Htydjtk

...corporations whose principals told exciting stories to Wall Street,
they all got their money.

There's some defenitions for the phrase get your money's worth in online dictionaries but I couldn't find any defenition or meaning for "they got their money".

So could you please explain it to me?

Does it mean the shares of corporations whose principals told exciting
stories were traded better on Wall Street?

The full text is here:

When people ask me to help them turn their presentations into stories,
I begin by asking questions. I kind of psychoanalyze their companies,
and amazing dramas pour out. But most companies and executives sweep
the dirty laundry, the diffi culties, the antagonists, and the
struggle under the carpet. They prefer to present a rosy—and boring—
picture to the world. But as a storyteller, you want to position the
problems in the foreground and then show how you’ve overcome them.
When you tell the story of your struggles against real antagonists,
your audience sees you as an exciting, dynamic person. And I know that
the storytelling method works, because after I consulted with a dozen
corporations whose principals told exciting stories to Wall Street,
they all got their money.

https://hbr.org/2003/06/storytelling-that-moves-people

They got their money and there was nothing I could do about it.

The brothers didn't want anyone finding how they got their money because they didn't want anyone looking into their past.

As long as they got their money they wouldn't care whether I was crazy or not.

I would venture to say that they got their money simply means they made/earned some money. Also, I am inclined to think that the expression has a negative connotation: the way they got their money is either dishonest or illegal.

Yes, I think your conclusion is correct. By storytelling, they connected well with their target consumers/buyers because it showed they had the character and determination with which consumers can relate to.Andbin this way all of them earned their money more easily( company by selling its shares and wall street brokers by their cut or commission). It is a clever use of pathos and ethos too to some extent.

The trouble is that the passage quoted is written by someone who can't use English properly.

after I consulted with a dozen corporations whose principals told exciting stories to Wall Street, they all got their money.

This is almost certainly not true. What the statement (as written) means is:

1. There was a corporation whose principals told an exciting story to Wall Street.


2. I gave consultancy services to that corporation.


3. That corporation got money from Wall Street.


4. (This happened with a dozen corporations on a dozen different occasions).

This is nonsense, and pointless. What the writer meant to say was:

1. There was a corporation which wanted to get money from Wall Street.


2. I gave consultancy services to that corporation.


3. As a result of my advice, the principals of that corporation told an exciting story to Wall Street.


4. As a result of the exciting story, the corporation got from Wall Street the money it was asking for. ("got their money").


5. (This happened with a dozen corporations on a dozen different occasions).

In other words, at the time that the writer gave the consultancy, the corporation was not "a corporation whose principals told exciting stories to Wall Street". It was just a corporation which wanted money from Wall Street. Unfortunately this writer, as happens all too often in business writing, was too lazy to make his meaning clear or too stupid to notice that what he had written was telling the story backwards and made it nonsense.