|
 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: Which is more winable?
"Farsighted leadership" my ass. If they hadn't been soaking "members" dry for Net access and had been more responsive with customer service and correcting problems in the chat rooms, as well as pissing them off by terminating/suspending accounts for no real reason at the same time, thereby causing them a giant hassle to get back on, they never would have lost so many "members" to begin with.
They were just interested in raping the "members" for all they could while giving them as little as possible. | |
|
 | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Which is more winable? I didn't see much leadership, period. They just figured out a few months ago they wanted to be an advertising driven content portal after four years of different attempts at other ideas....
For the past six years they've been jerking the steering wheel back and forth like a drunk.
At least finally they've picked a solution somewhere between being a broadband reseller and being Yahoo (they chose being Yahoo). | |
|
| | Nuts
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH | Re: Which is more winable? I never understand why with RoadRunner, AOL, and TimeWarner, they couldn't figure out how to make the 3 work together. It seems like they still treat each one as on independent company | |
|
| | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Which is more winable? I've been asking that question for five years now.
There were some anti-competitive portions of the AOL-Time Warner merger that tied their hands on some of that stuff, but I mean really - a massive media house with seas of content, multiple cable networks, national backbones, deep pockets - and they still couldn't figure out how to transition to the broadband world.
The real problem was the old guard at TW thought AOL was a joke and there was no communication between the two. | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
·
