The question isnât whether consumers would oppose high CEO pay of a Guiding Company/âProducer, but rather whether they would choose that company over a normal company that serves normal shareholders and also has high executive pay. If youâre a consumer and youâre choosing a normal companyâs product over a Guiding Companyâs product due to high executive pay, youâre cutting off your nose to spite your face, because you are enriching shareholders instead of charities.
It may even be they Guiding Companies can compete better for executive talent because of the social cache of leading an organization that generates $100 million/âyear for effective charities. Sure, normal fortune 500 companies can offer 10 figure yearly compensation, but a major Guiding Company could not only pay well (perhaps not quite as exorbitantly) but also grant one tremendous social status and the psychological benefits of being able to do lots of good through your job.
The benefits from actors across the economic arenaâconsumers, employees, consultants, advertisers, vendors- will allow for enormous advantages for Guiding Companies over regular companies. It just takes enough people to realize that the power of Guided Consumption.
Guided Consumption just needs (as was noted in the previous post by Tomer_Goloboy) to hit a social tipping point. Because right now, thereâs a strong status quo bias that is not fully appreciating the structural advantages that Guiding Companies will have.
I completely agree that it makes no rational sense for people to choose traditional companies over guided companies with all things being equal. But Iâve been in marketing long enough to know that people are highly irrational and emotional, and charities evoke a whole host of strong emotions. It will be really interesting to see how the public responds to guiding companies, but I know it wonât be rational. The CEO of Newmanâs Own apparently made 270K USD each year, this question on quora about the CEOâs pay is also interesting. Most people tend to think that 270K USD isnât too much.
With new talent (millennials) caring much more about the sustainability and ethicality of their jobs, guiding companies might have better teams, and better teams, provided there is enough money, built the best companies. Iâm very excited about this aspect and from anecdotal evidence from my company, this is true. We have a lot of applications on our jobs and the main reason they apply is because of our guiding company business model.
The question isnât whether consumers would oppose high CEO pay of a Guiding Company/âProducer, but rather whether they would choose that company over a normal company that serves normal shareholders and also has high executive pay. If youâre a consumer and youâre choosing a normal companyâs product over a Guiding Companyâs product due to high executive pay, youâre cutting off your nose to spite your face, because you are enriching shareholders instead of charities.
It may even be they Guiding Companies can compete better for executive talent because of the social cache of leading an organization that generates $100 million/âyear for effective charities. Sure, normal fortune 500 companies can offer 10 figure yearly compensation, but a major Guiding Company could not only pay well (perhaps not quite as exorbitantly) but also grant one tremendous social status and the psychological benefits of being able to do lots of good through your job.
The benefits from actors across the economic arenaâconsumers, employees, consultants, advertisers, vendors- will allow for enormous advantages for Guiding Companies over regular companies. It just takes enough people to realize that the power of Guided Consumption.
Guided Consumption just needs (as was noted in the previous post by Tomer_Goloboy) to hit a social tipping point. Because right now, thereâs a strong status quo bias that is not fully appreciating the structural advantages that Guiding Companies will have.
I completely agree that it makes no rational sense for people to choose traditional companies over guided companies with all things being equal. But Iâve been in marketing long enough to know that people are highly irrational and emotional, and charities evoke a whole host of strong emotions. It will be really interesting to see how the public responds to guiding companies, but I know it wonât be rational. The CEO of Newmanâs Own apparently made 270K USD each year, this question on quora about the CEOâs pay is also interesting. Most people tend to think that 270K USD isnât too much.
With new talent (millennials) caring much more about the sustainability and ethicality of their jobs, guiding companies might have better teams, and better teams, provided there is enough money, built the best companies. Iâm very excited about this aspect and from anecdotal evidence from my company, this is true. We have a lot of applications on our jobs and the main reason they apply is because of our guiding company business model.