> The production of foie gras (the liver of a duck or a goose that has been specially fattened) involves the controversial force-feeding of birds with more food than they would eat in the wild, and more than they would voluntarily eat domestically. The feed, usually corn boiled with fat (to facilitate ingestion), deposits large amounts of fat in the liver, thereby producing the buttery consistency sought by some gastronomes.
Animal welfare controversy aside, I would imagine this suggests they are prematurely exploiting their user base in a non-sustainable manner. If only the customers (I assume the shareholders are their customers?) would care that this tarnishes the brand in the long run.
Sure, and I think customers care. This customer clearly cared.
But suppose some customers don't currently care about you doing something manipulative or exploitative to them. Is that a sign you should keep going?
I say no. That not everybody has yet wised up to your exploitation isn't a sign that you're safe. The fundamental basis of commerce is a positive-sum creation of value for both parties. Whenever a company drifts away from that, they're skating on thin ice, and they will eventually fall in.
> The production of foie gras (the liver of a duck or a goose that has been specially fattened) involves the controversial force-feeding of birds with more food than they would eat in the wild, and more than they would voluntarily eat domestically. The feed, usually corn boiled with fat (to facilitate ingestion), deposits large amounts of fat in the liver, thereby producing the buttery consistency sought by some gastronomes.
Animal welfare controversy aside, I would imagine this suggests they are prematurely exploiting their user base in a non-sustainable manner. If only the customers (I assume the shareholders are their customers?) would care that this tarnishes the brand in the long run.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras_controversy