"CEO announced it would replace contractors with AI"

I keep seeing this type of headline, and I never understand the following. Even if this were a great idea, it's obvious people will be upset with it. So if it were a great idea, why not just not announce it and implement it anyway? Very slowly get rid of contractors, pretend it's unrelated to AI. Isn't this obviously less risky?

It is a message intended for investors, not end users.

Aren't they profitable? Why do they need investors? You need investors when you're not profitable OR if you need cash to pursue new things.

Also..., they don't have private channels to investors that they can use, instead of broadcasting everything to everyone? Not sure I believe that.

Management doesn't get a cut of the profits, their bonuses are based on the market value of the stock relative to the strike price of their stock options. It's also easier to pump the stock price than it is to grow profits, especially if you are a 'tech company' instead of a stodgy education company.

I understand, you're saying they're hyping the stock. You might well be right. It's just that when someone says "it's a message for investors", that's not what I think at first, but yeah.

Bingo. It’s like John Riccitello, CEO of EA fantasizing to investors that gamers would swipe their credit card to reload their guns in battlefield.

It’s virtue signaling and it is always a sign of desperation, not opportunity

Or simplified further, if it were a great idea it would at least be a good idea.

There are many books of Darwin Awards fillowed with the stories of people who had great ideas that weren't good ones.

"Hey watch this"