Some of the biggest Business blunders in history...

[PokerPaul]

- IBM Executive Board circa 1976 "Ok we got the market cornered with our new personal computer platform. Thats where the big money will be. Who cares about the software, thats just small potatoes compared to the hardware. Lets let that geek with that operating DOS thing have the contract for now to supply that end of it."

- CEO of Western Union in 1880's in response to Alexander Graham Bell: "You are correct, i am sure your talking device would be a great way to use our nationwide infrastructure of telegraph poles and cables, but i am not interested. We are one if the biggest companies in the world, and don't have time for your little 'toy', which as far as im concerned has very little actual use."

- Russia (around 1850) to US :" U wanna buy alaska for 25000?"

- Partypoker (this week) to their skins and biggest customers: "We are not happy about players leaving us for better deals with our skin partners. So we are cutting them off at the knees in order to force those heavy volume players back to our site, and screw our partners in the process. We are God in this market and will stay so forever so we can do whatever we deem in our best interest, at the expense of our long time partners and customers."

OK i know i am getting carried away a bit...and some of those quotes arent precise, but the jist is there.

Might party look back years from now and live to regret the past week?

What they are doing is pretty brash to rest of network around them, including customers.

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]

We are God

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mess with God. You have been warned. This is not a test.

[dlk9s]

The beginning of that mistake was when Party did away with rakeback. I still can't think of a logical business reason for it.

One HUGE blunder was when Coca-Cola introduced New Coke. Fortunately for Roberto Goizueta and the gang, it inadvertantly turned into a huge groundswell of support for the original formula and Coca-Cola Classic sold like hotcakes (hotcakes supposedly sell very well) when it was brought back.

[drewjustdrew]

Supposedly Bill Gates referred IBM to someone else when they were looking for an operating system. The guy did not hold his appointment when they came to see him. He went flying his cessna or something frivolous like that. When IBM asked for another referral from Gates, he decided this might be something worth looking into.

[Evan]

Two things about this post are really funny:

1) You left out the obvious answer from this generation, Enron.
2) You're a raging dumbass.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
The guy did not hold his appointment when they came to see him. He went flying his cessna or something frivolous like that. When IBM asked for another referral from Gates, he decided this might be something worth looking into.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the best of my knowledge, it was because Gary Kildall (head of Digital Research, formerly Intergalatic Digital Research) wouldn't sign a non-disclosure agreement with IBM saying he wouldn't repeat what they discussed in the meeting. IBM goes back to Gates, Gates buys a crummy obscure OS called QDOS ridiculously cheap, and turns it into an empire.

Don't get me wrong, he's a fantastic businessman, but man - talk about right place, right time. And for anyone who thinks that Gates was some kind of genius hardcore supercoder, this (http://tinyurl.com/cjwhe) is an amusing story on that topic.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

To the best of my knowledge, it was because Gary Kildall (head of Digital Research, formerly Intergalatic Digital Research) wouldn't sign a non-disclosure agreement with IBM saying he wouldn't repeat what they discussed in the meeting. IBM goes back to Gates, Gates buys a crummy obscure OS called QDOS ridiculously cheap, and turns it into an empire.

Don't get me wrong, he's a fantastic businessman, but man - talk about right place, right time. And for anyone who thinks that Gates was some kind of genius hardcore supercoder, this (http://tinyurl.com/cjwhe) is an amusing story on that topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kildall was flying his plane. His wife, who was a manager in the business, and their lawyer, balked at IBM's NDA, which was supposedly 60 pages long and very intimidating. The DR folks were legitimately concerned they might be signing their lives away. After a long day of arguing with them, the IBM guys left and called Gates. He freaked out, thinking he was going to lose IBM as a client, and quickly found them a replacement.

I don't think anyone ever claimed Bill was a genius programmer, just a genius businessman. As an example of this, when IBM had gave Bill the same NDA, he signed it without reading it. He knew that IBM was the best thing that could ever happen to the PC business and knew if Microsoft didn't get their language business it might be the worst decision ever.

Another example of his vision. When he saw a picture of the MITS Altair on Popular Science in 1974 or so, he freaked out to Paul Allen, fearing it was already to late to get into PC software and he immediately quit Harvard (their first slogan was "A computer on every desk and Microsoft software on every computer, in 1979!). They wrote a version of BASIC for the Altair but didn't have one to test it on, so they wrote an emulator on a mainframe for a computer they'd never seen. I think Paul Allen did most of the work but Bill deserves some credit. Paul then went to MITS and gave a demo, crossing his fingers that it would actually work.

[PokerPaul]

i hope your other 6000+ posts arent such a waste of resources and peoples time.

Why is this so dumb from Party's perspective? 62000 players on tonight, so I don't think loss of the skins hurts them at all. The high vol. players will have to come back to Party if they want to get in the fish pool. And sidebets & BJ will mean more of the fishes money will go directly to the house.

If you think this is bad business for Party, I think you're just pissed because it sucks for you, not them.

[PokerPaul]

i am not pissed at party, they have the right to do whatever they want with their business.

And if all goes like you say then maybe it might end up being a very good decision for them. It could also backfire. Those other blunders i listed seemed like the right thing to the respective companies at the time too, but long term showed otherwise.

it may very well turn out to be great move for party, but i think many will agree it is a risky one.....and for that i actually do give them credit for having the balls to make a big move like that which can shake up the marketplace.

[Brain]

M&M/Mars (or whatever they were called back then) turning down the opportunity to have M&Ms in E.T.

[Yeknom58]

I got one..

Coke declining the option to buy pespi in the early 1930's. They declined, figuring the company wouldn't last much longer.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
- Partypoker (this week) to their skins and biggest customers: "We are not happy about players leaving us for better deals with our skin partners. So we are cutting them off at the knees in order to force those heavy volume players back to our site, and screw our partners in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

The decision by Party to add casino games to its platform and separate from the skins had a lot less to do with rakeback and professional players than most people think.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- Partypoker (this week) to their skins and biggest customers: "We are not happy about players leaving us for better deals with our skin partners. So we are cutting them off at the knees in order to force those heavy volume players back to our site, and screw our partners in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

The decision by Party to add casino games to its platform and separate from the skins had a lot less to do with rakeback and professional players than most people think.

[/ QUOTE ]

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
- Partypoker (this week) to their skins and biggest customers: "We are not happy about players leaving us for better deals with our skin partners. So we are cutting them off at the knees in order to force those heavy volume players back to our site, and screw our partners in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

That verbiage was from the original poster, not from any actual quote from Party gaming. It is his perception of why they separated.

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
i am not pissed at party, they have the right to do whatever they want with their business.

And if all goes like you say then maybe it might end up being a very good decision for them. It could also backfire. Those other blunders i listed seemed like the right thing to the respective companies at the time too, but long term showed otherwise.

it may very well turn out to be great move for party, but i think many will agree it is a risky one.....and for that i actually do give them credit for having the balls to make a big move like that which can shake up the marketplace.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was probably more a necessary move than a great decision. There is tremendous risk in associating with outside vendors (skins). This requires strong business agreements and monitoring controls. I don't see the skins as the most trustworthy business models in the world. Maybe that is just the image I have given them???? In any event, if the SEC sees these skins as an extension of Party, then Party is at risk for any issues that come from wrongdoing by the skins. It is a matter of control. Control has costs, always.

[midas]

JDJ -

FYI - I don't believe the SEC has any juridiction over Party or any other offshore gambling stock.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am not pissed at party, they have the right to do whatever they want with their business.

And if all goes like you say then maybe it might end up being a very good decision for them. It could also backfire. Those other blunders i listed seemed like the right thing to the respective companies at the time too, but long term showed otherwise.

it may very well turn out to be great move for party, but i think many will agree it is a risky one.....and for that i actually do give them credit for having the balls to make a big move like that which can shake up the marketplace.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was probably more a necessary move than a great decision. There is tremendous risk in associating with outside vendors (skins). This requires strong business agreements and monitoring controls. I don't see the skins as the most trustworthy business models in the world. Maybe that is just the image I have given them???? In any event, if the SEC sees these skins as an extension of Party, then Party is at risk for any issues that come from wrongdoing by the skins. It is a matter of control. Control has costs, always.

[/ QUOTE ]

a. the skins are in no way vendors. the most accurate way to decribe them might be "corporate customers" or "affiliates" (not used as "affilitate is commonly used in the poker world, bus as it's used in the business world"

b. The SEC has no authority over a British company. And I doubt the SEC or its UK equivilent would ever penalize a corportation for it's customers' wrongdoing.

[DalaiLama]

Correct me if I'm wrong....didn't Bill Gates fly to dallas in the early 80s and pitch microsoft to Ross Perot with a price tag of 30 million or so? Ross Perot also passed on Home Depot during it's infancy.

[gergery]

I think you have little understanding of how Party makes money, and how this decision will affect how they make money.

-g

[Freudian]

Facit was a company that made great mechanical calculators. They kinda missed the train when it came to the electronic calculator but continued to make mechanical ones until their inevitable demise.

Levi Strauss is another company that has gone from world leader to struggling today. I don't know if it depends on a single huge mistake. I think it is mostly not understanding the changing market and being so content with being number one that they stopped trying hard enough.

[autobet]

Time will tell if this is a blunder for Party.

One thing for sure. They do not believe in the go with what got you there theory.

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
The SEC has no authority over a British company. And I doubt the SEC or its UK equivilent would ever penalize a corportation for it's customers' wrongdoing.


[/ QUOTE ]

The skins are not customers, they are business associates. If they were customers, I would think Party would have more say in player policies/enforcement by the skins.

It is common in the US for companies to be held responsible for business associate actions. I know this from insurance and reinsurance company background. As the Insurance company, my company is responsible for all data it allows 3rd parties to process. If they drop the ball, we are on the hook.

[cwsiggy]

I could be way wrong, but didn't University of Florida invent Gatorade then give up the formula? or sell it for peanuts?

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
I could be way wrong, but didn't University of Florida invent Gatorade then give up the formula? or sell it for peanuts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe they sold it for several tens of thousand dollars, but it did become worth millions later.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The SEC has no authority over a British company. And I doubt the SEC or its UK equivilent would ever penalize a corportation for it's customers' wrongdoing.


[/ QUOTE ]

The skins are not customers, they are business associates. If they were customers, I would think Party would have more say in player policies/enforcement by the skins.

I didn't say they were customers. I don't know their exact relationship, but you called them "Vendors" in your initial post. I suggested that a more accurate description might be "corporate customers" since they are providing a service to the other companies.

[PokerPaul]

dont know if that qould qualify as a blunder though.

They turned a decent profit when they sold, and they might not have been able to mass market the way the people did that bought it from them.

In that sense then the guy who invented coca cola is very similar to that. He eventually sold the formula, for an amount that was well worth his efforts, and i wouldnt really call it a mistake at time for him. Can't recall the exact details, but i think he got everything out of it that he as an individual could have...

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could be way wrong, but didn't University of Florida invent Gatorade then give up the formula? or sell it for peanuts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe they sold it for several tens of thousand dollars, but it did become worth millions later.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/food/origins/gatorade.htm):

"The success of the drink has brought fame but also fortune to University of Florida. Gatorade has fetched more than $80 million in royalties for the school since 1973, when a series of legal disputes resulted in the creation of the Gatorade Trust for the benefit of the original inventors and the school. "