Even though we read about weekly scandals, good publicity/bad publicity, still keeps people talking about WF. I realized with all the internal reorgs occurring within the company, it’s executive intention to stir up the dust, and keep people talking about the inner workings at WF. For example, it’s executive intention to eliminate positions and offshore them somewhere else. Banks answer to the shareholders. Has anyone looked at the share price, lately? Not too bad in this environment. Main stream media also keeps us relevant. If we didn’t have a weekly scandal, we wouldn’t be getting all this free publicity. Think about it.
5 replies (most recent on top)
Don't give WF that much credit. Not everything is some masterminded conspiracy.
d-mb post
WF became a media product now masquerading as a bank. Just like the Hilton girl became popular. WF is now the media’s new “It Bank”.
I was in the supermarket today, near the checkout aisle. I just glanced at the National Enquirer. Big foot now banks WF.
You are misconstruing a media product (a freakish -nasty star on a television show or a rock star with a wardrobe malfunction) that does so to draw publicity, versus a bank trying to sell a service or product that needs trust and therefore does not want nor need bad publicity. Wells is not a function of the media, the prior examples are just that and to a certain extent will always prosper with more and more negative publicity. Also, think Kanye West and Kim Kardashian types.
Wall Street share price has nothing to do with the health of the company or its employees. Easily manipulated. We have seen many instances back to Enron.