I didn't have a problem with your other points but sorry can't agree with your first. I do agree that companies have a duty to their shareholders and need to run a successful profitable company. However you seem to feel it is one or the other whereas I see it as irrevocably linked. You cannot have a successful company ( and thus happy shareholders) unless you have a majority of happy customers.
Savers (i.e. those who have money to invest) have a plethora of options - bonds, stocks and so on. Unless an investment option provides an acceptable level of return based on the risk, investors will moved their money elsewhere.
Now, *how* a company can make money can vary immensely - it can be:
- cheap prices (Walmart),
- excellent customer service (Nordstrom),
- superior manufacturing quality (BMW),
- exclusivity (Louis Vuitton),
- consistency of product (McDonalds),
- ubiquity (Visa, MasterCard) and so on and so on.
Ryanair is an example of a company that doesn't really care too much for customer satisfaction - yet it still profitable.
Without profits, a for-profit company will not exist - the shareholders will take their money elsewhere.
Now, as to how to obtain those profits, there are *many* possible strategies - it boils down to competitive advantage. You don't have to keep "customers happy" - you just need to provide a compelling reason to buy your product.
So while I wouldn't say your first point is totally wrong, I think you don't fully understand the customer /business dynamic.
Well we might have different views of that. But, I think Porter's competitive forces model and so on are still perfectly valid today, and provide a more robust theoretical framework that just "keep customers happy". Keeping customers happy doesn't automatically result in profits, and without profits (and adequate profits, consummate to the level of risk involved), there will be no company full stop.