Is there any way to include "corporate structure" in a title and not make it sound boring?
Probably not.
Which means I probably should have just bitten it and gone with the title I was originally thinking of, "Why current corporate structures are oppressive" but I don't think I could ever write that and feel ok about it afterwards.
So here goes
In the U.S., and most other countries where they exist, corporations have what we call legal personhood, or juridical personality, or anything slightly resembling those words. It basically means they have similar rights to "natural persons" (you and me), they can sue and be sued, draw up contracts, basically many of the same things actual people do.
A public company is a company that is owned by shareholders who can buy and sell stock at the stock market. The shareholders vote to appoint a board of directors who oversee the activities of the corporation. The board of directors hires senior managers (CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, etc.) and those managers run the company. Each person involved at every step of the way have different obligations but all of them, in the end, essentially answer to the shareholders.
There is a concept in business called "cultural conflict," and it refers to the conflict of interests between the Board of Directors, who are supposed to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the senior managers, who are supposed to act in the interest of the company but are believed to be motivated by self-interest. The concept is important because it is supposed to reflect the economic idea that people are self-interested beings who act that way and when we have people's investments and ownership at stake we need to protect them from this behavior.
So things like year-end bonuses and stock options/payments come into the picture as a motivational tool for senior management to act prudently. The law places prime importance on the owners of the company, which in a public corporation are the shareholders. Thus, the ultimate goal for any publicly held corporation is to increase the value of the company and through that to increase the value of a stock. Senior managers and board of directors are legally liable to this idea. If it can be proven that they didn't do everything they could to increase stock value, or if they knowingly adopted measures that decreased the value of the stock they can be sued.
These are important when you look at cases like Enron or Worldcom, but they are, in their own way, insidiously oppressive. "Dude, what?" you ask?
One of the first questions is, "How does a company increase its value?" Well, based on the finance view of things, we accept only those projects that add value to the company ($$$profits$$$), and reject those that don't. Seems like a simple enough concept but like I said, it's one that company managers HAVE to uphold, or else they are personally liable. What that means is, for public companies, only those projects that will make value - which strictly means money - are accepted. You can't really place a value on intangibles so there is no legal justification for them (I have to admit I am assuming this as I don't know case histories).
Sounds reasonable. Sounds like it should be law. But the expression of that law plays out in very real terms. Companies end up destroying intangible value in order to create monetary value.
Music companies stop being about the art behind the music, and start being about how much value(money) an artist (read: project) can create for the company. So, they grab a 17 year old Britney Spears, they pump out generic pop that she has no hand in creating or writing, they sexualize her image, and then sell the whole package to the public. Does it work? Yes. Is it good for music? Fuck no!
MTV used to have Unplugged. VH1 used to have "Behind the Music." Corporatizing these two companies then brought us TRL and "The Surreal Life." The ad revenue poured in and what followed was a bevy of new reality shows (date my mom, room raiders) that were horrid, exemplified the worse cultures in America, and ultimately made us stupider and worse off for having watched them.
Beer (face it, you knew this was coming) companies that went public watered down everything to increase profit margins and make it easier mass-produce their product. The money thrown behind marketing and market proliferation (putting their product EVERYWHERE) gave us the notion that bud light is actually a beer, or the beer, and it was pretty much the same for everything. Thank goodness we have craft brews and microbrews or I'd probably be just like every other n0rm who decided to drink "rum and coke" because they don't like "beer." You know what though? Since Craft Beer is on the rise it has become a market to exploit and profit from. Thus, "American Ale."
How many Scary Movies have we had? 5? 6? How about "Epic Movie" or "Date Movie"? How about pretty much every predictable trashy piece of tripe that movie studios come out with? It's almost as though they are saying, "we have so much money dude we can afford to make shitty movies and not care." After all of these movies you wonder, "who the fuck actually goes to see this crap?" Well the truth is they recoup their money because these shitty movies somehow have long DVD shelf lives.
How about Starbucks? They have simultaneously spearheaded bringing the "European" cafe to vast American public, standardized anything that wasn't black coffee, and flooded the market completely to the point they were overextended. In doing that, though, they had to standardize everything. Every procedure and detail is taken care of and addressed and thus everything comes with its own set of constraints. The cultural value that a "cafe" or "small local coffee shop" was supposed to have got destroyed in the process.
So this little law that protects Shareholders prioritizes money and doesn't inherently value quality. Which leads me to the companies I actually do respect: Google, and Apple. Maybe even Facebook, but I'm going to hold on to my reservations.
Google: The reason why I like Google is for very plain reasons. They offer a ton of free services to all computer users at the expense of the business world (their ad revenues). They reject the traditional corporate climate of dress codes and "professionalism" and emphasize inherent value. Their code of ethics is simple and to the point. They place a high value on their employees and offer them an incredible work environment. On top of that, they promote communalism for the consumers generally but also through specific things such as their open-source software. It's almost a company that is too good to be true!
Apple: The reason why I like Apple should also be pretty plain. High quality products, innovative, AMAZING design, and no skimp on value. Sure the iPod has become the most iconic and visible product of the past few years, but it also happens to be a great product that is way ahead of the curve of its competitors. Same with their computers. They introduced the first "all-in-one" desktop model and just released their "unibody" laptops. In other words, they are bringing to the market technologies and developments that other companies would probably have sat on until the change was necessary. The question many companies ask themselves is, "How long can we extend the life-cycle of this product to maximize profits, before having to update it?" People get annoyed that new iPods or new iMacs or iPhones or whatever come out every year, every other year, or not even a year, what they don't realize is most companies run under the auspices of "business thinking" would have sat on the iPhone for probably about 2-3 years until the product started to hit real decline and sales and then introduced a new model. Not so with Apple, they cranked a new and improved one a few months later (with higher storage), and then a completely new model (3G) less than a year later. Sure, there's a so called "Apple Tax" (the high prices!), but I can justify an Apple product because the purchase is vote for higher quality and much better business practices.
TV shows now: Thank god we are past the time of laugh tracks and sappy moments. If Friends was the pinnacle of this type of sitcom good riddance. We now have shows like The Office or Arrested Development (RIP) or hell I'll even throw Scrubs in, that have no laugh track, are often ad-libbed or improvised, and have amazing writing and acting. Even a show like "Lost" is a game-changer. It's no longer just OK for a show to have no narrative and to have pointless episodes that are little self-contained bubbles, nor is it OK for a show to even have a laugh-track anymore. The ones that do sound dated, and their humor is pretty awful anyways (How I Met Your Mother).
It's funny to look at these examples. The google paragraph sounds like a promotion of promethean socialism, while the Apple paragraph reads like one of capitalist propounding (beat competitors, stay ahead, pay the prices$$$!).
The real flaw, and the hopefully outmoded, practice of applying "the business model" to everything. What I mean by that is, the practice of companies to go in, mass produce, dilute products for higher profit margins, standardize all practices, streamline efficiency, etc. etc. etc.
Essentially its an argument against cheap value(money) vs. real value (quality). The big problem is there's so little consumer awareness about which products are quality or are available to them. People just pick the easy route and acquiesce to the product that was advertised to them, or that they've heard of, or that everyone else knows about. Companies benefit off of our ignorance, and apathetic consumerism keeps us pinned to levels of quality we don't really need to tolerate. It has to change. It is already, but it has change everywhere. For me, it can't just be left to the responsibility of the consumer. For me it has to resemble something like Apple. Real quality has to be a priority, not just real profits. That little law protecting the shareholders probably plays a massive role in the shit-quality we've been fed for years.
The change is going to have to come from companies like Apple or Google or from Open-Source type stuff. This is the only type of company I would want to have my name behind.
Consumer communalism has to begin; its the path to becoming better-informed and to exult over better products and practices.
I think we seem to forget that we have choices in the things we buy. We passively accept the products given to us and don't really feel empowered. It works to the benefit of these companies but not to ourselves.
Which means I probably should have just bitten it and gone with the title I was originally thinking of, "Why current corporate structures are oppressive" but I don't think I could ever write that and feel ok about it afterwards.
So here goes
In the U.S., and most other countries where they exist, corporations have what we call legal personhood, or juridical personality, or anything slightly resembling those words. It basically means they have similar rights to "natural persons" (you and me), they can sue and be sued, draw up contracts, basically many of the same things actual people do.
A public company is a company that is owned by shareholders who can buy and sell stock at the stock market. The shareholders vote to appoint a board of directors who oversee the activities of the corporation. The board of directors hires senior managers (CEOs, CFOs, CTOs, etc.) and those managers run the company. Each person involved at every step of the way have different obligations but all of them, in the end, essentially answer to the shareholders.
There is a concept in business called "cultural conflict," and it refers to the conflict of interests between the Board of Directors, who are supposed to act in the interest of the shareholders, and the senior managers, who are supposed to act in the interest of the company but are believed to be motivated by self-interest. The concept is important because it is supposed to reflect the economic idea that people are self-interested beings who act that way and when we have people's investments and ownership at stake we need to protect them from this behavior.
So things like year-end bonuses and stock options/payments come into the picture as a motivational tool for senior management to act prudently. The law places prime importance on the owners of the company, which in a public corporation are the shareholders. Thus, the ultimate goal for any publicly held corporation is to increase the value of the company and through that to increase the value of a stock. Senior managers and board of directors are legally liable to this idea. If it can be proven that they didn't do everything they could to increase stock value, or if they knowingly adopted measures that decreased the value of the stock they can be sued.
These are important when you look at cases like Enron or Worldcom, but they are, in their own way, insidiously oppressive. "Dude, what?" you ask?
One of the first questions is, "How does a company increase its value?" Well, based on the finance view of things, we accept only those projects that add value to the company ($$$profits$$$), and reject those that don't. Seems like a simple enough concept but like I said, it's one that company managers HAVE to uphold, or else they are personally liable. What that means is, for public companies, only those projects that will make value - which strictly means money - are accepted. You can't really place a value on intangibles so there is no legal justification for them (I have to admit I am assuming this as I don't know case histories).
Sounds reasonable. Sounds like it should be law. But the expression of that law plays out in very real terms. Companies end up destroying intangible value in order to create monetary value.
Music companies stop being about the art behind the music, and start being about how much value(money) an artist (read: project) can create for the company. So, they grab a 17 year old Britney Spears, they pump out generic pop that she has no hand in creating or writing, they sexualize her image, and then sell the whole package to the public. Does it work? Yes. Is it good for music? Fuck no!
MTV used to have Unplugged. VH1 used to have "Behind the Music." Corporatizing these two companies then brought us TRL and "The Surreal Life." The ad revenue poured in and what followed was a bevy of new reality shows (date my mom, room raiders) that were horrid, exemplified the worse cultures in America, and ultimately made us stupider and worse off for having watched them.
Beer (face it, you knew this was coming) companies that went public watered down everything to increase profit margins and make it easier mass-produce their product. The money thrown behind marketing and market proliferation (putting their product EVERYWHERE) gave us the notion that bud light is actually a beer, or the beer, and it was pretty much the same for everything. Thank goodness we have craft brews and microbrews or I'd probably be just like every other n0rm who decided to drink "rum and coke" because they don't like "beer." You know what though? Since Craft Beer is on the rise it has become a market to exploit and profit from. Thus, "American Ale."
How many Scary Movies have we had? 5? 6? How about "Epic Movie" or "Date Movie"? How about pretty much every predictable trashy piece of tripe that movie studios come out with? It's almost as though they are saying, "we have so much money dude we can afford to make shitty movies and not care." After all of these movies you wonder, "who the fuck actually goes to see this crap?" Well the truth is they recoup their money because these shitty movies somehow have long DVD shelf lives.
How about Starbucks? They have simultaneously spearheaded bringing the "European" cafe to vast American public, standardized anything that wasn't black coffee, and flooded the market completely to the point they were overextended. In doing that, though, they had to standardize everything. Every procedure and detail is taken care of and addressed and thus everything comes with its own set of constraints. The cultural value that a "cafe" or "small local coffee shop" was supposed to have got destroyed in the process.
So this little law that protects Shareholders prioritizes money and doesn't inherently value quality. Which leads me to the companies I actually do respect: Google, and Apple. Maybe even Facebook, but I'm going to hold on to my reservations.
Google: The reason why I like Google is for very plain reasons. They offer a ton of free services to all computer users at the expense of the business world (their ad revenues). They reject the traditional corporate climate of dress codes and "professionalism" and emphasize inherent value. Their code of ethics is simple and to the point. They place a high value on their employees and offer them an incredible work environment. On top of that, they promote communalism for the consumers generally but also through specific things such as their open-source software. It's almost a company that is too good to be true!
Apple: The reason why I like Apple should also be pretty plain. High quality products, innovative, AMAZING design, and no skimp on value. Sure the iPod has become the most iconic and visible product of the past few years, but it also happens to be a great product that is way ahead of the curve of its competitors. Same with their computers. They introduced the first "all-in-one" desktop model and just released their "unibody" laptops. In other words, they are bringing to the market technologies and developments that other companies would probably have sat on until the change was necessary. The question many companies ask themselves is, "How long can we extend the life-cycle of this product to maximize profits, before having to update it?" People get annoyed that new iPods or new iMacs or iPhones or whatever come out every year, every other year, or not even a year, what they don't realize is most companies run under the auspices of "business thinking" would have sat on the iPhone for probably about 2-3 years until the product started to hit real decline and sales and then introduced a new model. Not so with Apple, they cranked a new and improved one a few months later (with higher storage), and then a completely new model (3G) less than a year later. Sure, there's a so called "Apple Tax" (the high prices!), but I can justify an Apple product because the purchase is vote for higher quality and much better business practices.
TV shows now: Thank god we are past the time of laugh tracks and sappy moments. If Friends was the pinnacle of this type of sitcom good riddance. We now have shows like The Office or Arrested Development (RIP) or hell I'll even throw Scrubs in, that have no laugh track, are often ad-libbed or improvised, and have amazing writing and acting. Even a show like "Lost" is a game-changer. It's no longer just OK for a show to have no narrative and to have pointless episodes that are little self-contained bubbles, nor is it OK for a show to even have a laugh-track anymore. The ones that do sound dated, and their humor is pretty awful anyways (How I Met Your Mother).
It's funny to look at these examples. The google paragraph sounds like a promotion of promethean socialism, while the Apple paragraph reads like one of capitalist propounding (beat competitors, stay ahead, pay the prices$$$!).
The real flaw, and the hopefully outmoded, practice of applying "the business model" to everything. What I mean by that is, the practice of companies to go in, mass produce, dilute products for higher profit margins, standardize all practices, streamline efficiency, etc. etc. etc.
Essentially its an argument against cheap value(money) vs. real value (quality). The big problem is there's so little consumer awareness about which products are quality or are available to them. People just pick the easy route and acquiesce to the product that was advertised to them, or that they've heard of, or that everyone else knows about. Companies benefit off of our ignorance, and apathetic consumerism keeps us pinned to levels of quality we don't really need to tolerate. It has to change. It is already, but it has change everywhere. For me, it can't just be left to the responsibility of the consumer. For me it has to resemble something like Apple. Real quality has to be a priority, not just real profits. That little law protecting the shareholders probably plays a massive role in the shit-quality we've been fed for years.
The change is going to have to come from companies like Apple or Google or from Open-Source type stuff. This is the only type of company I would want to have my name behind.
Consumer communalism has to begin; its the path to becoming better-informed and to exult over better products and practices.
I think we seem to forget that we have choices in the things we buy. We passively accept the products given to us and don't really feel empowered. It works to the benefit of these companies but not to ourselves.