[dunpeal]

> The entire image and “vibe” of this guy / his team is supposed to be an egalitarian re-invention of the status quo. The kibbutz story. The “community adjusted EBITDA.” The rebranding to “We.”

This is all just marketing. It's like believing all the actors in a commercial really are elated and blissful just because they chose the right brand of soda.

[tomaskafka]

It's not. It's a product. Once you let go of the 'cool vibe' brand, you get an overpriced cowork and no one will use that.

Like a luxury alcohol makers, they are selling identity, not chair by hour.

[alexandercrohde]

In this case yes.

But I think it's very important to remember that companies can have moral standards and follow them. Many companies don't sell-out in crucial ways, and throwing one's hands up and condemning them all is punishing the ones that stay true.

I think moral outrage is a very important and effective market force. It will do things our government never could, like take down facebook. I'm glad we have this tool.

[_m96l]

> But I think it's very important to remember that companies can have moral standards and follow them. Many companies don't sell-out in crucial ways, and throwing one's hands up and condemning them all is punishing the ones that stay true.

I agree, which is why I criticize shallow analysis of a company's motivation based on its skin-deep marketing veneer.

In this case it's not even moral standards - the implication is that WeWork's CEO is neglecting his fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value by lining his pocket instead.

That's in fact a corruption of capitalism, it's illegal, and he can be sued for that by shareholders.

> I think moral outrage is a very important and effective market force.

I completely agree, which is why it's important to look beyond the marketing.

If a company can breach standards of morality and decency, but get away thanks to some 30 seconds commercial featuring smiling kids, then we will not be effective as a public in enforcing those very real consequences that companies should face for their actions.

[avs733]

To add to what the other commenter noted about varying levels of truth...

There is marketing of product and then marketing of company and then marketing of person/people. Not only does each have varying levels of truth, but each also has varying types of intent. The later in SV seems designed to encourage beliefs about a person or company that are immune to facts that counter them.

Branding it as marketing starts, to me, to sound like a convenient cover for propaganda.

[philwelch]

Embracing militant veganism as a "marketing" gimmick, to name one example, sounds even more psychopathic than usual for marketing.

[arthurofbabylon]

Marketing can be based on varying depths of truth. Generally speaking, the greater the depth the greater the long term value and efficacy of the marketing. (Marketing is not always a veneer.)

[dunpeal]

Either way, the truth value can be deduced by taking a hard, penetrating, objective look at the commercial entity, its policies, actions, and impacts.

It is not ascertained by buying into the shallowest outer layer of its marketing veneer.

[arthurofbabylon]

Absolutely.