Posted by Wayne Parham [ 67.66.231.92 ] on August 11, 2005 at 06:02:45:
I was listening to the radio this morning, and there was a report about the latest findings about Krispy Kreme. A comment was made that it trumped even the fraud at Worldcom and Enron because at least in those cases, the lies were done to protect companies that made "important" services like energy and telephone. Krispy Kreme's deception was seen as being less "worthy" because they were just making donuts.
That got me thinking. The whole deal about these kinds of deceptions are that someone or a small group of people are trying to make their organizations look more successful than they really are. The idea is that popular things sell. If a stock offering looks strong, people want to buy it more. The company is better able to get bankers to finance them. The public perceives the company as more worthy, and they tend to purchase its products and services more.
This brings back the issue of internet shills. The same thing happens here on the internet, when the bloggers boost a company or when they put it down. If it's an honest article, that's one thing. But when it's a faceless bunch, there is too much room for shills and sockpuppets. That's why we run into this kind of thing in discussion boards, where shills and sockpuppets roam the net pluging their companies or putting down their competitors.
The radio host talking about Krispy Kreme this morning was less sensitive to fraud when it didn't seem important enough to him. It's like he was saying fraud is forgiveable on the little stuff, but there's a threshold there where you cross the line. Some are just little white lies. Of course, if a deceptive competitor gains an unfair advantage or if you or your company is harmed, it isn't a "little white lie" to you. But maybe if it's entertaining enough, or "just under the radar" and doesn't get the attention of say an Enron or a Worldcom, maybe the public is willing to overlook a certain amount of deception.
What say you?
[ Dungeon Forum ] [ Help ]