Agency bashing... what is it and why we don't allow it.

[undrwater]

In that case, let me disparage my own business. I'm in it for the money.

I think the self-disparagement would sound more like:
"I care little about the quality of the service / widget I provide, as profit is my only goal."

 

[pauldw]

Not quite. The use of the word "sucks" is problematic. You can say that you don't like it.

Thanks, Mom.

 

[Jafo19D]

I think the self-disparagement would sound more like:
"I care little about the quality of the service / widget I provide, as profit is my only goal."

Wont be selling that widget for very long.

 

[undrwater]

Wont be selling that widget for very long.

Right. Which is why it doesn't make much sense (nor is it very useful) to disparage an organization in such a way.

ETA: without evidence.

 

[BRT]

I think the self-disparagement would sound more like:
"I care little about the quality of the service / widget I provide, as profit is my only goal."

No. I care deeply about the quality of work we put out because the better it is, the more I can charge.

 

[undrwater]

No. I care deeply about the quality of work we put out because the better it is, the more I can charge.

Indeed. Which is why I was trying to help you craft a better "bash".

 

[Lorenzoid]

The for-profit issue reminds me I have been seeing more articles on the topic of "What is the purpose of a (generally publicly-owned) company?" The dominant school of thought had long been that the only purpose of a corporation was to provide shareholder value. More recently, economists are talking about this theory of a company having broader obligations to "stakeholders," who might include consumers of the company's goods or services, suppliers/vendors, members of the public affected by what the company does, etc. Theoretically, it all comes down to shareholder value, because negative effects on these other stakeholders should--theoretically--ultimately impact the value of the company. But I believe some economists make an argument that it doesn't always work that way in reality, and companies do exist for broader purposes. Call me a pollyanna, but I don't believe any dive agency executive sees extracting as much money as possible from divers as their company's sole purpose or even one of them.

 

[Akimbo]

I would say the objective of any business is to provide a product or service that is perceived as a good value to customers, which is the prerequisite to long-term profits. Sure there are some exceptions, like Bernie Madoff. He met the "perceived" part of the requirement but disregarded the long-term bit.

 

[Storker]

Sorry but I majored in economics and there is nothing wrong with profits being a diving agency’s, or any other entity’s, driving force.

No one cares why a given diving agency exists or what their mission statement is. We just care that they provide a good enough service at a reasonable price. If your favorite agency starts to screw up it’s not some ideology or punishment from God that’s going to kick them in the butt; it’s going to be the market’s invisible hand and the competitors.

My latest cert was issued by CMAS, whose member organisations aren't for-profit. All my previous certs were issued by PADI, which most definitely is a for-profit organization. I see pros and cons to both models, and CMAS could learn something from PADI when it comes to learning materials. Since PADI, as a for-profit organization, has a greater incentive to provide good learning material. Even if I sometimes get really, really fed up with how PADI seems to treat their students as half-morons. Oh well, l guess it's another case of the least common denominator.

 

[kmarks]

Maybe those who disparage businesses for making a profit should work for free? Let's see how that works out.

Not for free, for "exposure." Like how people always think photographers and web designers will be happy to work for exposure.