So, in a theoretical situation… (really — just theory, I haven’t heard this argument recently — really…)
Say we’re selling ice cream — just for an example…
A plan to improve the quality of the chocolate ice cream gets rejected — the reasoning is as follows…
1) Demand for all of our ice cream is down.
2) The plan to improve chocolate would result in production of less chocolate ice cream (by making less, but better ice cream).
Therefore, reject the plan.
Huh? It seems to me that the time to do innovations is when demand is down.
In the course of conversation, it turns out that while the demand for ALL ice cream is down, the demand for chocolate ice cream remains strong.
This makes a bit more sense, but it negates the truth and applicability of 1. It also seems that it punishes the folks who make Chocolate for making a flavor that is in demand — so, when can those folks get a chance to make innovations that would improve the product? Also, if less chocolate is available, it isn’t as if someone will go without ice cream OR it isn’t as if they’ll go to another store. Instead, they’ll go to less popular flavors, and those flavors have sales challenges — plus, the chocolate will be better, more nutritious and fulfilling…
Sometimes folks making these kinds of decisions need my logic class, doncha think?