Revenue growth down from 3% to 2% is significant, especially considering that’s an even bigger hit to growth in profits. They want to make their investors happy, they have a perfectly reasonable PR cover to raise their prices by a few dollars a month, so they’ll do it. What part of this is confusing?
The guild then compared these costs to companies’ annual revenues and calculated the percentage that these costs would represent compared to those profits. The costs would account for 0.091 percent of Disney’s revenue, 0.214 of Netflix’s, 0.108 percent of Warner Bros. Discovery’s, 0.148 percent of Paramount Global’s, 0.028 percent of NBC Universal’s and 0.006 percent of Amazon’s, the WGA claims.
Are you really going to claim that 0.214% less revenue justifies a price hike?
Isn’t that price gouging? Isn’t price gouging illegal?
you thought it was a crime for them to increase their prices, and supposedly not a crime against one particular person.
But I was making fun of your dramatic attack on the company as engaging in an “unjustifiable” price increase. You’ve been incredibly dramatic about nothing, and it’s funny.
Making fun of people isn’t really lying in common parlance. But I don’t suppose you talk or think like anybody else, huh?
one of their large investors saying “hey, hike prices” justifies a price hike. A profit reduction equal to .214% of revenue (and other concessions that could hurt the company in other ways) is far more than the amount of justification they need.
Revenue growth down from 3% to 2% is significant, especially considering that’s an even bigger hit to growth in profits. They want to make their investors happy, they have a perfectly reasonable PR cover to raise their prices by a few dollars a month, so they’ll do it. What part of this is confusing?
Again, less than 1%. Read the article.
Here, I’ll even paste the relevant part:
Are you really going to claim that 0.214% less revenue justifies a price hike?
Are you new to the idea of corporations?
Does “corporation does something that isn’t illegal” equal “justifiable?”
does “corporation does something @flyingsquid would prefer it didn’t do” equal “unjustifiable?”
Am I the only one who would prefer Netflix not raise its prices? Because I’m pretty sure I’m not.
no, but you’re the only one who thinks that it’s a crime against humanity
When did I say it was a crime against humanity or even imply such a thing?
Please quote me.
Unless that’s a lie, of course.
Was it a lie?
well, right up front:
you thought it was a crime for them to increase their prices, and supposedly not a crime against one particular person.
But I was making fun of your dramatic attack on the company as engaging in an “unjustifiable” price increase. You’ve been incredibly dramatic about nothing, and it’s funny.
Making fun of people isn’t really lying in common parlance. But I don’t suppose you talk or think like anybody else, huh?
one of their large investors saying “hey, hike prices” justifies a price hike. A profit reduction equal to .214% of revenue (and other concessions that could hurt the company in other ways) is far more than the amount of justification they need.
I guess your definition of ‘justified’ is much more capitalistic than mine.