Media Dana White values UFC principles more than money

[HavokHarmon]

Oh, sorry. Misread your post. Thought you said people. I totally agree. By definition corporations are motivated by profit.

Remember the Gillette toxic masculinity campaign? A fucking razor company, after decades of sports cars and super models and fighter jets and other horseshit in their ads clearly trying to associate their razors with a certain, restricted version of masculinity, not only reverses course on their embracing of toxic masculinity, they have the fucking balls to lecture us about it.

Holy shit I forgot about that one, yeah that was a really hard pill to swallow. I remember my wife and I sitting there watching something when that ad pops up for the first time. Got about to the end and we were both like “how the fuck is this a razor commercial?”.

I try not to get too hung up on that stuff though because at the end of the day the company only has whatever position they think will make them the most money, so if I really feel strongly about the subject I just don’t buy that thing.

 

[JakePaulMMA]

and where is Tapout now .... ^

Hanging up in my closet next to my Shaq's, what's your point?

 

[Scott Stapp]

Picograms and coke = Principles

 

[mudrubble]

It’s a money maker in the sense that it sets a standard for how the company is willing to deal with advertisers and in the long term there’s monetary value in maintaining a firm negotiating position with advertisers in general and demonstrating that he won’t be bullied by them because he’s willing to let one go just for trying.

Granted, it’s a gamble. But boy does Dana love doing that lol

I mean, I hear this as an outside angle. I think the more obvious and direct explanation is the best one here. Dana doesn't like their business practices and he votes with his dollar and pulled their products out to ensure he was not actively contributing to their bottom line.

I don't believe that any possible Machiavellian angles on how this might possibly improve future business could possibly the PRIMARY reason for that move.

 

[HavokHarmon]

I mean, I hear this as an outside angle. I think the more obvious and direct explanation is the best one here. Dana doesn't like their business practices and he votes with his dollar and pulled their products out to ensure he was not actively contributing to their bottom line.

I don't believe that any possible Machiavellian angles on how this might possibly improve future business could possibly the PRIMARY reason for that move.

Why is that difficult for you to believe?

 

[mudrubble]

Why is that difficult for you to believe?

Because, although I do believe the tendency to conspire lies close to the human heart, I don't think it lies closer than emotional reactivity.

Here, the way it played out looked like emotional reactivity, which is entirely fitting here, and is the most direct and common cause of behaviour like this.

I can go conspiracy mode and say "that guy didn't step off the sidewalk to avoid the puddle to keep his shoes dry, he did it to force cars in the street to react to him because he's egotistical"

And, sure, maybe the guy is egotistical. But that being the PRIMARY cause of his stepping into the street when confronted with a puddle in his path, seems like unhinged go-to-conspiracy-first thinking. If he only stepped on the street when he came across a puddle, I'm going to first opine that he's trying to keep his feet dry.

Again, I am VERY open to conspiracy theories because I do believe conspiring for power and status is a very human thing to do. But I just don't think it's as human or as common as regular emotional reaction. So I always go for the more realistic or common explanation first unless confronted with evidence that that is NOT the biggest cause.

Here I am not confronted with any evidence that makes me go past the obvious "he hates their position so he stops contributing to their bottom line". I don't see any reason to start theorizing it's part of a larger conspiracy to keep all sponsors in line.

 

[HavokHarmon]

Because, although I do believe the tendency to conspire lies close to the human heart, I don't think it lies closer than emotional reactivity.

Here, the way it played out looked like emotional reactivity, which is entirely fitting here, and is the most direct and common cause of behaviour like this.

I can go conspiracy mode and say "that guy didn't step off the sidewalk to avoid the puddle to keep his shoes dry, he did it to force cars in the street to react to him because he's egotistical"

And, sure, maybe the guy is egotistical. But that being the PRIMARY cause of his stepping into the street when confronted with a puddle in his path, seems like unhinged go-to-conspiracy-first thinking. If he only stepped on the street when he came across a puddle, I'm going to first opine that he's trying to keep his feet dry.

Again, I am VERY open to conspiracy theories because I do believe conspiring for power and status is a very human thing to do. But I just don't think it's as human or as common as regular emotional reaction. So I always go for the more realistic or common explanation first unless confronted with evidence that that is NOT the biggest cause.

Here I am not confronted with any evidence that makes me go past the obvious "he hates their position so he stops contributing to their bottom line". I don't see any reason to start theorizing it's part of a larger conspiracy to keep all sponsors in line.

That’s fair. If this was somehow part of his personal life (like a dispute with a contractor for his house or something) then I would agree, people make decisions for emotional reasons. But here he’s acting as a business, and businesses act largely or entirely on behalf of what they think will make them the most money.

So at the end of the day I’m not drawing up a conspiracy theory; I’m just calling Dana White a businessman.

 

[mudrubble]

That’s fair. If this was somehow part of his personal life (like a dispute with a contractor for his house or something) then I would agree, people make decisions for emotional reasons. But here he’s acting as a business, and businesses act largely or entirely on behalf of what they think will make them the most money.

So at the end of the day I’m not drawing up a conspiracy theory; I’m just calling Dana White a businessman.

That's fair enough too I guess. Although, to me, saying "I won't contribute to sponsors I'm at odds with" is a business decision made based on an emotional reaction (he doesn't like the sponsor's politics - the sponsor did not affect his bottom line - his reaction is 100% based on his personal preference, which is just based on his feelings - I don't think this makes him emotional in this context) and that just makes him a businessman.

In fact, most businesses do this - try to partner with other companies they share values or goals with and distance themselves from groups or individuals whose views don't align with theirs.

The next layer of "the reason I'm taking these out is NOT because I disagree with their politics but it is actually MORE designed to make other sponsors fear my power" strikes me as being emotional, over-reactive, and not just being a businessman, but being a bit Machiavellian. I think Dana was just being a businessman, primarily.

But it's folks and strokes - to each their own. And death and taxes to us all.

 

[HavokHarmon]

That's fair enough too I guess. Although, to me, saying "I won't contribute to sponsors I'm at odds with" is a business decision made based on an emotional reaction (he doesn't like the sponsor's politics - the sponsor did not affect his bottom line - his reaction is 100% based on his personal preference, which is just based on his feelings - I don't think this makes him emotional in this context) and that just makes him a businessman.

In fact, most businesses do this - try to partner with other companies they share values or goals with and distance themselves from groups or individuals whose views don't align with theirs.

The next layer of "the reason I'm taking these out is NOT because I disagree with their politics but it is actually MORE designed to make other sponsors fear my power" strikes me as being emotional, over-reactive, and not just being a businessman, but being a bit Machiavellian. I think Dana was just being a businessman, primarily.

But it's folks and strokes - to each their own. And death and taxes to us all.

I gotta push back on that a little I think. I haven’t seen businesses partner based on shared values in situations where doing so would LOSE them money or even just break them even in the long term. Granted, having similar values can make partnerships more appealing but that only stretches as far as the market incentive lets it.

Basically anytime I see a business doing something that I don’t immediately understand I ask myself “How could this make them more money?” or even more importantly “Why might they THINK that this move will make them more money?” and typically that answers the question.

I don’t know what your line of work is but consider a few things that are pretty common practices: background checks, drug screenings, sexual harassment training, safety training. These all might seem to be “value” based but none of them actually are.

Background checks and drug screenings lower insurance premiums. Insurance companies offer these lower premiums because data they have collected indicates that they pay out fewer claims when they are in place. Neither the business nor even the insurance company create these procedures based on any value other than their ability to make money.

Sexual harassment trainings reduce the company’s potential liability in the event of a lawsuit. It isn’t even about the training itself; it’s about generating the documentation necessary to avoid a hostile workplace claim, because if they can show that they administered these trainings then they’re off the hook if an employee goes against them.

Safety trainings similarly reduce liability in the event of a lawsuit and reduce insurance premiums. It also pays to not have workers injuring themselves because injuries reduce productivity, so I guess that comes close to being a “value” but at the end of the day it’s only a value in so far as it helps a company’s bottom line.

I just feel like an economic system like ours only incentivizes profit, and to whatever degree other values are incentivized this only matters if whatever that value is happens to align with the existing profit value.

 

[mudrubble]

I gotta push back on that a little I think. I haven’t seen businesses partner based on shared values in situations where doing so would LOSE them money or even just break them even in the long term. Granted, having similar values can make partnerships more appealing but that only stretches as far as the market incentive lets it.

Basically anytime I see a business doing something that I don’t immediately understand I ask myself “How could this make them more money?” or even more importantly “Why might they THINK that this move will make them more money?” and typically that answers the question.

I don’t know what your line of work is but consider a few things that are pretty common practices: background checks, drug screenings, sexual harassment training, safety training. These all might seem to be “value” based but none of them actually are.

Background checks and drug screenings lower insurance premiums. Insurance companies offer these lower premiums because data they have collected indicates that they pay out fewer claims when they are in place. Neither the business nor even the insurance company create these procedures based on any value other than their ability to make money.

Sexual harassment trainings reduce the company’s potential liability in the event of a lawsuit. It isn’t even about the training itself; it’s about generating the documentation necessary to avoid a hostile workplace claim, because if they can show that they administered these trainings then they’re off the hook if an employee goes against them.

Safety trainings similarly reduce liability in the event of a lawsuit and reduce insurance premiums. It also pays to not have workers injuring themselves because injuries reduce productivity, so I guess that comes close to being a “value” but at the end of the day it’s only a value in so far as it helps a company’s bottom line.

I just feel like an economic system like ours only incentivizes profit, and to whatever degree other values are incentivized this only matters if whatever that value is happens to align with the existing profit value.

I can dig this too. In general - yes business practices are, by definition, practices that improve business - ie, that make more money.

But I've seen lots of business practices that don't increase the bottom line. DEI initiatives (I'm black and don't say this from any racist anti-diversity mindset) often lose a company money but improve their social image, which you can argue might lead to more money but often, if you look at analyses of it, they don't actually do that.

But in the case of Dana, he is a hothead who will do things that lose the company money if he sleeps better at night due to it, within reason. I can't imagine pulling out Peleton bikes and replacing them with another brand can possibly make much of a blip on their bottom line, overall, at year end. It's a one time cost, and I imagine they sold off the stock they liberated and lost a negligible amount of money for a company like that.

What I can't see is Dana NOT reacting to a company's politics when they go directly against his. They only went public recently. His whole history is steeped in mob style business, where the view of the top guy is VERY important, and more important than money. Even with the mob, everything comes down to money EXCEPT when it crosses lines of preference or respect.

Big personalities and egos abound in mob style business and waste is a byproduct - they are not known for maximizing earning potential or even profit. They are known for finding new and novel ways to extract new streams of profit more than they are for maximizing efficiency in any given profit stream.

And when it comes to right wing or conservative businessmen, almost all of them would put conservative ideals before the dollar. Even a good number of liberal businesses put liberal ideals before the dollar. I don't think putting ideals before the dollar is strange in partnerships. If Brietbart (sp?) wanted to advertise in the Washington Post, I doubt there is any amount of money they could offer to seal the deal. Sometimes ideals are put before the dollar in business.

But I do agree with your overall point that IN GENERAL businesses put the almighty dollar first. Nothing is universal and this isn't either, but as a general business practice, yes, bottom line is pretty damned central to the venture!

 

[HavokHarmon]

I can dig this too. In general - yes business practices are, by definition, practices that improve business - ie, that make more money.

But I've seen lots of business practices that don't increase the bottom line. DEI initiatives (I'm black and don't say this from any racist anti-diversity mindset) often lose a company money but improve their social image, which you can argue might lead to more money but often, if you look at analyses of it, they don't actually do that.

But in the case of Dana, he is a hothead who will do things that lose the company money if he sleeps better at night due to it, within reason. I can't imagine pulling out Peleton bikes and replacing them with another brand can possibly make much of a blip on their bottom line, overall, at year end. It's a one time cost, and I imagine they sold off the stock they liberated and lost a negligible amount of money for a company like that.

What I can't see is Dana NOT reacting to a company's politics when they go directly against his. They only went public recently. His whole history is steeped in mob style business, where the view of the top guy is VERY important, and more important than money. Even with the mob, everything comes down to money EXCEPT when it crosses lines of preference or respect.

Big personalities and egos abound in mob style business and waste is a byproduct - they are not known for maximizing earning potential or even profit. They are known for finding new and novel ways to extract new streams of profit more than they are for maximizing efficiency in any given profit stream.

And when it comes to right wing or conservative businessmen, almost all of them would put conservative ideals before the dollar. Even a good number of liberal businesses put liberal ideals before the dollar. I don't think putting ideals before the dollar is strange in partnerships. If Brietbart (sp?) wanted to advertise in the Washington Post, I doubt there is any amount of money they could offer to seal the deal. Sometimes ideals are put before the dollar in business.

But I do agree with your overall point that IN GENERAL businesses put the almighty dollar first. Nothing is universal and this isn't either, but as a general business practice, yes, bottom line is pretty damned central to the venture!

The key here is that the company THINKS it will make them money. They aren’t always right, in fact they’re often wrong, but the fact that they believe a thing will make them money is enough. Basically everything you listed falls into that category, or it falls into the category of value overlap.

Like your Breitbart example. Im willing to accept the premise that the Washington Post wouldn’t advertise Breitbart for any reasonable amount of money, although I would push back that there’s probably a threshold that could theoretically be reached where they would (ie for a trillion dollars) but yeah, I’m willing to accept the idea that it would require an implausible amount of money. But I think that stance would evaporate if the people at the Washington Post thought it was good for business. The reason they don’t is because they believe(probably rightfully so) that it would damage their brand and image in the eyes of their target demographic and thus lose them money in the long term.

You might argue that there are other reasons, but I would counter that those would stop mattering if the move aligned with market incentives, thus they aren’t actually reasons because their causal connection is tethered to the one primary reason of market incentives.