| in previous comment threads I have expressed disdain that short-term optimization has long-term costs, and really, always takes away from future collateral. people like to argue with me about that. the problem described in this article is a perfect example of what I mean. Apple can A) take money for gambling ads, and place those ads at the expense of losing trust sometime afterwards, or B) not take that money, costing some short-term gain and leaving the long-term stuff like brand integrity and trustworthiness untouched. it is always wiser and more difficult to do B. sometimes it is a little more difficult, sometimes it is a lot more difficult, but it is always, always, always the wrong move to make a decision based on revenue generation and/or expense minimization potential alone. the long-term stuff is real, and it exists now. you can't use it as a resource today, but you can make decisions today which change its size and shape dramatically. the more you optimize for revenue generation today, the smaller your long-term resources become. |
Is this actually true? I know that a lot of people assume it's true, they want to believe it's true, but I'm not sure the empirical evidence supports it.