Question $12$: Cisco, the Silicon Valley firm, was once a darling of the new economy. Business journalists gushed about its success in every discipline: its wonderful customer service, perfect strategy, skillful acquisitions, unique corporate culture and charismatic CEO. In March $2000,$ it was the most valuable company in the world.

When Cisco$$s stock plummeted $80\%$ the following year, the journalists changed their tune. Suddenly the company$$s competitive advantages were rephrased as destructive shortcomings: poor customer service, a woolly strategy, clumsy acquisitions, a lame corporate culture and an insipid CEO. All this $$ and yet neither the strategy nor the CEO had changed. What had changed, in the wake of the dot$-$com crash, was demand for Cisco$$s product $$ and that was through no fault of the firm.

What could be a reasonable explanation of the change in the journalists$$ tune? What would you suggest as a better way to make such judgements?