from issue to magnifier
22-10-07_ SGAE: la punta del iceberg de un entramado societario...
02-11-07_ La JUSTICIA y el P2P ( ¡! )
14-09-07_ Executive Compensation: Is This the Beginning of a New Era?
06-07-07_ Collapse: How the U.S. Is Choosing to Fail
26-06-07_ The market function of piracy
24-05-07_ Seven gay wonders of the world
29-08-07_ Designig for Humans Not Users
31-05-07_ Introducing... the starving artist
31-05-07_ Martín Patino liberará su Filmografía.
31-05-07_ People Inside Web 2.0: An Interview with Tim O'Reilly
29-05-07_ Rutas para la innovación abierta: costes, aceleración y creatividad
26-03-07_ WEB 2.0 según TechCrunch
24-03-07_ Arcadi Espada y el Canon
17-03-07_ Ni se le ocurra tatarear a Mozart
15-03-07_ ¿Cómo hacer un blog de economía?
13-03-07_ El brujo de Menlo Park
03-03-07_ Mobile the 7th Mass Media is to internet like TV is to radio
23-02-07_ Hacia el fin del COPYRIGHT
18-02-07_  Shit Help Bad Hot Army Boom Kill!!! 
07-02-07_ Pensamientos sobre la música * Steve Jobs
04-02-07_ MOD Films
03-02-07_ Si no te conectas es por que no quieres...
30-01-07_ Emerging Art Markets
27-01-07_ The "special interests" destroying China's environment
17-01-07_ La SGAE vista desde dentro...
16-01-07_ Interview * Michael Bauwens
10-01-07_ Pero plagiar es otra cosa
04-01-07_ Amenazas a la información

04-01-07_ Los Múltiples retos de la innovación
28-12-06_ Comprando Burgos, La ciudad...
25-12-06_ The inexplicable inexistence of Real Madrid
11-12-06_ Openstudio * Experimento en creatividad, colaboración y capitalismo.
03-12-06_ Open Business re-crea la comunidad
27-11-06_ Cafuné breaking the limits for Open Business models
23-11-06_  Business Model Template Hacking
18-11-06_ O.J. Simpson, News Corp, and Milton Friedman
13-11-06_ Stray Cinema
01-11-06_Del Elitismo de la Web 1.0 a la Burbuja 2.0
01-11-06_How Non-Commercial Licenses make Business
26-10-06_He vuelto de Ikea y mi único deseo es matar (I)
25-10-06_A new idea about Opening Business
19-10-06_Revver - Openbusiness New Sponsor
08-10-06_Is Your Personality the Ticket to Financial Freedom?
30-09-06_The Wrong Gallery * The greatest little gallery on earth
22-09-06_el sin-sentido de las patentes
21-09-06_Open Business Meets Filmaking
16-09-06_IndieKarma * a new way to get paid for blogging
09-09-06_Revolution at our fingertips
08-09-06_La 'wikimanía' se extiende por la Red
01-09-06_Copyright Criminals: This is a Sampling Sport
31-08-06_Man From Google Joins Apple’s Board
18-08-06_Patents for profit: dystopian visions of the new economy
13-08-06_The cluetrain manifesto
10-08-06_Depositos finacieros, vivienda y deducción fiscal
07-08-06_YOU TUBE * me watch
05-08-06_Reunión mundial de piratas informáticos en Las Vegas
04-08-06_Lo que les preocupa a los poderosos
13-03-07_ Ya hay más de 500.000 firmas contra el canon digital
23-07-06_Con la moral por delante
22-07-06_Gateway to Nowhere?
21-07-06_Industria musical y cultura libre: hoy en el CCCB
30-06-06_Crowdsourcing
30-06-06_People Power
15-06-06_CULTURA LIBRE: PROPIEDAD
15-06-06_El futuro del libro: líquido o en la Red
13-06-06_Casas que están vivas
05-06-06_The fall and rise of Kate Moss
24-05-06_Primera Gran Guerra por el control de la Red
23-05-06_The sunset stalker: Bono
06-06-06_The greedy truth about media consultants
07-06-06_Making meaning from our own stories (Selflore) in the age of discontinuity
22-04-06_La crítica en la era del capitalismo cultural electrónico
05-04-06_La SGAE bate su propio récord de ingresos... y +++
29-03-06_How Copyright Law Changed Hip Hop
03-05-06_China acapara ya el 19% de las reservas internacionales de divisas
25-03-06_Intellectual Property roundup
24-03-06_De Gutenberg a Amazon: cómo convertirse en autor de verdad, sin salir de casa
19-03-06_La mala política energética de Bush
17-03-06_Los estudiantes franceses vuelven a la calle
16-03-06_Brent Hoberman:
06-03-06_Los ‘sukuk’, o cómo invertir sin ofender los mandamientos del profeta
06-03-06_More power to you
18-02-06_I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do
02-03-06_Trabajo afectivo
13-02-06_El parlamento de las cosas
19-03-06_Entrevista: Sabine Breitwieser
07-02-06_El dividendo del arte
03-02-06_Adieu Alan, Bonjour Ben, Welcome Transparency
30-01-06_ Prescribing Drugs a Healthy Future
20-01-06_Vers la décroissance: Écofascisme ou écodémocratie
27-01-06_The New Market Bubble Theory
16-01-06_We need a new drug (system)
13-01-06_Garçon! Un Coca-Cola, S'il Vous Plaît
09-01-06_Weather Has Become Bogeyman, News Staple
07-01-06_La inmigración en España / Una obsesión desbordada
04-01-06_Novel Thinking as a Survival Tactic
27-12-05_África, un desacuerdo navideño con Bono
23-12-05_America's most-hated companies
21-12-05_¡Tu Mismo!
03-12-05_El bajo perfil de España en Estados Unidos
29-09-05_Infinita Avaricia
02-09-05_Insumisión
22-06-05_Por ahí
09-06-05_¡Tu Mismo!

_ORBITAL_Economía

_Servicios

test
Regístrate y disfruta de utilidades de administración y gestión de los contenidos de e-limbo*
Recibe las novedades en tu correo electronico.
El futuro está escrito en las estrellas... Horóscopo creado por J.G. Ballard y dedicado a todos vosotros.
Aplicaciones y herramientas necesarias para navegar y utilizar los contenidos del limbo electrónico e internet (www).
Artículos de e-limbo* en formato PDF preparados para viajar y aportar información allá donde estés. (y seguir salvando árboles)

_e-limbo * apoya

test

_Multimedia

_AUDIO >
Mais uma edição do podcast Música Livre para o Archivo Vivo, do Centro Cultural da Espanha/AECID. ...
_PODCAST >
Ante preguntas de oyentes y amigos, puedo responder ahora que Vía Límite continuará en Radio ...
_VIDEO >
SORPRESA¡!¡! An unreleased version of Talking Heads' "Psycho Killer" with Arthur Russell on cello
Optimizado: Firefox, Safari, Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Explorer. Resolución óptima: 1024x768
ISSN: 1885-5229    Aviso Legal e-limbo.org*