I can only assume you are an investor and hold stock in the company. Otherwise, it isn't "our" money. It is his.
Could this be a look at the future?
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 6K
I can only assume you are an investor and hold stock in the company. Otherwise, it isn't "our" money. It is his.
And that's the sort of attitude that turns me off about capitalism. I got much the same response when I asked a few years ago why the hell Dish was wasting our money sponsoring a NASCAR car. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm paying Dish for satellite TV, the money should be invested in bringing me more and better satellite TV. No argument to the contrary is possible.
Jim S. said:
Ok, I'll bite...
I'll agree to a certain extent, originally, it was your money and you spent it to get satellite TV services from Dish. Except that you pay monthly for the service you receive in a given month. You are not paying money that is earmarked for Dish to spend in R&D for future enhancements to their future service.
Therefore, the minute you receive the service you have paid for, the money belongs to the company to do as they see fit. Whether it's paying it towards their costs or using it to sponsor a NASCAR team as a form of advertising that will hopefully improve name recognition and drive additional subscriber growth or something completely different, it's no longer your money to decide what should be done with it. You decided what to do with your money when you bought the service. Now it's up to them to decide what they want to do with their money.
If you want it run differently, become a major investor in the company. Then those decisions affect you monetarily and if you have enough skin in the game, you may be in a position to influence company policy. Then again, I hear Charlie can be stubborn and since he owns the majority of the stock... Good luck with that one.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
He is smart... Needs to do a couple of things, though.
1. Hire some web designers that can make a website that actually works.
2. Hire some programmers that can meet deadlines and fix annoying issues like the 722K slowdown.
The Dish website and your receiver being 'online' has always been so hit and miss. They can't even fix that. Hell, they can't get the FLAGSHIP receiver to work with Blockbuster on Demand.
Charlie has a LONG way to go before he can factor anything Internet related into his regular operation.
Agree with the sentiment, but I claim that is exactly what some dumb "suit" did. Dish execs don't understand the difference between a "web designer" and the sort of software engineer actually required to make this complex website work. So they hired an army of cheap designers who know how to make a website look good, but not necessarily do anything right.
Full disclosure: I don't know the correct term for the needed professional either.
By paying to sponsor NASCAR they advertise. Advertisement brings more customers to their product. The more customers that buy their product the more profit they make. The more profit they make, the greater the ability to lower the price of their product. IOW, by sponsoring they are attempting to make even more money which will lower your cost.
Advertising = more product sold = lower cost on product.
Spend money to make money.
The service you enjoy at the price you pay is ONLY possible because of capitalism. You can view data from every country. The more free the economy, the more products and choices available, the less expensive the products are compared to income.
This really does not makes sense. If you truly believe this then you must not understand how business works. You have no investment in the company. I'm hoping you actually realize this after everyone's posts explaining it.
Not to mention the purpose of advertising is to compete for customers. Companies try to outdo others for business, and this includes the price of the product they are selling. Without capitalism there will be no competition, thus no need to advertise; meaning customers will have fewer choices and the product will not be as good. Plus they can charge what ever they want since there will be no cheaper alternatives.
