<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Elop#%22Burning_Platform%22_memo" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Elop#%22Burning_Platform%22_memo</a></p>
<p><a href="https://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/08/coining-term-elop-effect-when-you-combine-osborne-effect-and-ratner-effect.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/08/coining-term-elop-effect-when-you-combine-osborne-effect-and-ratner-effect.html</a></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner#The_speech" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner#The_speech</a></p>
<p>As far as I understand:</p>
<ul>
<li>The situation when a CEO criticizes the company's products is called 'Ratner Effect' and such a situation is usually catastrophic for the company, bringing in on the verge of bankrupcy.</li>
<li>Ratner himself did this when addressing the general public. However, Stephen Elop did this in an <em>internal</em> memo.</li>
<li>Nonetheless Elop is still considered another perpetrator of the Ratner effect.</li>
<li>This would mean that a CEO is not allowed to criticize the products of the company <em>even when addressing only the company itself, and not the general public</em>.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is when I'm having trouble with understanding things.</p>
<p>Will financial markets always heavily penalize the company if the CEO criticizes its products <em>even only internally</em> and why?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-15T13:11:58.640Z
This questions seems to be about internal workplace policy of one single company rather than economics consequently I am moving it to the workplace.se where it might be on topic but please have a look at their help center
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-16T17:59:12.700Z
@1muflon1 I think it's asking why financial markets penalize people who do this, not why internal company policies penalize them.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-16T18:20:24.883Z
@user253751 if that is the case the user is welcome to edit the question to clarify that the question can be always reopened later
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-16T19:55:32.660Z
@1muflon1 Is it better now?
gaazkam
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-16T20:00:59.570Z
@gaazkam you still left there a lot of value laden and opinion based questions, I edited the question for you removing the multiple opinion based questions, if you are happy with the edit I can reopen it for you
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T12:49:17.890Z
@1muflon1 But the text you removed was precisely why it would seem to me that it should be advantageous for the company's financial wellbeing if the CEO did criticize its products...
gaazkam
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T12:54:16.527Z
@1muflon1 The structure of my question was: 1. It is believed that Ratner's effect will always lead to a financial catastrophe for the company  (links I provided outline the reasons for this) 2. But it would seem to me that sometimes it should be advantageous, necessary even for the company's financial wellbeing if Ratner's effect did happen for reasons A, B and C 3. Is it / is it not the case and why? But you removed point 2 which kind of defeats the point of my question :(
gaazkam
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T13:31:39.503Z
@gaazkam I am sorry but it had lot of what **should** be done which is opinion based and strictly off topic on this site. If you somehow can put that question as an objective question that can be objectively answered you can ask it but also note you should also not ask too many subquestions as that makes question too broad you can always ask a separate follow up question though
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T14:16:29.347Z
@1muflon1 (a) Criticizing the company's own products starts the financially disatrous ratner's effect; (b) for the sake of the company's financial well-being non-competitive products need to be discontinued or improved to become competitive again; (c) but for this to happen the company needs to realize the product is non-competitive, but stating this fact starts Ratner's effect. Clearly I'm failing to understand something, I need to ask a question. Is this question itself off topic or does the wording make it off topic?
gaazkam
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T15:55:26.920Z
@gaazkam but a to c are statements not questions, questions of type “**should** CEO be allowed to criticize…” are off topic. Also again a question should not contain lot of sub questions, you can always break big unfocused question into smaller ones and ask them one by one
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T16:08:08.463Z
@1muflon1 I can't see how can I split this into subquestions, since inherently the question is about my failure to reconcile statements (a) (b) and (c), and each of these statements seems true (either because they seem obvious or because experts say so)
gaazkam
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T16:08:48.763Z
@gaazkam then I am sorry, I do not think then your desired question fits Economics.se format, the old question was not closed without good reason
1muflon1
<microeconomics><finance><corporate-governance>
Will financial markets always heavily penalize the company if the CEO criticizes its products?
gaazkam
# Will financial markets always heavily penalize the company if the CEO criticizes its products?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-08-15)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Elop#%22Burning_Platform%22_memo>

<https://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/08/coining-term-elop-effect-when-you-combine-osborne-effect-and-ratner-effect.html>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner#The_speech>

As far as I understand:

* The situation when a CEO criticizes the company's products is called 'Ratner Effect' and such a situation is usually catastrophic for the company, bringing in on the verge of bankrupcy.
* Ratner himself did this when addressing the general public. However, Stephen Elop did this in an *internal* memo.
* Nonetheless Elop is still considered another perpetrator of the Ratner effect.
* This would mean that a CEO is not allowed to username_2 the products of the company *even when addressing only the company itself, and not the general public*.

This is when I'm having trouble with understanding things.

Will financial markets always heavily penalize the company if the CEO criticizes its products *even only internally* and why?

**Tags:** microeconomics, finance, corporate-governance

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This questions seems to be about internal workplace policy of one single company rather than economics consequently I am moving it to the workplace.se where it might be on topic but please have a look at their help center  
> **username_2**: @username_1 I think it's asking why financial markets penalize people who do this, not why internal company policies penalize them.  
> **username_1**: @user253751 if that is the case the user is welcome to edit the question to clarify that the question can be always reopened later  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Is it better now?  
> **username_1**: @username_0 you still left there a lot of value laden and opinion based questions, I edited the question for you removing the multiple opinion based questions, if you are happy with the edit I can reopen it for you  
> **username_0**: @username_1 But the text you removed was precisely why it would seem to me that it should be advantageous for the company's financial wellbeing if the CEO did username_2 its products...  
> **username_0**: @username_1 The structure of my question was: 1. It is believed that Ratner's effect will always lead to a financial catastrophe for the company  (links I provided outline the reasons for this) 2. But it would seem to me that sometimes it should be advantageous, necessary even for the company's financial wellbeing if Ratner's effect did happen for reasons A, B and C 3. Is it / is it not the case and why? But you removed point 2 which kind of defeats the point of my question :(  
> **username_1**: @username_0 I am sorry but it had lot of what **should** be done which is opinion based and strictly off topic on this site. If you somehow can put that question as an objective question that can be objectively answered you can ask it but also note you should also not ask too many subquestions as that makes question too broad you can always ask a separate follow up question though  
> **username_0**: @username_1 (a) Criticizing the company's own products starts the financially disatrous ratner's effect; (b) for the sake of the company's financial well-being non-competitive products need to be discontinued or improved to become competitive again; (c) but for this to happen the company needs to realize the product is non-competitive, but stating this fact starts Ratner's effect. Clearly I'm failing to understand something, I need to ask a question. Is this question itself off topic or does the wording make it off topic?  
> **username_1**: @username_0 but a to c are statements not questions, questions of type “**should** CEO be allowed to username_2…” are off topic. Also again a question should not contain lot of sub questions, you can always break big unfocused question into smaller ones and ask them one by one  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I can't see how can I split this into subquestions, since inherently the question is about my failure to reconcile statements (a) (b) and (c), and each of these statements seems true (either because they seem obvious or because experts say so)  
> **username_1**: @username_0 then I am sorry, I do not think then your desired question fits Economics.se format, the old question was not closed without good reason  

---

## 0 answers

