Filed under: Attitude & Aptitude, Comment, Corporate Evil, Marketing, Marketing Fail
We shouldn’t be surprised reading this.
As I wrote a while back, McKinsey had a similar point of view when working with the Sackler family to keep the deadly Oxycontin drug selling in its billions.
In fact the only thing that is a surprise is how McKinsey keep their ‘sheen’ when more and more reports come out as regards their ‘money wins’ approach to consultancy, regardless of the potential outcome.
Of course the reason is many of the organisations who use them, revel in the ‘no limits’ approach to making cash that consultancies bring to the table. And why shouldn’t they when they know that for all the talk of wanting to align with brands with purpose, customers will go with anyone if the price is low enough and the illusionary optics are good enough..
What a mess.
13 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply to John Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
On brand.
Comment by Pete May 10, 2022 @ 8:27 am+1
Comment by Bazza May 10, 2022 @ 8:42 amWhich explains why medicine and medical practices cost so much in the US … because putting the insane costs of R&D aside, it’s the only way to ‘get value’ from curing patients.
Comment by Rob May 10, 2022 @ 10:03 amWhat makes it sick is that it would not have been a throwaway comment, but a genuine question.
Comment by George May 10, 2022 @ 8:32 amI would not be surprised if they suggested creating a product that gave patients short term health benefits with long term health issues. They’d label it sustainable profit extraction. After all, isn’t that exactly what McKinsey did to “help” the manufacturers of oxycontin?
Comment by George May 10, 2022 @ 8:35 amIt’s an entirely reasonable question to ask. In fact, it’s essential because it then leads us to ask the much more important question of How do we make curing patients a sustainable business model? Not for the sake of the businesses and the bankers, but for the sake of all of us.
Comment by John May 10, 2022 @ 8:42 amIt is reasonable if it leads to that outcome, the problem is they are not asking it for that reason.
Comment by George May 10, 2022 @ 9:57 amOh come on – it’s just a provocative headline for an analyst’s note.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html
Comment by John May 10, 2022 @ 10:07 amspot the fucker applying for a job at goldman. if you think thats fucked up, im writing a comment on this blog first thing in the fucking morning.
Comment by andy@cynic May 11, 2022 @ 12:30 amYou’re right, but we all know that’s not why they asked it … as demonstrated with how McKinsey offered to help the Sackler family in driving usage of oxycontin despite knowing the devastating results of the drug.
Comment by Rob May 10, 2022 @ 10:04 amThey probably were promoted for that comment.
Comment by Bazza May 10, 2022 @ 8:42 amConsultancies don’t pay you for your intelligence but your soul.
Comment by DH May 10, 2022 @ 8:47 amTo be fair, it’s not just consultancies that do that.
Comment by Rob May 10, 2022 @ 10:04 am