Mcks wasn’t asked for advice on ethics, they were asked advice on increasing sales.
If you go to a Tattoo artist and ask for a portrait tattooed on your face, it might be gauche as hell, but that didn’t change the fact the artist might’ve done a great job.
1. I think that’s making a guess into their intentions which we’re not qualified to do
2. Even if we take #1 for granted, the $500MM figure is still based on something. The counter-party could’ve settled for $100MM or insisted on $1B but they reached that number for a reason.
A $500MM fine is a bit beyond "shame on you for taking dirty money".
I doubt any marketing firms working for Purdue was fined $500MM despite contributing to the same outcome. And that's because they didn't have the same impact.
The justice system metes out punishment relative to one's contribution to the crime.
That's not the point; you can't say their advice is ineffective, while also condemning them for being effective.
The top comment derisively states:
"The whole business is a scam built around sending in some 26 year-old with an Ivy League degree and $100 haircut to regurgitate snippets from articles in HBR"
In the context of fining the company $500MM for being too effective.
At least in the US, where the punishment is relative to the crime; the court clearly agrees about their efficacy.
It seems to imply the top 2 people own 30% of the wealth, which is not what the data states.