It’s easy to think of companies as unthinking machines, because they often are and instead of using real critical analysis just try to follow a formula.
But these companies are run by people, and if those people have their own goals they may try to use the company to acheive those goals.
Not a /co/ example cause I’m just way more familiar with /v/ business, but Nintendo is actually a good example of this. If you just look at message boards and advertising you’d think 3D Mario is their premiere series. But 3D Mario has always, ALWAYS performed poorly compared to 2D Mario games. Despite this, the 3D games always have way more marketing, way higher budgets, and are just in general pushed by Nintendo way harder than the 2D games. Because the 2D ones are always more successful you’d think the opposite would be the case, but everything I’ve seen from interviews and what I’ve gleamed from their behavior is that people within the company prefer 3D Mario to 2D. 3D gets pushed so much more because the people within the company WANT to make it succeed and beat 2D Mario.
I usually prefer the 3D games myself, but 2D undeniably has better market reception. The nes games and world sold gangbusters, and even the shitty New games sell like hotcakes. Imagine how well the New games would do given the budget, production values, and creativity of Odyssey. From a business perspective, they should be channeling resources into making a proper new 2D Mario. But almost everyone in the company wants 3D games to be the flagship, so their bias goes against market reception and they do what they want instead of what the market wants.
Remember how big Nintendo is and just how much money is on the table here.
So then you look at Western companies that’ve had a push to get more diverse leadership, and some of this leadership are full on ideologues of ”diversity”. The people drive their agenda. And it’s a WAY stronger bias than liking a type of game.