LooseSuits Thread: Profit vs. greed

Profit vs. greed

Tyme — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:37:59

Hello Kitty probably makes a lot of money in greeting cards. I pointed upgraded graphic of Strawberry Shortcake to a friend of mine...who did not recognize Strawberry Shortcake. That's more than an upgrade.

Profit vs. greed

Kamigoroshi — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:23:04

Maybe it's as simple as this.

Greed is good.

If you want to earn some profits, you need to have that amoral sense that comes with greed. Taking the chances. Doing what it takes to earn not just on the short term, but on the long term as well. That's not to say that greed without foresight is a good thing.

It's just that sitting at the top of a very large money pile is always better for some, especially those that see a flaw or an opportunity to take steps and risk a change.

Though comparing the iconic Micky Mouse to Strawberry Shortcake is a little off. In retrospect, comparing Strawberry Shortcake to say Hello Kitty who also went through a revamp of its classic character is better.

Though...I wonder how much profits that Hello Kitty makes these days?

Profit vs. greed

Scrivs — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:29:26

Then wouldn't you just lower expenses if revenues drop to maintain that balance of revenues and expenses and therefore negating the whole need more to survive? Is it possible in a real-world to control all these factors? Yeah, but it would be so hard there really isn't a reason to do so.

Profit vs. greed

Ozone42 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:28:59

There are thousands of companies that operate in debt, some for years at a time. But, that's beside the point. It's just the definition of profit is exactly that, the excess after paying all expenses. It doesn't matter if the expenses were expected or not.

I know what you're saying though, and it's definitely good business. All companies WANT to make a profit... err, that is aside from non profits. It can be a bad place to be breaking even for sure, but it might also be where you are targeted.

Profit vs. greed

Tyme — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:21:24

Nope because unexpected things happen (for example rise in prices, lose in revenue). Realistically there has to be more to continue to survive.

Profit vs. greed

Ozone42 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:08:20

Nope, to survive revenue has to be equal to expenses. To grow it has to be greater.

Profit vs. greed

Tyme — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:23:32

@Jaya - I think it's more the decisions they made to stay true to the original brand. Obviously Strawberry Shortcake is doing just fine. There are celebrities walking around with dogs but her having a cat is outdated? Keep the cat, give her a cellphone but a cellphone in a strawberry shortcake house is weird. Yeah, I was saying (since the brand more than fine to be as outdated as it is) I'd keep it and having something else to move forward.

@Ozone - To survive revenue has to be more than expenses so unless there is a break even it is a profit. Just not necessarily a large one.

Strawberry Shortcake wasn't one of my favorites and in that sense I don't really care either but usually when companies mess with something that is working as it is they screw it up. Some brands stand the test of time - like Sesame Street. The puppets are fine as is. I think the thought of making something more relevant is a sign that it's time (for the majority) to move on gracefully.

Profit vs. greed

Ozone42 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:11:44

By your own words:

Greed is the excessive desire to process more than one needs.

Profit is revenue less expenses

No company needs to make profit to survive, only to meet expenses (that includes payroll.) What you're talking about, I would say is excessive, yes. They don't need to retool the image, it's doing fine. They're trying to make it do better monetarily.

To me, it's a fine line, being true to anachronistic images/properties. There's something to be said about the purity of the originals, but there's also something to be said about communicating to a new audience.

I don't think Strawberry Shortcake was exactly something of great value to begin with, so I don't care that it may be sullied in some eyes now. I had more problems with Warner Brothers trying to revamp Bugs Bunny. But there are good examples too. American McGee's Alice was quite an interesting take on the character and world.

Profit vs. greed

Jaya — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:53:10

In that scenario though it seems like you are suggesting that they should let the Strawberry Shortcake brand die out and create another one. Do they still need to appeal to the parents when the market is kids? Parents remember the name and I would think that would be enough, but I'm not a parent buying Strawberry Shortcake goodies for kids so I might be wrong in my assumption.

Obviously you can't keep Strawberry Shortcake the way she is and hope that she survives over time. Continuing to make money off the current version is not ensuring survival, but simply milking the cow without any regards of the future.

Of course you seem to be saying (online text makes me read between so many lines I apologize) keep the current one and create another one to build on top of the brand then when the old one is phased out you already have a new one in place ready.

Profit vs. greed

Tyme — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:42:15

My point is: the problem with brand goes much further than bloomers and a cat. The entire concept is outdated. To upgrade her completely to what would appeal to children today makes it lose the appeal that parents remember Strawberry Shortcake as was.

In terms of survival, continue to make the billions on Strawberry Shortcake and create another one relevant to this time. Stawberry Shortcake was pushing it in the 80s.

Profit vs. greed

Tyme — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:38:26

No, I was talking to Ozone. When I typed out my response yours wasn't there.

The cartoon Strawberry Shortcake lived in a shortcake house in a field of strawberries. Let's not forget the Evil Pieman. Her cat Custard went with her everywhere. Strawberry Shortake without Custard is like Charlie Brown without Snoopy.

So they're going to give her a cell phone and keep her in a house made of shortcake? Keep upgrading it's not Strawberry Shortcake anymore.

Most of the brands in that era lasted as long as they were supposed to and new brands emerged to take their place. Few, like Mickey Mouse, were able to survive. People that "know" Strawberry Shortcake wouldn't even recognize her as Strawberry Shortcake.

Profit vs. greed

Jaya — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:33:02

To carry on the example, giving Strawberry Shortcake a cellphone to me is survival because you must protect the brand for the future. Giving her a husband, house, job and other Barbie type accessories would be greed kicking in.

Profit vs. greed

Jaya — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:28:53

I would think you do agree with me then (assuming you were talking to me) because greed is when companies will do almost anything to make a couple extra dollars no matter what their margins are showing. Survival is when companies want profitable companies, but aren't willing to risk their integrity (for example) to achieve it.

Profit vs. greed

Tyme — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:26:34

I'm not sure I agree with that. Greed is the excessive desire to process more than one needs or deserves. Profit is revenue less expenses. Yes, a company would want a profitable company (revenue more than expenses) but there's the scenario "I'm making 50B, I have billions in excess dollars and I want to make more".

Profit vs. greed

Jaya — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:23:30

It's a stretch to say that switching the bloomers for a cellphone is damaging the brand, it just seems like it is an upgrade. The desire to make a profit can be two things in my mind and how you look at them determines how you go about things with your company:

Greed. Large corporations.
Survival. Usually the good companies.

Profit vs. greed

Ozone42 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:10:15

The desire to make a profit is greed, always.

But greed is not a bad thing. It only turns bad when you are harming others in pursuing it.

Profit vs. greed

Tyme — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:04:17

Estarla posted a clip about childhood characters getting visual updates so they are more relevant today. An example they game was Strawberry Shortcake. The bloomers the older version wore obviously would turn children off today. Instead of a cat, the new Strawberry Shortcake has a cellphone.

Reading the article I came across this:

Done correctly, it can be incredibly lucrative. Mickey Mouse produces an estimated $5 billion in merchandise sales every year. Strawberry Shortcake, even in her diminished state, has generated $2.5 billion in revenue since 2003, according to American Greetings.

2.5B is a lot of money and of course it could be improved but one could argue that, in a diminished state, the brand is doing fine. It's a tough call fiddling with the brand and I question the greed with Mickey Mouse. Classic Mickey does fine as he is, matter of fact (and the article points this out) changing classic Mickey could cause them problems.

When does the desire to make a profit turn into greed?