#strategy

I've told you all. They are doing just fine. Read the article. They don't even care to mention retail as part of their core 5 businesses. So stop crying about their lack of brick and mortar locations. They aren't a retail business anymore.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20251222584547/en/Transformco-Fidem-Financial-and-Funds-Managed-by-Blue-Owl-Launch-Aress-a-Next-Generation-Co-Brand-Credit-Card-Servicing-Platform

What are everyone’s guesses as to what happens within Oxy for 2026?

On Face the Nation, Marco Rubio stated that Ryan Lance and Wirth from Chevron will visit Venezuela this week to determine what’s needed to increase production

So does Shell get any upside from the US seizure of Venezuela? We know the area and assets well. Maybe Shell, along with other majors, got a silent under-table tip from an Administration bent on a takeover of the Americas. But good for business?

It looks like Chevron will be the largest benefactor of the change in Venezuela. The only company that stayed after Chavez kicked out all the other companies. Will those companies lay claim to their stolen assets? Thoughts?

In 2007 Chavez nationalized all heavy oil. Two of which were Petrozuata and Corocoro that were ConocoPhillips. Venezuela was ordered to pay CP, call it $9 billion for damages. Do you think with the recent US will run Venezuela, CP will be looking to get back in? Then they can hire me again?

I, along with roughly 140 other employees, was laid off yesterday. This came just two weeks after being told by my department lead that while R&D was over budget, my role was safe.

Many of those impacted were considered high performers and had strong year-end reviews. This makes the decision feel less about performance and more like a short-sighted attempt to offset missed earnings targets.

A significant number of those let go were among the highest-paid employees on their teams, often with stronger stock and benefits packages. At the same time, the company continues to publicly boast about plans to hire 700 additional employees this year.

Cutting experienced, higher-cost employees to replace them with cheaper labor appears to be the new strategy at Axon.

I came across this article this morning that leads with, "Why Is CDW Not Exciting?
Despite the more favorable entry price, we don't have much confidence in CDW."

They cite three reasons: 1) Sales growth over the last 3 years; 2) Sales growth projections are slim; and 3) EPS growth has stalled.

Over the last two years, the stock price is down over $85 per share, with $48 of that over the last 6 months.

While certainly the market is tough, but CDW was always able outperform the market. That ended in early '23 when our run of 8-10 declining quarters started.

We've laid off about 1,500 people over the last 2+ years and the decline in coworker count has had no positive impact on our trajectory.

There has to be a new plan implemented and soon, because what we are doing is clearly not working.

If you were asked, what would be your recommendation to get things back on track?

https://stockstory.org/us/stocks/nasdaq/cdw/news/buy-or-sell/3-reasons-to-sell-cdw-and-1-stock-to-buy-instead-2

Everything here is dictated by how leadership thinks analysts will react. We’re always responding, never setting a direction of our own, and it shows in every rushed decision. Instead of building something solid long term, we just keep sprinting after the next headline to keep Wall Street happy.

https://share.google/Kc6FpT81a0YcOUM8l

When layoffs become the sole tool for every problem, it shows management has no real plan. It's a clear sign of failure and desperation. I've started my job search, and you should too. There's no future here.

Anybody remember thi
As of today, GM’s market cap is 150% of Ford’s $52 billion.
Why is Farley still employed?

That's why everything we do fails spectacularly. It's that simple.

Salesforce, one of the world’s most influential enterprise software companies, is quietly but significantly rethinking its aggressive push toward artificial intelligence. After laying off nearly 4,000 employees and replacing many support roles with AI-powered agents, senior executives at the company have admitted that their confidence in large language models (LLMs) has declined. This shift marks a notable moment in the broader tech industry’s relationship with generative AI, exposing the gap between promise and practical performance.

https://hostalup.substack.com/p/salesforce-reconsiders-its-ai-first

In my opinion here is what is happening with Belk. I believe they have saw what is actually work for Macy’s and Belk is going to give it a shot. Macy’s is opening up smaller format stores that seem to be doing quite well for the brand, but at the same time they are closing their stores that are simply not profitable anymore and putting more focus into their “go-forward” stores. This strategy is all too similar to what Belk is doing. I do believe we will see several more store closures with Belk in the new year but honestly if this can help the company I believe it should be done. I mean it is working for Macy’s as they saw their first sales increase and positive outlook for the first time in several years.

Big internal programs like this almost always arrive wrapped in promise and land in phases, pilots, exceptions, “next wave.” Especially at Dell Technologies scale. Even when the intent is real, gravity is real too.

What tends to happen in practice:

Year 1: decks, roadmaps, leadership optimism

Year 2: partial tools, parallel systems, extra clicks

Year 3: the thing quietly becomes “how we’ve always done it,” just renamed

What else T does and should do to survive the next 20 years?

About time. Business has been awful, strategy is non-existent, and products in the toilet. Sounds about right for someone to scoop up for $2B (overpriced)

Let's see if Dario's new role can pay dividends for Big Blew or if this initiative just dies on the vine.

https://www.hpcwire.com/off-the-wire/doe-announces-genesis-mission-collaboration-agreements-with-24-organizations/

these mo--ns have no clue what they're doing :D

If you worked at IBM (or were a customer or business partner) you may have visited this IBM Palisades Conference Center which was amazing. This 33 minute aerial drone video made me cry as it shows the inside and outside. Like a science fiction movie (Aliens) where the humans just disappear. SO SAD!!!!! Like far too many former great IBM sites and buildings as IBM leaves the USA and declines into oblivion. DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN! Read about King Louie (Lou Gerstner The G Man) "having a treadmill reserved" just for him. SO ARROGANT!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXwgHWfR_b8

The C-Suite has no clothes.

That’s not news to anyone. That’s an acknowledgment of what we all know. The 10s of Billions lost (not to mention the opportunity cost which may well be more expensive) is a direct result of the awful strategic decisions made by Ford’s pathetic executive team.

What’s the purpose of saying this? So that those leaders who want to play pretend and have successfully seeded this “the entire industry sc--wed up” narrative with their media lackeys get this message: you are to blame. You failed us. You failed our customers. And we all know you know it.

It has been obvious since the beginning of the EV cycle that the demand wasn’t there. The value proposition has never had widespread appeal. The working class - remember them? - isn’t lining up to pay more for a less capable, less convenient solution with less resale value, a shorter lifespan and horrible supporting infrastructure. If you didn’t know this, you should resign immediately.

Did you need to flush ~40B dollars down the drain (who got rich from this fiasco - that begs for some investigation) in order to figure out that your core customer base didn’t want to pay more for far less? Or did you think the government was going to ram them down all of our throats and that you would sit back and be the benefactors of a command economy?

Oh, and don’t think we all didn’t notice that you inflated the pricing of all your ICE vehicles to subsidize your abominable strategy.

How about we focus on improving the products people want to buy? You know, the ones that actually sell. Or, will it be some more outside hires from Silicon Valley to come and show us all how to execute the next scam? My money is on the latter.

“So, I literally came up with a plan to become a CISO, and I executed on it.”
https://fortune.com/2025/12/19/at-t-executive-manifested-his-chief-information-security-officer-job/

A post making the rounds has similarities to a certain company…..

Starbucks did not lose $30 billion because of bad coffee. It lost it because the company
mispriced what actually created its value. When Starbucks appointed a McKinsey-trained executive as CEO, the mandate was operational discipline. Costs were scrutinized. Processes were standardized. Stores were pushed to behave like efficiency machines rather than community spaces.

On paper, the logic made sense. Consultants optimize margins by removing friction. But
Starbucks was never a pure efficiency business. Its premium pricing depended on brand emotion, store experience, and cultural loyalty. Those are intangible assets, but they carry real monetary value.

As efficiency initiatives rolled out, customers noticed. Service quality declined. Stores felt
transactional. The brand lost its emotional moat. Foot traffic softened. Growth expectations reset.

Markets reacted quickly. Over 17 months, Starbucks shed roughly $30 billion in market
capitalization. Not from insolvency risk, but from a reassessment of future cash flows tied to brand strength.

The board reversed course. The CEO exited. Strategy changed.

The wealth lesson is structural. Consulting frameworks work best where value is mechanical and repeatable. Consumer brands compound wealth through trust, identity, and habit, not just margins.

When leadership optimizes the wrong variable, scale turns small misjudgments into massive losses.

Starbucks did not fail at execution. It failed at understanding what it was actually selling.

Sounds familiar?

Starbucks did not lose $30 billion because of bad coffee. It lost it because the company
mispriced what actually created its value.

When Starbucks appointed a McKinsey-trained executive as CEO, the mandate was operational discipline. Costs were scrutinized. Processes were standardized. Stores were pushed to behave like efficiency machines rather than community spaces.

On paper, the logic made sense.

Consultants optimize margins by removing friction. But Starbucks was never a pure efficiency business. Its premium pricing depended on brand emotion, store experience, and cultural loyalty. Those are intangible assets, but they carry real monetary value.

As efficiency initiatives rolled out, customers noticed. Service quality declined. Stores felt
transactional. The brand lost its emotional moat. Foot traffic softened. Growth expectations reset. Markets reacted quickly. Over 17 months, Starbucks shed roughly $30 billion in market capitalization. Not from insolvency risk, but from a reassessment of future cash flows tied to brand strength.

The board reversed course. The CEO exited. Strategy changed.

The wealth lesson is structural. Consulting frameworks work best where value is mechanical and repeatable. Consumer brands compound wealth through trust, identity, and habit, not just margins.

When leadership optimizes the wrong variable, scale turns small misjudgments into massive losses.

Starbucks did not fail at execution. It failed at understanding what it was actually selling.

Curious if anyone has any actual intel on the remote workforce strategy? I’m not looking for passive aggressive comments on speculation. I’m trying to get ahead of my own planning. If there’s anyone on here who has some intel, please do tell! I’d prefer what’s next not to be a surprise also.

The decision-makers at Mattel are stuck thinking one quarter at a time. There is no long-range vision, just constant reaction. It’s like they’re having trouble realizing that popular trends can last anywhere from a month to years and you can’t base a whole business strategy on just that. That lack of foresight is painful to watch.

Has corporate told us which strategies are driving outflows the most? Remembering the blue chip flip during 2020. 8 billion is a lot.

Starbucks hired Laxman Narasimhan, a former McKinsey & Company senior partner, as CEO in 2023, but his tenure was marked by declining market value (around $30 billion lost) due to a perceived disconnect between strategic advising and operational execution, leading to his replacement by an "operator" from Chipotle, Brian Niccol, which immediately boosted the stock, highlighting a shift from pure strategy to hands-on management at the company.

Key Details:
The Hire: Narasimhan, with deep consulting and PepsiCo experience, was seen as bringing strategic discipline to Starbucks.

The Problem: His focus on efficiency and process, influenced by McKinsey frameworks, alienated customers and staff, leading to poor store experiences and falling sales, despite strategic logic.

The Pivot: In late 2024/early 2025, Starbucks replaced him with Brian Niccol (ex-Chipotle CEO), known for actual operational scaling.

The Result: Niccol's appointment reversed the stock decline, showing the market's preference for real-world operators over strategic advisors for hands-on retail challenges.

The Lesson: The situation became a case study on the difference between consulting/advising (strategy) and building/running (operations), with Starbucks learning that its brand needed experience, not just frameworks, according to various business commentators.

Starbucks didn’t fail in its execution.. it just forgot what it is selling.. is chevron heading down the same path?

Everything that Ford announce yesterday is basically they will copy China automotive companies products. Farley's team been in China and they finally realized what they need to do to survive. Seeing what China already produced and successful, Ford will bench mark China.

With her lack of clear leadership and strategy as well as her focus on outsourcing any and all jobs she can to those who "defer to others" when making decisions it was only a matter of time. I for one congratulate Athena for failing upwards once again!

we can be creating a company in the consulting industry, about strategy, process, whatever, to bring our intelligence to the market

we know Vz weaknesses and we know the market, we need one leader to start it

anyone ?

we could also crush the wholesale market ....

Dell’s recent brand unification—and the apparent reversal back to older brands next year—stands as a textbook example of how not to manage brand strategy.

Brand changes are expensive by design. They consume money, time, internal focus, and customer attention. When done right, that investment buys clarity, momentum, and long-term equity. When done poorly, it delivers the opposite: confusion, fatigue, and erosion of trust. Unfortunately, Dell’s approach seems to fall squarely into the latter category.

Unifying brands only to roll them back shortly after signals a lack of conviction and strategic coherence. Customers are left wondering what Dell actually stands for. Partners struggle to align messaging. Employees are forced to relearn narratives that may soon be discarded again. None of this creates value—it destroys it.

The most troubling part isn’t the wasted marketing spend or the operational churn. It’s what this reveals about leadership. Strong leadership makes hard decisions, commits to them, and sees them through with discipline. Weak leadership oscillates, reacts, and reverses course without fully absorbing the consequences.

Brand strategy isn’t a logo exercise. It’s a long-term promise to the market. Changing that promise repeatedly tells customers one thing very clearly: we’re not sure who we are.

In an era where trust, clarity, and consistency matter more than ever, this kind of back-and-forth is not just inefficient—it’s damaging. And the cost will be paid not in rebranding budgets, but in lost credibility

“Win Now” assumes a stable foundation. Many here question whether the organization is repairable, and others note it has yet to stabilize. Since the comeback strategy began, repeated executive turnover and workforce reductions make the end state hard to understand.

When integrity feels absent, professionals have to anchor to personal values—knowing when to stay, help, or move on without bitterness. The harder question is why so many remain while clearly unhappy.

If anyone has firsthand layoff experience or concrete insight that could help others make informed career decisions, it would be valuable. Merry Christmas.

Tech has the knowledge, no need for Consulting

If laying off HR is part of the senior leadership strategy, how are the human resources at FIS supposed to respond. Need help with a leave of absence request, problem with your pay, being harrassed by a colleague or supervisor? Yeah, no. Evidently, leadership is also, not interested in the protection from liability that is a core function of a sound HR department. FIS is reckless and their shareholders should know.

Closing out the year with a bunch of resignations that look like GoGo house cleanning. Heads of IR, Strategy and Comms -Gov Affairs are all gone. It’s not whose tellin the story. It’s the story!!! Even chuckles can’t spin this

Hate the game, not the player...

If you’ve ever tried to keep all the flavours of SAS ticking over at scale, you’d have a bit more empathy for the hiding to nothing that team is on.

The model is properly broken, no doubt. But it isn't the staff... it’s the lack of joined-up thinking from the top—pushing offers that shouldn't even exist. The top brass will nod along and say there are issues, but point out that Cloud makes us $x00m a year. And they aren't wrong, unless they finish the sentence... it makes SAS hundres of millions but it should be making us billions.

SAS has been flat for 15 years. Let me state that again, SAS has been flat for 15 years... because the mentality you have is shared by the ELT... who don't get any steer or love from Dad. The cloud offer here is a shambles of execution... across the whole company, not just the division. Let me state that again, SAS has been flat for 15 years...

With that in mind, no need to stick the boot in. We should at least be decent to one another as we shift the deck chairs around... makes the time on a sinking ship a bit more bearable.

This deserves its own thread. OP:@12j+1kbnvhbm6

Under murky rationale the head of Oracle Design left the company. Oracle has made great strides in UX (redwood.oracle.com) but the future is not clear. Everything is “AI” but with no real strategy.

Verizon's Competitive Pricing Strategy
Aggressive Holiday Promotions
Verizon has recently implemented aggressive holiday promotions that significantly undercut T-Mobile's pricing. This strategy aims to attract customers by offering larger discounts across various price tiers. Analysts suggest that Verizon is now positioned as the discount provider in the market, a role that T-Mobile previously held.
Financial Implications
Despite the attractive deals, Verizon is reportedly incurring losses with these promotions, estimated at $640 per account. The company believes that retaining customers through these discounts will lead to long-term profitability as subscribers typically upgrade their plans and purchase additional services over time.
Market Positioning
Verizon's new pricing strategy includes a "Bring Your Bill" promotion, which allows customers to bring their current bills from T-Mobile or AT&T to receive a customized offer that often matches or slightly undercuts their existing costs. This initiative is part of Verizon's effort to reverse recent customer losses and enhance its competitive stance in the wireless market.
Conclusion
Overall, Verizon's current pricing strategy is designed to attract customers from T-Mobile by offering better deals, even at the cost of short-term losses. This shift in strategy marks a significant change in the competitive landscape of the telecommunications industry.

The result of this is T-Mobile has already followed Verizon’s lead and has started laying off employees in order to cut costs. Dan is a genius, the race to the bottom has begun!