Respectfully disagree. I feel like quality and selection at most Nordstroms I’ve been to recently has been much worse. Salespeople have been less knowledgeable and more pushy. Feels like they’ve moved from upmarket into a space more easily replaced by lower cost online competitors.
But seriously, what’s the point of putting out this drivel. Isn’t the point of these statements to excite investors and potential big customers. Who in the publicity chain thinks these statements move anything closer to a goal?
I think this sort of thing is much harder to do in the modern digital world.
It’s one thing when it’s one-way, magazine -> audience, and the current edition is off of newsstands in a month or two. Once you throw in forums and social media then the public gets to shape the narrative.
The fun police have much more of a platform these days. Back when they were just writing letters to the editor their screaming was lost to the void. These days it gets amplified by the algorithm and may be latched onto by the most insufferable people who have an axe to grind or just crave attention.
Changing the name of a landmark or a species may require thoughtful consideration but not an organization. Companies change names all the time and a bad name drags an org doing good work down. Why should employees have to come to work in the name of someone who doesn’t deserve it in the light of history.
Despite assuredly rigid QC and security testing /s.