Ok, my only goal in replying to you was to point out that, your surprise is based on some fake, very easily manipulable information… They do this manipulation in part to portrait themselves as something they are not, which is part of the PR strategy whether it works on you or not… that is all
It’s not good PR because it makes me think they’re poorly structured and poorly allocating their money lol
if it makes you not buy into their subscription, then it’s poor PR… if it makes you think they are not greedy fucks, then it’s good PR
None of this impacts whether or not I pay them. It makes me think they are wasteful and greedy. Those are not mutually exclusive
if it makes you change your opinion of them but not enough to either pay them or stop paying them, then it means nothing to them
The only reasons I should pay or not pay for something are 1) quality of service for the cost and 2) ethical considerations.
Poor management does not factor in unless i am dependent on it for work. This is purely entertainment. Their being dumbasses is not a factor.
You’re kind of moving the goalposts here as well. This is a silly debate at this point. All I said was I was surprised at the stated profit.
Ok, my only goal in replying to you was to point out that, your surprise is based on some fake, very easily manipulable information… They do this manipulation in part to portrait themselves as something they are not, which is part of the PR strategy whether it works on you or not… that is all