On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:17:06 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:10 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

There will always be a segment of the market that wants high quality
and is willing to pay a reasonable amount more for that quality. ...
Yes, but it's the size of that market that was under question here.

Your comment was "not nearly enough". The customer base for the
product was steadily growing and the operation was quite profitable,
more so than the other segment in the company that had always depended
on imports and big box positioning. Under what criteria do you assign
a "not nearly enough" definition to the size of that select customer
base?

If you are right, with the strategy of consolidation and globalization
now firmly in place, it should be growing even faster and even more
profitable. Not so. Try shrinking and losing.

Well, not having full access to the books nor having a seat on the board
of directors, it's not quite possible to fully answer in detail for your
specific former employer.

So what part of my post do you disbelieve and need additional proof?
I'm constrained from being able to offer it, just curious as to why
you would question my credibility.

The remark was, however, made as an overall
generalization, not a specific case study.

I see, however, you commented in a portion of the thread that was
talking about woodworking machinery.

There was also one very important additional word in the comment you
have chosen to not quote and that was "apparently" which was simply a
reflection of the reality of what was chosen to be done.

I have no idea what you just said.

If they were
satisfied w/ the growth and size of the market one would presume the
decision would have gone another direction.

Corporate leaders, who have not really done much but have fast tracked
to the top, rarely have the insight to leave well enough alone when
they have the "golden goose" They often want to kill it to get the
"gold"

I understand your position and sympathize but facts is facts on both
sides of the equation. You see one set; it's pretty clear management
saw another based on their actions.

There are no facts on the Corporate hack side of the equation, only
speculation. Sustained profitability and growth over a long period of
time is a fact. A strategy of greed is not based on any fact
whatsoever, just a gleem in ones eye. "if we can squeeze a little
more out of this thing, our bonuses will be much larger". I'm sorry
you can find sympathy in that attitude, it is one of the reasons they
get away with it.

Frank