8 ms·

Their growth is amazing. Q3 2015 revenue up 78% YoY

by Advaith 11y ago

escherplex 11y ago
That's why Amazon can afford the huge salary increase they offered Jeremy Clarkson and the old BBC Top Gear crew.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Which is a horrible thing to do from a moral standpoint: Yes, the Top Gear crew will make you profits. But is it morally okay to hire someone who just got fired for punching their director? Isn’t that rewarding horrible behaviour? EDIT: Please explain why you disagree in a comment – I’d love to hear other opinions.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    I bet on a big Hollywood movie a assistant producer screwing up an evening meal for a big star would be fired that day and probably black listed. And he wasn't fired the BBC didn't take up a new contract at least in part due to lobbying by other media owners who don't like the BBC having a hit show. Additionally is it fair that James may and Richard Hammond and the rest of the TG crew lost their jobs
    - kuschku 11y ago
      No, it is not fair that the others lost their jobs. And he was fired – the BBC instantly suspended the show and stopped even broadcasting all further recorded episodes. That’s as "fired" as it gets. And it was not that the assistant producer "screwed up", it was that Clarkson insisted they would stay longer out, then they came so late to the Hotel that the hotel had no warm food anymore, and then Clarkson punched the assistant producer. And how is this behaviour rewarded? With a raise. (And the "that other group is behaving immoral, so I should too" defense is in no way relevant)
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - escherplex 11y ago
        Well, to quote James May 'Jeremy Clarkson is a complete nob but I like him' And for the next useless tidbit, heard May was holding out for more cash from Amazon for the new 2016 series and got it.
      - walshemj 11y ago
        After a media panic whipped up by the BBC's enemies is the key element you missed though - agree that JC should have been punished.
    - rosege 11y ago
      Did the TG crew lose their jobs? I thought that its going to keep going with a new host
  - BookmarkSaver 11y ago
    He's definitely an asshole, and what he did was unacceptable and deserving of getting fired, but as far as celebrities go he's not that bad and he honestly handled it pretty reasonably. The fact is that he was going to get hired somewhere, and it isn't like this didn't hurt him at all.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      It’s questionable why Amazon would use someone who is best known for punching a producer as public face in all their ads, though. I’d argue that this – he’s now in ads on every TV channel, every website – is even encouraging people to be more assholes. Society should discourage people acting as assholes, and this seems like it does the opposite.
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        According to Wikipedia he "is best known for co-presenting the BBC TV show Top Gear", not punching a producer.
  - rifung 11y ago
    Since when were corporations concerned with moral values? I mean this is Amazon, the company that infamously treats its employees like poorly. FWIW I used to work there and it wasn't as bad as the articles made it out to be, but I would not consider the company to be one that cares about morals or its employees much.
    - adventured 11y ago
      Since when are they not? I'd argue the radical majority of all businesses in the US operate morally. Big businesses are an extremely small fraction of all business in the US and the world. Almost all businesses stay in business because they maintain a favorable reputation. Good moral values (like not stealing from or lying to customers) is a per-requisite for most businesses to keep operating. To the point: companies like Amazon or Comcast != most businesses. They're extreme outliers to put it mildly. Further, Amazon treats its customers extraordinarily well, and operates morally by its customers, which protects their reputation where they believe it counts. Try opening a small business and aggressively screwing over your customers. You'll quickly discover how business and morality go together. The only time that isn't true, is when a business is protected by scale (which means it'll take longer for their business to collapse), or protected by government-enforced monopoly.
      - UK-AL 11y ago
        If a business can get away with something and profit they will do it. They are amoral entities. I know plenty of scummy small businesses
        adventured 11y ago
        They're not amoral entities, they're run by people that make all decisions. Every person involved in a business has a moral compass of some regard, and every decision made flows from that. If a business can get away with something and profit, they won't do it. See how I just claimed the opposite without any proof? Saying you know plenty of scummy small businesses doesn't mean more than even a small fraction of small businesses are in fact scummy. I know very few scummy small businesses. <- That's a meaningless statement and it's true. I'll argue that most businesses, and most people in general, are neither scummy nor looking to steal from, rip off, or otherwise defraud other people. The opposite position requires that one believe most people are bad, which is blatantly not true (if it were, civilization would be impossible).
  - manigandham 11y ago
    He committed a bad action. And this led to consequences with him getting fired and the show changing. Not sure why he needs to keep paying for it forever. If you don't agree with the punishment then that's certainly valid. However just because you made a mistake doesn't preclude you from working for the rest of your life. And he's certainly worth the money for his following and trailblazing he's done in the industry, that doesn't go away because of a single incident.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Well, the question is if the firing is effective when he immediately gets hired by a competitor at a higher wage. I know, it’s necessary for society to accept that everyone makes mistakes, and that everyone can change, but then the person actually has to use that chance and has to change. Just continuing business as usual is problematic. (I wonder if a court could have sentenced him to a stress-management course?)
      - UK-AL 11y ago
        Firing has never been a postive punishment for a person nor is it intended to be. It's mostly just to protect the companies Companies arnt paternal entities delivering justice and fairness
      - manigandham 11y ago
        I'm not sure what you're expecting here because all the BBC could do is fire him. And I don't see what the problem is with any other company hiring him because he's actually worth it. The guy led the way for the biggest show on the BBC and that's no small feat. He still has all his skills, experience and following. I think what you're looking for is criminal charges for his actions but it looks like the other guy didn't choose to file them nor did any prosecutor so that's that.

Their growth is amazing. Q3 2015 revenue up 78% YoY

by Advaith 11y ago

Their growth is amazing. Q3 2015 revenue up 78% YoY

escherplex 11y ago

That's why Amazon can afford the huge salary increase they offered Jeremy Clarkson and the old BBC Top Gear crew.

kuschku 11y ago
Which is a horrible thing to do from a moral standpoint: Yes, the Top Gear crew will make you profits. But is it morally okay to hire someone who just got fired for punching their director? Isn’t that rewarding horrible behaviour? EDIT: Please explain why you disagree in a comment – I’d love to hear other opinions.
- walshemj 11y ago
  I bet on a big Hollywood movie a assistant producer screwing up an evening meal for a big star would be fired that day and probably black listed. And he wasn't fired the BBC didn't take up a new contract at least in part due to lobbying by other media owners who don't like the BBC having a hit show. Additionally is it fair that James may and Richard Hammond and the rest of the TG crew lost their jobs
  - kuschku 11y ago
    No, it is not fair that the others lost their jobs. And he was fired – the BBC instantly suspended the show and stopped even broadcasting all further recorded episodes. That’s as "fired" as it gets. And it was not that the assistant producer "screwed up", it was that Clarkson insisted they would stay longer out, then they came so late to the Hotel that the hotel had no warm food anymore, and then Clarkson punched the assistant producer. And how is this behaviour rewarded? With a raise. (And the "that other group is behaving immoral, so I should too" defense is in no way relevant)
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - escherplex 11y ago
      Well, to quote James May 'Jeremy Clarkson is a complete nob but I like him' And for the next useless tidbit, heard May was holding out for more cash from Amazon for the new 2016 series and got it.
    - walshemj 11y ago
      After a media panic whipped up by the BBC's enemies is the key element you missed though - agree that JC should have been punished.
  - rosege 11y ago
    Did the TG crew lose their jobs? I thought that its going to keep going with a new host
- BookmarkSaver 11y ago
  He's definitely an asshole, and what he did was unacceptable and deserving of getting fired, but as far as celebrities go he's not that bad and he honestly handled it pretty reasonably. The fact is that he was going to get hired somewhere, and it isn't like this didn't hurt him at all.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    It’s questionable why Amazon would use someone who is best known for punching a producer as public face in all their ads, though. I’d argue that this – he’s now in ads on every TV channel, every website – is even encouraging people to be more assholes. Society should discourage people acting as assholes, and this seems like it does the opposite.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      According to Wikipedia he "is best known for co-presenting the BBC TV show Top Gear", not punching a producer.
- rifung 11y ago
  Since when were corporations concerned with moral values? I mean this is Amazon, the company that infamously treats its employees like poorly. FWIW I used to work there and it wasn't as bad as the articles made it out to be, but I would not consider the company to be one that cares about morals or its employees much.
  - adventured 11y ago
    Since when are they not? I'd argue the radical majority of all businesses in the US operate morally. Big businesses are an extremely small fraction of all business in the US and the world. Almost all businesses stay in business because they maintain a favorable reputation. Good moral values (like not stealing from or lying to customers) is a per-requisite for most businesses to keep operating. To the point: companies like Amazon or Comcast != most businesses. They're extreme outliers to put it mildly. Further, Amazon treats its customers extraordinarily well, and operates morally by its customers, which protects their reputation where they believe it counts. Try opening a small business and aggressively screwing over your customers. You'll quickly discover how business and morality go together. The only time that isn't true, is when a business is protected by scale (which means it'll take longer for their business to collapse), or protected by government-enforced monopoly.
    - UK-AL 11y ago
      If a business can get away with something and profit they will do it. They are amoral entities. I know plenty of scummy small businesses
      - adventured 11y ago
        They're not amoral entities, they're run by people that make all decisions. Every person involved in a business has a moral compass of some regard, and every decision made flows from that. If a business can get away with something and profit, they won't do it. See how I just claimed the opposite without any proof? Saying you know plenty of scummy small businesses doesn't mean more than even a small fraction of small businesses are in fact scummy. I know very few scummy small businesses. <- That's a meaningless statement and it's true. I'll argue that most businesses, and most people in general, are neither scummy nor looking to steal from, rip off, or otherwise defraud other people. The opposite position requires that one believe most people are bad, which is blatantly not true (if it were, civilization would be impossible).
- manigandham 11y ago
  He committed a bad action. And this led to consequences with him getting fired and the show changing. Not sure why he needs to keep paying for it forever. If you don't agree with the punishment then that's certainly valid. However just because you made a mistake doesn't preclude you from working for the rest of your life. And he's certainly worth the money for his following and trailblazing he's done in the industry, that doesn't go away because of a single incident.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Well, the question is if the firing is effective when he immediately gets hired by a competitor at a higher wage. I know, it’s necessary for society to accept that everyone makes mistakes, and that everyone can change, but then the person actually has to use that chance and has to change. Just continuing business as usual is problematic. (I wonder if a court could have sentenced him to a stress-management course?)
    - UK-AL 11y ago
      Firing has never been a postive punishment for a person nor is it intended to be. It's mostly just to protect the companies Companies arnt paternal entities delivering justice and fairness
    - manigandham 11y ago
      I'm not sure what you're expecting here because all the BBC could do is fire him. And I don't see what the problem is with any other company hiring him because he's actually worth it. The guy led the way for the biggest show on the BBC and that's no small feat. He still has all his skills, experience and following. I think what you're looking for is criminal charges for his actions but it looks like the other guy didn't choose to file them nor did any prosecutor so that's that.