This is a question that occurred to me reading on another site.
Something major happens to a huge corporation’s customers, and it’s the corporation’s fault, mostly. This isn’t anything that has to do with lives lost or anything that serious - say, their security was lax or they were using SSNs in a way they shouldn’t, they got hacked, and a bunch of identity theft happened as a result. Something of that nature, in whatever field of business you like. This corporation is entrenched, powerful, and very heavily used by the public at large - on the level of McDonalds or WalMart or Chase.
Suppose the CEO of that corp did an interview on a major network (for the news or on prime time or what have you), and it went something like this:
Interviewer: So what will your company do to prevent such an occurrence in the future?
CEO: Absolutely nothing.
Interviewer (surprised): Nothing?
CEO: Of course not. It’s cheaper to pay for the cleanup than it is for prevention?
Interviewer: But aren’t you afraid of bad will or losing customers?
CEO (laughs): Definitely not! First, the vast majority of our customers will never hear about this interview to begin with. Secondly, what are they going to do? Sure, they could go to our competitors, but they won’t bother. They’ll huff and puff for a while, but doing something would take actual effort. So they’ll forget about it when the next celebrity scandal occurs. We won’t lose any significant revenue or customers from this - we’re too big for that. Hell, our profits will probably rise next quarter. So why should I bother lying? We aren’t going to do a thing, and it won’t matter to anyone.
Pretend that this CEO doesn’t immediately “retire” and the board/PR/new president doesn’t reassure the public that of course the company cares and will do everything in its power to make things right etc. etc. Is the CEO right? Will the company be hurt in any real way financially? Will anyone actually care?
The problem with the premise is that a CEO would not last long if they did “nothing”.
The other problem is that doing nothing for a problem they created is not “like it is” for any successful company. Corporate screwups are usually incredibly expensive and reputation endangering, and there would normally be significant action taken to prevent them in the future. Finding a large (and presumably successful) corporation that planned to do “nothing” about major problems or screwups within their control would be kind of difficult.
What is your example of a company you feel behaves this way and give a concrete example of them doing so.
I didn’t have any in particular in mind. I was just musing on someone writing on the old chestnut that companies feel that if the cost of the cleanup is less than the cost of compliance, they’ll choose the former every time. It made me think - normally, obviously, no CEO would dare say that out loud, but what if one did? Are there enough people who care enough?
“Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don’t do one.”
Anyways, getting back to the OP, telling it like it is, isn’t ‘doing nothing’, it’s actively making it worse.
It’s the difference between ignoring a customer complaint and telling the customer “We’re sorry your product doesn’t work, but you’re SOL”. If you ignore them, they might come back again, if you go out of your way to piss them off, there’s a better chance they won’t (assuming you don’t have the market cornered on the product).
The engineers knew of the potential, and it would cost 50 cents per vehicle to eliminate the risk of explosion.
They did nothing until several people died, others hideously burned, and then somebody in engineering spills the truth.
The “fix” was a donut-shaped peice of plastic/rubber/whatever installed around the filler neck.
Yes, the first response to a crisis is to deny it exists. I suspect if it weren’t for the Japanese car makers’ willingness to recall and fix 100,000’s of vehicles, Detroit would still be selling death traps and denying problems. Did Ford learn? See: Explorer.
Ford still hasn’t bought tires from Firestone over that bit of finger-pointing
Well, that’s why I specified “no dying” as part of this. Obviously, when there are deaths, people and politicians sit up and take notice. But what if it was “only” money and/or “only” a rougher, more unpleasant life?
It affects the reputation of the company, which affects consumer confidence in the company, which would make the stock price fall, etc. In most companies, I would expect the board of directors to meet and a few days later the CEO would announce that he is leaving for bigger and better opportunities and the board wishes him well, etc. (they never seem to say they canned the shmuck) and a new CEO would be named.