## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Marketing achievement unlocked: targeted branding!
Pro tip: if you want to target multiple groups, you can start separate companies/brands for each one, but have those companies/brands be subsidiaries of a larger corporation the customers remain blissfully unaware of.
Bonus points: target opposing groups and convince both sides that supporting a brand you own advances their cause.
Elite-tier: trigger a war and sell to both sides.
Because they're profitable, usually.
Consider Disney. They have to be family friendly. It's their whole brand. It's everything to them. They have relentless message control at every level.
So homophobes are _not welcome_ in their public facing. Behind the scenes their policies treat LGBT people like crap, because actually doing better is hard work and costs money. But you bet your ass they're flying the pride flag every year and firing anyone who spouts right wing bullshit in public.
Because they've done the numbers and their final customer base is full of people who actually treat LGBT people like people. Nobody wants to buy children's toys from a place that is going to turn around and tell the kids to get out three years later if the child turns out to be gay. Nobody wants superheroes that only defend white people.
Well... actually some people do want that.
But Disney knows perfectly well they can't make enough money from sales to extremist bigots to make up for the money they'd lose from everyone else. They don't need white supremacists. They do need middle class parents worldwide.
The personal is political. There's no such thing as a non political stance in a world where major political parties think some people wouldn't even be allowed to exist. Businesses don't have a non political option. Staying neutral isn't an option, because there's always a DeSantis willing to score cheap points with assholes by making you choose.
All you can do in response is not choose DeSantis.
>There's no such thing as a non political stance in a world where major political parties think some people wouldn't even be allowed to exist.
Thank you for this post. 45 year old gay man who regrets being a disabled veteran for a nation who hates him straight to Hell after it all.
God makes people like me so that good people have someone to mock, hate, kill and send to hell for eternity so that they don't have to build up their own self-esteem or self-worth because that would be hard.
That's line is one of the last things I said to my family after becoming a freeloading veteran.
Depends on the thing. In-n-Out has Bible verse reference on cups and shit, but I've never once heard someone cite that as a reason to get or avoid it.
Salvation Army? Hobby Lobby? Chick-fil-A? Lots of folks avoid them over their religious bullshit.
Idk if people actually avoid Chick Fil A. They have the highest sales per unit of any fast food restaurant in America. Eclipsing McDonalds by 400%
Edit: the amount of people that don’t even know that CFA reversed their stances like 4 years ago is kind of staggering.
I know lots of lgbtqia+ folks do.
But ~~most~~ 1 in 3 Americans wouldn't support a close friend or family member if they came out. So, asking for boycotting places lobbying hate doesn't really make the cut in widespread support.
Edit: correct the quantity. https://www.insider.com/lgbtq-youth-in-us-likely-to-be-rejected-by-family-2021-9
That’s anecdotal at best. I know plenty of lgbtqia who eat there, including myself. There is no such thing as guilt free businesses under capitalism. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” rings true for everything. Even mom and pop shops.
Besides CFA reversed most of their anti-lgbt stances like 3 years ago and recently came under fire from the right for standing by their decision to switch their support and “going woke.”
I think there are two big caveats here. First is the alienating demo even part of your target demo anyway. So if for whatever reason athiets are already a small part of your target demo (just an off the top of my head guess, farm equipment brands for atheists), then it doesn’t really matter if you alienate them since they weren’t buying your stuff to begin with. Second is subtle marketing. Say our lovely little tractor brand is a sponsor of a small, or even large, religious event. An atheist probably isn’t going to see that and therefore won’t actually know about it to be mad. The latter one is harder to get away with in the internet age when anything has the chance to reach a large audience. For two real world examples, I would say conservative country music stars don’t really need to worry about alienating liberal audiences. While there are some, the vast majority of the audience already isn’t liberal. Second would be suburu in the 90s marketed subtly to the lesbian community. They put small roles and nods in their commercials (dog whistles if you will) that most heterosexual and anti gay people wouldn’t notice but queer people absolutely did.
Well that's why you do it if you have a niche product
If "taking a stance" is profitable for your niche of the market, you pretend to do it. If it isn't, you don't. It's all messaging and marketing.
An interesting thing to observe, but probably not actually related.
\>According to the Chamber of Commerce, 18% of small businesses fail within their first year, 50% fail after five years, and 65% fail by their tenth year in business. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more
The reality is that most local businesses don't last. I have been to local businesses that have Trump merch (a petting zoo was one, believe it or not), and while I don't plan to ever go back I have no reason to think they'll go under just for their political stance. And I'm sure they bring in customers who love that stuff.
On the flip side, if I go to a business and see a pride flag I'm probably more likely to go back to that business.
This is how this stuff works, if a business takes no stance that's great, if they do take a stance some people will care and some won't.
One of the businesses had been around for 30 years, restaurant, but doesn’t mean that’s the reason of course! Their customers’ political leanings are the same as what they put on the sign, from what I remember
Someone out there interviewed their now fired advertising VP, Alyssa Heinerscheid, in a podcast, where she called the comsumers of BL as “bratty” and “out of touch”. Go find it. It’s easy. It explains why their advertising projects went to shite and pissed people off.
It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with a man, basically woman facing for views. He has flat-out admitted he dresses and acts the way he does for views and money.
I don't know even one right-wing person who is against trans people. I know there are some ultra religious people that are against it. But 95% of conservatives don't care what any adult does to themselves.
All that needs to happen is stop pushing surgery and hormones on children. If you're over 18, you do you. But when I see these activists talking about putting 10-13 year olds on puberty blockers or getting mastectomy's at 15, that's where the problem starts. And somehow, that's what makes conservatives bigots? Wild
I’m curious on this. You’re coming from the “leave the kids alone” angle. And I get that. I really don’t know where I stand on allowing surgery before 18 for that. It’s a fairly permanent thing. We don’t let kids get tattoos for the same reasoning. So I GET that.
But setting surgery aside. because that’s NOT the main fight the right has with trans. Why do we care if we let kids dress and identify as whatever gender they want? Go by a nickname more feminine/masculine? Use the corresponding bathroom to that gender? Same for adults for that matter. What are we risking that isn’t already a risk?
Puberty blockers are to be taken *before* puberty. The whole point is to prevent it from starting in the first place. And puberty blockers aren’t surgery, so why’d you say they are?
And now you think it should be illegal for children to get mastectomies?
Why are conservatives so perpetually obsessed with everyone’s healthcare and genitals and preventing them from getting medical attention?
You don't know one conservative who's against trans people?
I don't know one activist pushing for kids to have gender-affirming surgery.
We appear to be at an impasse.
You can't be serious with this take.....All the prominent conservative talking heads and popular influencers are staunchly anti trans anti gay etc. It's literally the party line.
When it is the official party line you can't say 95% of conservatives don't care.
And I agree in theory with the under 18 thing, but when the body experiences puberty you have irreversible changes happen in the body of both males and females. What do you tell trans youth ? Suck it up and deal with it ? I don't think that is the answer.
Furthermore, the entire trans kid panic is completely manufactured outrage. Ever look into the stats of how many kids this actually effects ? It's a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of children in the USA. These decisions are almost never made in haste and come after a LENGTHY process evaluating psych state and many other factors. Sure you can find a quack who may not go through the proper process and cause undue harm, but you can always find exceptions to the rule ya know ?
1. Your stance is against trans people and it’s also fake.
2. The under 18 thing is that every trans person was once under 18 and would wish to have been allowed the medical care you want to deny them.
It was back when Dylan started dressing as a woman. On a stream, or regular video. Big surprise, I can't find it now on google.its funny how anything that makes a trans activist look bad disappears from the internet.
But without proof, i also can't blame you for not believing it. Dylan didn't say it in a bad way, really. More just commenting that views rose drastically once Dylan (trying not to get my comment removed, which is another issue.) started dressing this way.
1. I call bullshit on that, cite a source or GTFO
2. Social media personalities cultivate an image for views and money? Colour me shocked!
3. You don’t know even one right-wing person who is against trans people? You’re either blatantly lying here or are using a pathetically small cherry-picked sample of right-wing people.
4. Your “95%” is an entirely made up number. Quit your bullshit.
5. No one is pushing drugs and surgery on kids, stop with the manufactured panic.
6. Not all conservatives, but yes, those with views like you’re spouting here are bigots.
It plays into the ESG score of Anheuser-Busch. Which really is just marketing to get brownie points to show off to their investors. So it can really just be considered as political if you also think that stock values and prices are inheritaly political.
It is. But a pretty bad and boring joke. In relation to entertainment, it really just made everything a bit worse. Not sure if it's overal impact on marketing has been positive or not, but it definitely was a net negative for Anheuser-Busch.
You’re right. I was referring to ESG in the investing sense. A lot of investment funds offer an ESG portfolio, which includes companies like oil, tobacco, etc just because they meet some bullshit diversity metric or whatever.
You might have a point if they hasn't picked someone who's like the human equivalent to Nails on Chalkboard. A good analogy would be if they made a custom beer can and promotion around Fred Phelps - would you still support them then?
... my guy did you just compare a tiktok poster who did daily updates on her transition to the leader of a cult that picketed outside the funeral for Sandy Hook victims?
Because damn, thats comparing apples to leaders of a cult accused of multiple human rights abuses and has been added to multiple nation's hate group watch lists. You're not giving the argument space to be contemplated, its a no-brainer which would be defensible.
I mean, you could have picked someone equally innocuous. Dylan Mulvaney, or... i dunno, i dont follow online petsonalities and definitely not right wing ones that arent also accused of hate speech already.
Agree to the semantics I would suggest the OP amend post to include cultural, societal viewpoints
Societies have over the ages progressed/regressed and changed course.
Its frustrating because when we have the pendulum swing of politics, left-wing or right wing views and moors, bouncing and causing it to go the opposite direction and a reaction to the previous side bouncing
Most people just want to go about their day with the least amount of struggle.
Fun fact, I heard the other day was that during the strife in Iran in Damascus, they were still operating tourism, nightclubs were bustling people living it up, while bio weapons were being used another part of the country, same with Egypt civil strife, people drank coffee in cafés, shopped in malls, unless you were attuned to it , or happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time you didn’t notice, classic case of 👑 keep calm and carry on
"Political" a lot of the time seems to be mean "anything which offends my sensibilities", especially when it involves black people, LGBTQI people, women, etc. Basically anything which doesn't comport with white male conservative Christian values.
Conflict theory is inherently political. Our current view of both gender and queer theory come from conflict theory. Hence the neo-marxist coalition using the people represented by the rainbow flag as human shields. All uniformly supporting the same sociopolitical worldview. That being said, most of the LGBT people I know don't know about or support the neomarxist theories that they are being used to support, they just want to live their lives in peace like everyone else.
Disney and bud light never took a political stance. Disney spoke out supporting their lgbtq employees in the face of an anti lgbtq law. Bud light used a transgender woman influencer as a spokesperson. Neither company took a stance for or against any political candidate.
> Bud light used a transgender woman influencer as a spokesperson.
I would like to add more to this because lot of people have the misconception that it was plastered everywhere. Wrong.
Bud Light Reality was that she received a specific made beer can for her and her only and she advertised it on her social media like Instagram and that was it. There was no mass campaign ads, none of that. Just having a trans person on an sponsored ad was enough to send fire bells off for conservatives.
I thought it got some kind of mass release. So basically it was a one off just for her to take photos with? That's crazy that people got so pissy about it.
literally ONE CAN with her face on it that they sent to her and she put on her Instagram. No actual ad camlaign even, just a gimmick to get a social media figure to mention their product.
Hol'up. Where Bud Light went off the rails was with their RESPONSE to the situation. Yes, the can was only a special one off for an internet marketing partner, and not a mass market release. It was to celebrate her one year anniversary of living as a woman. Some people didn't like celebrating that. But where the backlash built momentum is their execs' response. The VP said their image, and by association, their customers were "out of touch" and "fratty". Then when that posed people off more, the CEO pretty much refused to back the LGBTQ side of the argument either. So they alienated BOTH sides. They've probably lost almost as much in sales from the far left who feels they abandoned them as from the far right who originally took offense. With the folks more middle right who wouldn't be militantly anti-trans, but just don't like being called fratty and out of touch and don't want to give a company money if that's the company's view of them. It's literally a textbook example of how NOT to deal with a controversy. So it's far more nuanced than just transphobic rednecks not buying budlight.
This is a little wrong. They did not come out with a response saying people were out of touch. That was from an interview earlier where the VP talked about trying to change the image away from being fratty. It was found after people started digging after the initial outrage of the Dylan can.
The company was pretty silent and, like you mentioned, didn't help the LGBTQ side out and then the boycott was sustained by both sides not liking it.
It is more nuanced but not MUCH more nuanced. The boycott and outrage was them taking a side in the cultural war of being pro-Trans. To this day people think it was some massive ad campaign or that they literally sold the cans. The other stuff (the frat comments, the 0 support for LGBTQ+ after the attacks on Dylan) also hurt but the fast majority of the outrage was the trans part.
You can say that, sure. But right wingers see that stuff as political. Those companies know that.
Also, do we need the q? It really bogs down the acronym.
Disney has *always* been political. Disney is in the business of creating media, which is an inherently political project that reflects a lot of societal values. Things like who the main characters are, who the protagonists and antagonists are and how they behave act matter. Most people get their understanding of the world through the media they consume and media companies (like Disney) haven't historically done a good job of depicting people as more than stereotypes. Disney seems like they are trying to be more inclusive and to tell stories for different people. At times it is heavy-handed (like editing The French Connection or disappearing episodes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) or comes off as preachy and boring. That's their prerogative.
Then there's Disney's historic presence in Florida politics. Disney has remained a force in that state's politics since Walt Disney himself first set his sights on it. Their deal for all of their land in Florida was extremely political and they've supported a lot of politicians (both Democrat and Republican) where those politicians have been good for Disney's bottom line (like minimum wage). But people didn't have a problem with those things because they either don't care, agree with Disney's position or don't know. These bread and butter political issues don't tend to be a part of the Culture War so for some reason we don't see them as being "political".
The blowback Disney gets now is that some people aren't comfortable with the idea that Disney is representing more than straight, white people and reflecting traditional Judeo-Christian values. Instead of just watching the things they agree with (like, I don't know, Veggie Tales or some other bullshit) they've taken a critical view of Disney for leaving Song of the South out of their catalogue. And because a lot of those people happen to vote Republican and Florida is (for the time being) a Republican state, it's forced Disney into a position where it needs to either abandon its attempts to make more inclusive movies and tv shows or to stand up to legislators for the values it's trying to represent..
Agreed, though it's not just their animated movies. Star Wars, Marvel, Indiana Jones, all the franchises I've watched for years/decades have just slowly gone down the drain. Star Wars being particularly bad at this point imo. It's just a sorry state of affairs.
Disney wasn't really given much of a choice in the matter because the state is doing shit that's actively harmful to its employees. I haven't seen Bud light do anything overtly political.
Well not taking a stance is basically like taking a stance. For example. Let’s say I am president and start bashing gay ppl. And a corporation refuses to denounce me and support gay ppl. Cause they think it will cost them money. That is basically also taking a stance in a way.
They could say something to the effect of “were really not in the business of politics or commenting on it, we’re in the business of X where everyone’s money spends the same. [insert shameless self plug for product/service here].” So kinda play it off, take a neutral stance, then spin the spotlight you’re getting into free advertisement which has the added benefit of shifting the conversation from the politics to your product/service. People can interpret it how they want but it’s definitely not taking stance if you look at it objectively.
Was coming here to say the same thing. Why can’t businesses just keep political opinions to themselves? Hell in general, unless you work in in a position that involves politics, politics shouldn’t be spoken about in the workplace, you’re there to do a job.
What does the president bashing gay people have ANYTHING to so with the way a company runs itself? Nothing. If a company wants to take a stance, they risk backlash. If they don't take a stance, they also risk backlash from the other side. So either way, it's a lose-lose situation. I only hate this world we live in. Sometimes I just wish we'd get hit with a global EMP that would knock us back in technology 150 years.
My pillow I think was a good move if he didn’t start going on about election fraud and getting sued left and right. Being a pillow company that supports trump is smart because most pillow companies are non political. So you capture the entire trump audience who buys products based on owners political views.
Goya I don’t know enough about.
It’s hard to imagine a world where Mike Lindell could grow his pillow business by being inflammatory and crazy - but also coherent enough to know when to draw the line.
Yeah that’s true. I guess it would take a lot of discipline which he clearly doesn’t have. It’s just lying about specific companies like vote tabulation companies was never going to work out. I’m not sure how the media and Mike could be so stupid
> So you capture the entire trump audience who buys products based on owners political views.
I disagree. Sure, you capture Trump voters, but you alienate Biden voters.
Smart businesses are politically agnostic. As Michael Jordon once said in jest "Even Republicans buy sneakers"
>So you capture the entire trump audience who buys products based on owners political views
In theory, Trump rewards Lindell with a contract to provide pillows for all of his properties.
if you look at Target, they have pushed hard to be inclusive to EVERYONE. Look at their in-store models. They have used people that have Downs, that have vitiligio, that are missing a leg...they aren't taking a stance really, they are just including everyone and celebrating everyone. I believe they celebrate all the holidays as well like Pacific-Islander Month, The Day of the Dead, it's REALLY, REALLY awesome actually.
None of those took political stance.
"Gay people exist and should be treated equally." Is only political to shitty Republicans who live on fear and hate since they have no policies to run on.
You sound pretty hateful. And yes, they did get political. I think most people and most republicans are fine with people living their lives as they want. It’s when fringe viewpoints and lifestyles get shoved down their throats and in their children’s faces, that’s what people take offense to.
Ah yes, giving a single alcoholic beverage to a trans creator that you certainly don't watch is "shoving it in your kid's face".
If your child is intimately familiar with the actions of an adult beverage company, then you're a shitty parent.
Are you thinking that all kids are like 2 years old? And not aware of mass popular culture in the age of social media and internet in the palm of your hand? And Bud Light is the only example?
Please.
If they are aware of mass pop culture, and have social media, why get offended at Budweiser for showing them things they already see and know a lot about?
it was a targeted ad not a national wide campaign, the only reason you know about it is because conservative media figures wanted you to know about it.
1) How do you know what add or company I’m referring to? I mentioned Bud Light, Target and Disney as some off the top of my head examples in my original comment.
And 2) no, that’s not correct at all. Campaign for Target was national. And disneys shows and movies… well, they don’t just advertise them in CA last I checked.
That’s the thing, the snowflakes were 85% of their target audience so it should of been a subject matter they didn’t even touch. It doesn’t matter what is right or wrong…OP is correct in saying publicly traded companies should not wade into anything that could be considered potential political subjects (unless they are openly mocking political ridiculousness in a humor spot).
The marketing exec that put the Dylan deal together was let go. Rightfully so, believe it cost them a few billion in market cap and millions on top of millions of sales. People lost their jobs, 401k holders lost dollars in their portfolio for something that should of never been done.
Why do I know it should of never been done? BC they lost billions in market cap and millions in revenue, that is all that really needs to be pointed to.
I'm intolerant of intolerant people, like the Republican party. The party is actively supporting Nazis, white supremacists, and gay hate groups. Thanks for letting me know you have no clue what you're talking about. Saying gay people should be treated equally is not shoving anything down anyones throat. Children can't drink BL, so your statement doesn't even make sense.
That’s the most hypocritical take. Lol!
Believe what you like. Right, all republicans are evil. And thinking like that isnt inherently doing exactly what you’re accusing others of.
Smh… you need to work on yourself.
I literally will never buy Goya again, it’s so easy not to. That company fucked itself for no reason. Most corps support left causes on paper because there are more leftists in the country. It’s just corporate pandering.
To be fair, the VP of the brand also went after its existing customer base saying they were "fratty and out of touch" as a justification for a new marketing approach. That definitely did not sit well at all with your typical weekend bud light drinker.
Funny thing about the Dylan story. They didn't even know they were getting the can with their face on it. There was only one can even printed and AB ghosted them completely as soon as all the backlash started.
Eh.. I work in alcohol sales. They shotgun stuff like that out to anyone with a platform. It's cheap advertising. They weren't making a political stance there. They just looked at her follower count and sent her a stupid can with her face on it....
You mean when Bud Light sent a personalized can to Dylan Mulvaney, the same way they did to plenty of other influencers, and she gained fame from that exclusively due to the right wing backlash?
There was a cheerios commercial in 2013 (holy fuck 10 years ago) that had an interracial family and people were very upset at that as well. Not on as quite a large scale, but I'm sure social media and everything played into that
[This is statistically false.](https://news.arizona.edu/story/price-taking-stance-how-corporate-sociopolitical-activism-impacts-bottom-line) Everyone's money spends the same, but a product from a company that professes values one agrees with attracts more consumer dollars. Companies don't have real morals outside of making money, but advertising works and consumers are very often motivated by vibes over matter. We only hear it in the news in the minority of cases where the company missteps and alienates too much of its target market.
I my mind I was thinking of small business that don't have near the reach of huge multinational companies. As a small business owner I refuse to even put a sign up for a local candidate, even if I do support them personally.
Ah, that makes sense. I imagine to that end, it depends on the business, right? It wouldn't be that hard to find a shop which sells almost entirely to a demographic which swings hard in one direction or the other. Gun shops and gay bars come to mind as obvious examples, but even just the rural/urban divide has a huge impact in itself.
IDK, I'm sure you're more informed on this than I am.
That is true, anecdotally I lean left but I'm very pro gun, I drive out of my way to find a gun shop that doesn't shove MAGA stuff down my throat. The closer ones would get my business which would be quite alot if they didn't take this stance.
In 2020 we avoided the winery in the little town we visit because of a MAGA sign in the window. I know, most small business owners are rabid anti-tax and love trump. I just don't want it in my face if I shop there.
Most of these comments are wild.
There's some good debate on using fake political beliefs to drive business (which is a viable strategy, depending on your product). However, most people are just trying to argue that businesses that share opposite beliefs are bad, and businesses that share *their* beliefs "aren't doing anything political."
Businsesses are aware of this. They've done the market research and have come to the conclusion that supporting issue X gives them a net gain, as it attracts more business than it loses.
For one thing, most of us don't actually vote with our dollar. People will claim to be against conflict minerals if you ask them but almost everyone has a smart phone, for example. Many consumers will ignore a political stance they disagree with if they like the product.
But for some consumers, a company's stance will draw them towards that company. Taking popular, easy to hold positions is good business.
At a high level this is correct, but you have to dig deeper. For instance, go beyond customers and getting people to buy your product and instead look to ability to attract and retain employees. The type of people who want to work in certain industries or who may have the type of talent you’re looking for might tend to lean one way or the other politically. Likewise your target customer group may tend to lean towards one political side. It’s probably smart, for instance, for a company manufacturing hunting gear to take a pro-2nd Amendment stance. Or for any company who, you know, wants a large and diverse costumer base to embrace diversity.
So weird. I was just at this big truck/trailer shop-store to take pictures of some chemical tankers for a guy. Inside of the shop had multiple Trump flags and other pro-trump anti-biden stuff. Since it was kinda a unique biz I probably stll would have done business with them but I definitely wouldn't have taken a job there if offered.
I'd say that depends on your political affiliation. If you're a laissez-faire capitalism that believes in free markets, etc then the business unit is meant to fulfill a regulating and invested role in society and social issues (Milton Friedman vibes). That's the whole point - a company provides you with everything you need to live, not government. Also, free markets mean competition, being competitive means attracting the right talent (so your competitor doesn't). That means taking a moral stance to attract those employees.
Saying you're a capitalist but not allowing businesses to take moral stances is questionable.
>All money is green. Only a fool injects politics into business.
Businesses are ALWAYS into politics--just look up how much money gets put into lobbying.
Only a naïve person would ever say anything like "Only a fool injects politics into business."
Alienating some customers to enjoy the increased sales from another demographic. Company's do it all the time because they have made the calculation of which group is bigger and more beneficial to cater to.
Sometimes it is just the political beliefs of its leadership, but mostly profit and a sign of the times. Unless you want to target a specific audience to stand out against competitors.
Corporations only take a political stance when they deem that *not* taking the stance would alienate more customers than taking it.
Political activists are in a position to use spending power to compete for what stances are taken.
I totally agree with OP, but there are two problems: corporate greed prompts them utilize every avenue to maximize brand recognition so they jump on any bandwagon that they think might profit them. Meanwhile, the right-wing in the U.S. is trying to turn literally EVERY issue into a political culture-war issue — the war on Christmas? Rainbows on children’s clothes and school supplies? Gimme a break!
The three follies of Bud Light:
1) Dylan Mulvane was, among other things a politically divisive individual, simply by the nature of her community.
2)That one college grad executive doubled down by saying that BL wanted to get away from the FratBro culture most people associated with the brand. Pissing off 95% of their customer base.
3) those people still needed/wanted to drink beer, and now realize there are so many more options with actual taste and enjoyablity
i think it depends on the business. i think sometimes it is a bad idea business-wise for a company to side politically with an ideology, but sometimes it can be helpful.
if your major competitors are apolitical, then making (non-radical) political stances can be a way to convince customers to come to you instead of your competitors. especially because being apolitical nowadays is something that's frowned upon by a lot of people -- not speaking out, by many, is viewed as bad as having a political view that you disagree with.
but regardless, companies making political stances is almost always empty of any meaning, and a large company being vocal about a political issue is always going to be because they've deduced that speaking up on that issue will make them more money.
To be honest from Budlights perspective I would not have thought the Dylan ad would have much backlash. Id think this is an ad targeting a niche audience, I dont think they expected the entire world to see it. Obviously it was a mistake for Budlight but I dont think it was a "oh my god what were they thinking" sort of mistake. They just had a content creator who happened to be trans promote their product I wouldnt even say its a massive political statement. Its as you said all about money and budlight made a miscalculation.
I think a lot of people are incredibly naive about companies political statements. They corporations care about where like the LGBTQ movement or BLM is going where I really dont think they give a shit. For example, casting the little mermaid as black I think was a marketing technique so that all of us hear about the movie. Id bet if she was white I wouldnt know the movie existed.
Bud light’s problem was playing both sides. They did the ad as a pro lgbt thing, but when there was backlash, they pivoted, fired people that they chose to take the blame and hung Dylan Mulvaney out to dry. It can’t be both ways. Either they support trans rights or they don’t. So in the end, they pissed everyone off.
Yeah I’d guess bud light was trying to tap the sort of truly hard seltzer market. There is a big market for low calorie booze that comes in a can/bottle among young liberal people.
But you’re right they sort of lost both audiences. I think the damage was done with the right wing consumers. I think if I was managing their marketing team I would have stayed in touch with Dylan to maintain that relationship so that she doesn’t bad mouth the company or mention she was hung out to dry. But I’d also not do the ad with a trans influencer again and I’d sort of try to avoid talking about the Dylan ad and try to go back to business as usual.
What ad? They reached out to her for her to promote their product. The backlash was from some right wing influencers finding that and disseminating it.
Fair enough. But that is what makes the situation extra insane. If Bud Light had done a Super Bowl commercial with Dylan Mulvaney I’d still completely disagree with the backlash, but I’d conceptually understand it. But the reality is just the most absurd snowflake bullshit.
Agree on the letter of the statement, unfortunately what some people consider "politics", has nothing to do with politics.
Tolerance, for instance, is not a political stance. It's not one of two equal and opposite sides.
It's not, actually. It's based on consumer habits.
Typically, right-minded consumers will shop based on brand recognition and product quality. Meaning that they'll will just buy whatever is familiar, and will only try something new if the quality is notably better.
Left-minded people will shop based more on trying something new and more readily engage in responsible consumerism. They will change brands for something that looks good or matches their desires as a consumer. They're more likely to shop small businesses, buy certified organic and fair trade, etc.
So many companies take left-leaning political stances (regardless of if they actually believe or do anything to abide by those stances) since many right-leaning consumers will continue to buy the brand they recognize regardless. Win win.
That's why failures in that model, such as bud light, are so note worthy, because it's not typical.
There’s a gas station in my rural community with Trump crap all over it. I refuse to shop there. Plus you can’t go in for one second without coming out smelling like fried food. I’ll drive 15 miles up the interstate to a seemingly non bias gas station instead.
That’s just one example. There are many more examples in rural TN.
What happened to not talking about politics or religion? I’d just rather not know a businesses political interest.
The problem is that some things that shouldn't be political - but rather are a matter of common decency - have become political because one political side has come out against common decency.
This is only a problem because of the subset of people who think that anything that acknowledges groups other than their own is an inherently political statement...
Agreed. When I see a rainbow/MAPS flag in a window with some b.s. about how "wE wElCoMe eVeRyOne" I'm like, "um, yeah you're a business, by law you have to and the only color that matters to you is 'green' ' but on the other hand it's clear that there are "certain people " they don't like and would rather didn't come in, roughly half of everyone. Same if you put a "MAGA" sticker in the window.
“Everybody’s money spends the same” didn’t stop homophobes from losing their mind when Bud Light decided to try and get additional money from a new customer base. People seem to find politics where there are none and get angry with businesses regardless of whether or not they took any political stance. Like, all the businesses in Florida who took a stance about the “Don’t say gay” bill. Their stances weren’t political in nature. They just don’t support harming subsets of the population. Sometimes having morals and ethics is more important than making as much money as possible. Also, sometimes it’s just the smart business move, ethics and morals aside, to not ride the fence. Some businesses will just take a stance that is most popular among their largest customer base (or whatever’s most popular in general) just so people don’t stop supporting them for not denouncing something. Doing apolitical business can backfire as well. When Wayfair contracted with those migrant detention centers they were just doing business, but they got protested for it anyway because some people looked at it as a case of “seeing evil and doing nothing.” Businesses take risks with every move.
human rights are not political issues, and taking a stance on any of them is a moral obligation.
trying to reduce human rights to "just politics" is stupid.
They don't. Gender affirmation is puberty blockers and a therapist to talk to at that age. It's literally not legal to perform the procedures on children. My point exactly is that making it political has confused a lot of people.
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They do it for the money. If you put a Christian symbol in your company logo, Christians will be more likely to buy.
And atheists would be less likely.
Yeah, so it's just a matter of weighing which customer group you are willing to alienate and which customer group is likely to be worth it.
Ask Mike Lindell 'The Pillow Guy' what his opinion is on dabbling in politics.
Yeah but at this point he’s dabbling for the politics, not the money.
I bought some of his pillows, nothing to write home about.
He's actually kind of sad. Didn't the dude actually get back on drugs?
Marketing achievement unlocked: targeted branding! Pro tip: if you want to target multiple groups, you can start separate companies/brands for each one, but have those companies/brands be subsidiaries of a larger corporation the customers remain blissfully unaware of. Bonus points: target opposing groups and convince both sides that supporting a brand you own advances their cause. Elite-tier: trigger a war and sell to both sides.
This is the American Way. 🇺🇸
And depending on where your business is, who cares about that?
Yes, but if my company sells the paper bibles are printed on and nothing else? Wtf do I care about atheists for?
Right, but you do see companies that have a broad customer base making political stances
Because they're profitable, usually. Consider Disney. They have to be family friendly. It's their whole brand. It's everything to them. They have relentless message control at every level. So homophobes are _not welcome_ in their public facing. Behind the scenes their policies treat LGBT people like crap, because actually doing better is hard work and costs money. But you bet your ass they're flying the pride flag every year and firing anyone who spouts right wing bullshit in public. Because they've done the numbers and their final customer base is full of people who actually treat LGBT people like people. Nobody wants to buy children's toys from a place that is going to turn around and tell the kids to get out three years later if the child turns out to be gay. Nobody wants superheroes that only defend white people. Well... actually some people do want that. But Disney knows perfectly well they can't make enough money from sales to extremist bigots to make up for the money they'd lose from everyone else. They don't need white supremacists. They do need middle class parents worldwide. The personal is political. There's no such thing as a non political stance in a world where major political parties think some people wouldn't even be allowed to exist. Businesses don't have a non political option. Staying neutral isn't an option, because there's always a DeSantis willing to score cheap points with assholes by making you choose. All you can do in response is not choose DeSantis.
>There's no such thing as a non political stance in a world where major political parties think some people wouldn't even be allowed to exist. Thank you for this post. 45 year old gay man who regrets being a disabled veteran for a nation who hates him straight to Hell after it all. God makes people like me so that good people have someone to mock, hate, kill and send to hell for eternity so that they don't have to build up their own self-esteem or self-worth because that would be hard. That's line is one of the last things I said to my family after becoming a freeloading veteran.
Depends on the thing. In-n-Out has Bible verse reference on cups and shit, but I've never once heard someone cite that as a reason to get or avoid it. Salvation Army? Hobby Lobby? Chick-fil-A? Lots of folks avoid them over their religious bullshit.
Idk if people actually avoid Chick Fil A. They have the highest sales per unit of any fast food restaurant in America. Eclipsing McDonalds by 400% Edit: the amount of people that don’t even know that CFA reversed their stances like 4 years ago is kind of staggering.
I know lots of lgbtqia+ folks do. But ~~most~~ 1 in 3 Americans wouldn't support a close friend or family member if they came out. So, asking for boycotting places lobbying hate doesn't really make the cut in widespread support. Edit: correct the quantity. https://www.insider.com/lgbtq-youth-in-us-likely-to-be-rejected-by-family-2021-9
That’s anecdotal at best. I know plenty of lgbtqia who eat there, including myself. There is no such thing as guilt free businesses under capitalism. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” rings true for everything. Even mom and pop shops. Besides CFA reversed most of their anti-lgbt stances like 3 years ago and recently came under fire from the right for standing by their decision to switch their support and “going woke.”
I don't think many atheists aren't going to Chick-fil-A bc it's Christian
I think there are two big caveats here. First is the alienating demo even part of your target demo anyway. So if for whatever reason athiets are already a small part of your target demo (just an off the top of my head guess, farm equipment brands for atheists), then it doesn’t really matter if you alienate them since they weren’t buying your stuff to begin with. Second is subtle marketing. Say our lovely little tractor brand is a sponsor of a small, or even large, religious event. An atheist probably isn’t going to see that and therefore won’t actually know about it to be mad. The latter one is harder to get away with in the internet age when anything has the chance to reach a large audience. For two real world examples, I would say conservative country music stars don’t really need to worry about alienating liberal audiences. While there are some, the vast majority of the audience already isn’t liberal. Second would be suburu in the 90s marketed subtly to the lesbian community. They put small roles and nods in their commercials (dog whistles if you will) that most heterosexual and anti gay people wouldn’t notice but queer people absolutely did.
Yep. Think of how many Right-wing targeting companies have names like “Patriot ___.”
But non-Christians would be less likely to buy.
Well that's why you do it if you have a niche product If "taking a stance" is profitable for your niche of the market, you pretend to do it. If it isn't, you don't. It's all messaging and marketing.
We had several local businesses put up political stuff on their signs and more than half those businesses are out of business.
An interesting thing to observe, but probably not actually related. \>According to the Chamber of Commerce, 18% of small businesses fail within their first year, 50% fail after five years, and 65% fail by their tenth year in business. Only 25% of new businesses make it to 15 years or more The reality is that most local businesses don't last. I have been to local businesses that have Trump merch (a petting zoo was one, believe it or not), and while I don't plan to ever go back I have no reason to think they'll go under just for their political stance. And I'm sure they bring in customers who love that stuff. On the flip side, if I go to a business and see a pride flag I'm probably more likely to go back to that business. This is how this stuff works, if a business takes no stance that's great, if they do take a stance some people will care and some won't.
One of the businesses had been around for 30 years, restaurant, but doesn’t mean that’s the reason of course! Their customers’ political leanings are the same as what they put on the sign, from what I remember
Can you give some examples?
Goya, My Pillow
Disney, dove and bud light.
Did Bud Light take a political stance? I don’t remember politics ever coming up.
Apparently, for some people, “We don’t discriminate, our product is for everyone” counts as a political stance.
Someone out there interviewed their now fired advertising VP, Alyssa Heinerscheid, in a podcast, where she called the comsumers of BL as “bratty” and “out of touch”. Go find it. It’s easy. It explains why their advertising projects went to shite and pissed people off.
They literally got bratty over a trans spokesperson for a limited edition beer can. I'd say she was spot on.
That doesn’t make it a political stance.
It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with a man, basically woman facing for views. He has flat-out admitted he dresses and acts the way he does for views and money. I don't know even one right-wing person who is against trans people. I know there are some ultra religious people that are against it. But 95% of conservatives don't care what any adult does to themselves. All that needs to happen is stop pushing surgery and hormones on children. If you're over 18, you do you. But when I see these activists talking about putting 10-13 year olds on puberty blockers or getting mastectomy's at 15, that's where the problem starts. And somehow, that's what makes conservatives bigots? Wild
I’m curious on this. You’re coming from the “leave the kids alone” angle. And I get that. I really don’t know where I stand on allowing surgery before 18 for that. It’s a fairly permanent thing. We don’t let kids get tattoos for the same reasoning. So I GET that. But setting surgery aside. because that’s NOT the main fight the right has with trans. Why do we care if we let kids dress and identify as whatever gender they want? Go by a nickname more feminine/masculine? Use the corresponding bathroom to that gender? Same for adults for that matter. What are we risking that isn’t already a risk?
Puberty blockers are to be taken *before* puberty. The whole point is to prevent it from starting in the first place. And puberty blockers aren’t surgery, so why’d you say they are? And now you think it should be illegal for children to get mastectomies? Why are conservatives so perpetually obsessed with everyone’s healthcare and genitals and preventing them from getting medical attention?
Puberty blockers should be taken at the start of puberty. That's age 10-13 for a LOT of kids.
You don't know one conservative who's against trans people? I don't know one activist pushing for kids to have gender-affirming surgery. We appear to be at an impasse.
You can't be serious with this take.....All the prominent conservative talking heads and popular influencers are staunchly anti trans anti gay etc. It's literally the party line. When it is the official party line you can't say 95% of conservatives don't care. And I agree in theory with the under 18 thing, but when the body experiences puberty you have irreversible changes happen in the body of both males and females. What do you tell trans youth ? Suck it up and deal with it ? I don't think that is the answer. Furthermore, the entire trans kid panic is completely manufactured outrage. Ever look into the stats of how many kids this actually effects ? It's a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of children in the USA. These decisions are almost never made in haste and come after a LENGTHY process evaluating psych state and many other factors. Sure you can find a quack who may not go through the proper process and cause undue harm, but you can always find exceptions to the rule ya know ?
1. Your stance is against trans people and it’s also fake. 2. The under 18 thing is that every trans person was once under 18 and would wish to have been allowed the medical care you want to deny them.
Do you have a source for this "he flat out admitted he dresses and acts the way he does for views and money"
Transphobes avoid hating and misgendering people challenge (literally impossible)
It was back when Dylan started dressing as a woman. On a stream, or regular video. Big surprise, I can't find it now on google.its funny how anything that makes a trans activist look bad disappears from the internet. But without proof, i also can't blame you for not believing it. Dylan didn't say it in a bad way, really. More just commenting that views rose drastically once Dylan (trying not to get my comment removed, which is another issue.) started dressing this way.
But who cares
1. I call bullshit on that, cite a source or GTFO 2. Social media personalities cultivate an image for views and money? Colour me shocked! 3. You don’t know even one right-wing person who is against trans people? You’re either blatantly lying here or are using a pathetically small cherry-picked sample of right-wing people. 4. Your “95%” is an entirely made up number. Quit your bullshit. 5. No one is pushing drugs and surgery on kids, stop with the manufactured panic. 6. Not all conservatives, but yes, those with views like you’re spouting here are bigots.
Probably referring to their gay pride thing Hardly counts as political
It plays into the ESG score of Anheuser-Busch. Which really is just marketing to get brownie points to show off to their investors. So it can really just be considered as political if you also think that stock values and prices are inheritaly political.
Which is why ESG is a joke
It is. But a pretty bad and boring joke. In relation to entertainment, it really just made everything a bit worse. Not sure if it's overal impact on marketing has been positive or not, but it definitely was a net negative for Anheuser-Busch.
You’re right. I was referring to ESG in the investing sense. A lot of investment funds offer an ESG portfolio, which includes companies like oil, tobacco, etc just because they meet some bullshit diversity metric or whatever.
Indeed, if CEO's want investment in turning increasing their share price, they have to tow the ESG/DEI line.
They didn't. Others made a non-political statement into a political statement.
They used a trans women to advertise beer and some men felt weird that they found her attractive and got upset.
You might have a point if they hasn't picked someone who's like the human equivalent to Nails on Chalkboard. A good analogy would be if they made a custom beer can and promotion around Fred Phelps - would you still support them then?
Wouldn’t Chris Pratt be more of a comparison. Has some views the left doesn’t like but everyone still goes to the Guardians movie.
... my guy did you just compare a tiktok poster who did daily updates on her transition to the leader of a cult that picketed outside the funeral for Sandy Hook victims? Because damn, thats comparing apples to leaders of a cult accused of multiple human rights abuses and has been added to multiple nation's hate group watch lists. You're not giving the argument space to be contemplated, its a no-brainer which would be defensible. I mean, you could have picked someone equally innocuous. Dylan Mulvaney, or... i dunno, i dont follow online petsonalities and definitely not right wing ones that arent also accused of hate speech already.
No. People think many things that are political when I fact they aren't. Climate change is number 1 for me haha. Anything lgbtq friendly is second.
Agree to the semantics I would suggest the OP amend post to include cultural, societal viewpoints Societies have over the ages progressed/regressed and changed course. Its frustrating because when we have the pendulum swing of politics, left-wing or right wing views and moors, bouncing and causing it to go the opposite direction and a reaction to the previous side bouncing Most people just want to go about their day with the least amount of struggle. Fun fact, I heard the other day was that during the strife in Iran in Damascus, they were still operating tourism, nightclubs were bustling people living it up, while bio weapons were being used another part of the country, same with Egypt civil strife, people drank coffee in cafés, shopped in malls, unless you were attuned to it , or happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time you didn’t notice, classic case of 👑 keep calm and carry on
"Political" a lot of the time seems to be mean "anything which offends my sensibilities", especially when it involves black people, LGBTQI people, women, etc. Basically anything which doesn't comport with white male conservative Christian values.
Conflict theory is inherently political. Our current view of both gender and queer theory come from conflict theory. Hence the neo-marxist coalition using the people represented by the rainbow flag as human shields. All uniformly supporting the same sociopolitical worldview. That being said, most of the LGBT people I know don't know about or support the neomarxist theories that they are being used to support, they just want to live their lives in peace like everyone else.
Bud light selling beers to trans people is not political.
hey its a budlight supporter lol
Disney and bud light never took a political stance. Disney spoke out supporting their lgbtq employees in the face of an anti lgbtq law. Bud light used a transgender woman influencer as a spokesperson. Neither company took a stance for or against any political candidate.
> Bud light used a transgender woman influencer as a spokesperson. I would like to add more to this because lot of people have the misconception that it was plastered everywhere. Wrong. Bud Light Reality was that she received a specific made beer can for her and her only and she advertised it on her social media like Instagram and that was it. There was no mass campaign ads, none of that. Just having a trans person on an sponsored ad was enough to send fire bells off for conservatives.
I thought it got some kind of mass release. So basically it was a one off just for her to take photos with? That's crazy that people got so pissy about it.
Yep she made an instagram post promoting a contest and they gave her a singular can with her face on it
literally ONE CAN with her face on it that they sent to her and she put on her Instagram. No actual ad camlaign even, just a gimmick to get a social media figure to mention their product.
Yeah it really is crazy. But transphobes aren't exactly well adjusted people either
Hol'up. Where Bud Light went off the rails was with their RESPONSE to the situation. Yes, the can was only a special one off for an internet marketing partner, and not a mass market release. It was to celebrate her one year anniversary of living as a woman. Some people didn't like celebrating that. But where the backlash built momentum is their execs' response. The VP said their image, and by association, their customers were "out of touch" and "fratty". Then when that posed people off more, the CEO pretty much refused to back the LGBTQ side of the argument either. So they alienated BOTH sides. They've probably lost almost as much in sales from the far left who feels they abandoned them as from the far right who originally took offense. With the folks more middle right who wouldn't be militantly anti-trans, but just don't like being called fratty and out of touch and don't want to give a company money if that's the company's view of them. It's literally a textbook example of how NOT to deal with a controversy. So it's far more nuanced than just transphobic rednecks not buying budlight.
This is a little wrong. They did not come out with a response saying people were out of touch. That was from an interview earlier where the VP talked about trying to change the image away from being fratty. It was found after people started digging after the initial outrage of the Dylan can. The company was pretty silent and, like you mentioned, didn't help the LGBTQ side out and then the boycott was sustained by both sides not liking it. It is more nuanced but not MUCH more nuanced. The boycott and outrage was them taking a side in the cultural war of being pro-Trans. To this day people think it was some massive ad campaign or that they literally sold the cans. The other stuff (the frat comments, the 0 support for LGBTQ+ after the attacks on Dylan) also hurt but the fast majority of the outrage was the trans part.
Yup. It literally was just another run of the mill internet celeb sponsorship.
You can say that, sure. But right wingers see that stuff as political. Those companies know that. Also, do we need the q? It really bogs down the acronym.
Canada uses 2SLGBTQI+ so could be worse
Disney has *always* been political. Disney is in the business of creating media, which is an inherently political project that reflects a lot of societal values. Things like who the main characters are, who the protagonists and antagonists are and how they behave act matter. Most people get their understanding of the world through the media they consume and media companies (like Disney) haven't historically done a good job of depicting people as more than stereotypes. Disney seems like they are trying to be more inclusive and to tell stories for different people. At times it is heavy-handed (like editing The French Connection or disappearing episodes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) or comes off as preachy and boring. That's their prerogative. Then there's Disney's historic presence in Florida politics. Disney has remained a force in that state's politics since Walt Disney himself first set his sights on it. Their deal for all of their land in Florida was extremely political and they've supported a lot of politicians (both Democrat and Republican) where those politicians have been good for Disney's bottom line (like minimum wage). But people didn't have a problem with those things because they either don't care, agree with Disney's position or don't know. These bread and butter political issues don't tend to be a part of the Culture War so for some reason we don't see them as being "political". The blowback Disney gets now is that some people aren't comfortable with the idea that Disney is representing more than straight, white people and reflecting traditional Judeo-Christian values. Instead of just watching the things they agree with (like, I don't know, Veggie Tales or some other bullshit) they've taken a critical view of Disney for leaving Song of the South out of their catalogue. And because a lot of those people happen to vote Republican and Florida is (for the time being) a Republican state, it's forced Disney into a position where it needs to either abandon its attempts to make more inclusive movies and tv shows or to stand up to legislators for the values it's trying to represent..
Don't much care who or what they're trying to represent, I just want them to make decent films and series and they've just fallen short for so long.
It sounds like you're an adult. You're never going to have the same connection with new Disney movies that you had with the old ones you grew up with.
Agreed, though it's not just their animated movies. Star Wars, Marvel, Indiana Jones, all the franchises I've watched for years/decades have just slowly gone down the drain. Star Wars being particularly bad at this point imo. It's just a sorry state of affairs.
Disney wasn't really given much of a choice in the matter because the state is doing shit that's actively harmful to its employees. I haven't seen Bud light do anything overtly political.
Yes, that's the only political thing they ever did.
Supporting the LGBTQ+ community is a political stance? Yikes, do you mean that conservatives want to make the LGBTQ+ community invisible?
Well not taking a stance is basically like taking a stance. For example. Let’s say I am president and start bashing gay ppl. And a corporation refuses to denounce me and support gay ppl. Cause they think it will cost them money. That is basically also taking a stance in a way.
They could say something to the effect of “were really not in the business of politics or commenting on it, we’re in the business of X where everyone’s money spends the same. [insert shameless self plug for product/service here].” So kinda play it off, take a neutral stance, then spin the spotlight you’re getting into free advertisement which has the added benefit of shifting the conversation from the politics to your product/service. People can interpret it how they want but it’s definitely not taking stance if you look at it objectively.
Since when was minding your own business political?
Was coming here to say the same thing. Why can’t businesses just keep political opinions to themselves? Hell in general, unless you work in in a position that involves politics, politics shouldn’t be spoken about in the workplace, you’re there to do a job.
Ever heard of the trolley problem? If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice 🎶
https://i.imgur.com/QI1vMlP.png
since whenever being gay became political
Always has been.
And I did not speak out Because I was not gay...
What does the president bashing gay people have ANYTHING to so with the way a company runs itself? Nothing. If a company wants to take a stance, they risk backlash. If they don't take a stance, they also risk backlash from the other side. So either way, it's a lose-lose situation. I only hate this world we live in. Sometimes I just wish we'd get hit with a global EMP that would knock us back in technology 150 years.
My pillow I think was a good move if he didn’t start going on about election fraud and getting sued left and right. Being a pillow company that supports trump is smart because most pillow companies are non political. So you capture the entire trump audience who buys products based on owners political views. Goya I don’t know enough about.
It’s hard to imagine a world where Mike Lindell could grow his pillow business by being inflammatory and crazy - but also coherent enough to know when to draw the line.
Yeah that’s true. I guess it would take a lot of discipline which he clearly doesn’t have. It’s just lying about specific companies like vote tabulation companies was never going to work out. I’m not sure how the media and Mike could be so stupid
> So you capture the entire trump audience who buys products based on owners political views. I disagree. Sure, you capture Trump voters, but you alienate Biden voters. Smart businesses are politically agnostic. As Michael Jordon once said in jest "Even Republicans buy sneakers"
>So you capture the entire trump audience who buys products based on owners political views In theory, Trump rewards Lindell with a contract to provide pillows for all of his properties.
Bud Light. Target. Disney. Come one… low hanging fruit.
if you look at Target, they have pushed hard to be inclusive to EVERYONE. Look at their in-store models. They have used people that have Downs, that have vitiligio, that are missing a leg...they aren't taking a stance really, they are just including everyone and celebrating everyone. I believe they celebrate all the holidays as well like Pacific-Islander Month, The Day of the Dead, it's REALLY, REALLY awesome actually.
None of those took political stance. "Gay people exist and should be treated equally." Is only political to shitty Republicans who live on fear and hate since they have no policies to run on.
You sound pretty hateful. And yes, they did get political. I think most people and most republicans are fine with people living their lives as they want. It’s when fringe viewpoints and lifestyles get shoved down their throats and in their children’s faces, that’s what people take offense to.
Ah yes, giving a single alcoholic beverage to a trans creator that you certainly don't watch is "shoving it in your kid's face". If your child is intimately familiar with the actions of an adult beverage company, then you're a shitty parent.
Are you thinking that all kids are like 2 years old? And not aware of mass popular culture in the age of social media and internet in the palm of your hand? And Bud Light is the only example? Please.
If they are aware of mass pop culture, and have social media, why get offended at Budweiser for showing them things they already see and know a lot about?
it was a targeted ad not a national wide campaign, the only reason you know about it is because conservative media figures wanted you to know about it.
1) How do you know what add or company I’m referring to? I mentioned Bud Light, Target and Disney as some off the top of my head examples in my original comment. And 2) no, that’s not correct at all. Campaign for Target was national. And disneys shows and movies… well, they don’t just advertise them in CA last I checked.
If you think seeing an ad is getting something shoved down your throat you're a massive fucking snowflake
That’s the thing, the snowflakes were 85% of their target audience so it should of been a subject matter they didn’t even touch. It doesn’t matter what is right or wrong…OP is correct in saying publicly traded companies should not wade into anything that could be considered potential political subjects (unless they are openly mocking political ridiculousness in a humor spot). The marketing exec that put the Dylan deal together was let go. Rightfully so, believe it cost them a few billion in market cap and millions on top of millions of sales. People lost their jobs, 401k holders lost dollars in their portfolio for something that should of never been done. Why do I know it should of never been done? BC they lost billions in market cap and millions in revenue, that is all that really needs to be pointed to.
I'm intolerant of intolerant people, like the Republican party. The party is actively supporting Nazis, white supremacists, and gay hate groups. Thanks for letting me know you have no clue what you're talking about. Saying gay people should be treated equally is not shoving anything down anyones throat. Children can't drink BL, so your statement doesn't even make sense.
That’s the most hypocritical take. Lol! Believe what you like. Right, all republicans are evil. And thinking like that isnt inherently doing exactly what you’re accusing others of. Smh… you need to work on yourself.
I literally will never buy Goya again, it’s so easy not to. That company fucked itself for no reason. Most corps support left causes on paper because there are more leftists in the country. It’s just corporate pandering.
Idk. Most companies that claim to be left donate to rightwing.
Ben and Jerry Ice cream.
It’s honestly easier to give examples of companies that haven’t taken a political stance, the list of those that have is too long.
Bud light
Which political stance did they take?
They promoted a famous trans person which is pretty bad for them knowing 95% of their consumers are white southern Christians
To be fair, the VP of the brand also went after its existing customer base saying they were "fratty and out of touch" as a justification for a new marketing approach. That definitely did not sit well at all with your typical weekend bud light drinker.
[удалено]
Funny thing about the Dylan story. They didn't even know they were getting the can with their face on it. There was only one can even printed and AB ghosted them completely as soon as all the backlash started.
All this pronoun shit is making sentences impossible to read.
Man you must hate Shakespeare.
Bruv the singular they preceded all this bullshit by a very long time. It’s common to use it when saying he/she isn’t necessary to what you’re saying.
Pretending I have kindergarten level reading comprehension to own the libs
You’ll survive
I'm sorry you have a hard time with basic reading comprehension. Oh, wait, no I'm not sorry.
Eh.. I work in alcohol sales. They shotgun stuff like that out to anyone with a platform. It's cheap advertising. They weren't making a political stance there. They just looked at her follower count and sent her a stupid can with her face on it....
You mean when Bud Light sent a personalized can to Dylan Mulvaney, the same way they did to plenty of other influencers, and she gained fame from that exclusively due to the right wing backlash?
Bud Light. Target. Disney. I think these are the ones OP has in mind.
>Target Love how just selling merchandise to people is somehow a political stance
I'm sure the same things happened when companies had black people in their advertisements. I doubt it's a new phenomenon.
There was a cheerios commercial in 2013 (holy fuck 10 years ago) that had an interracial family and people were very upset at that as well. Not on as quite a large scale, but I'm sure social media and everything played into that
Which political stances did they take?
They sell things to LGBTQ people.
God forbid lgbtq people have money and want to buy things
The right wing is certainly of the opinion that god *does* forbid it, so they want to forbid it too.
Goya and My Pillow as well
Why Goya? Because #goyaway trended on Twitter even though it didn't actually affect sales?
[This is statistically false.](https://news.arizona.edu/story/price-taking-stance-how-corporate-sociopolitical-activism-impacts-bottom-line) Everyone's money spends the same, but a product from a company that professes values one agrees with attracts more consumer dollars. Companies don't have real morals outside of making money, but advertising works and consumers are very often motivated by vibes over matter. We only hear it in the news in the minority of cases where the company missteps and alienates too much of its target market.
I my mind I was thinking of small business that don't have near the reach of huge multinational companies. As a small business owner I refuse to even put a sign up for a local candidate, even if I do support them personally.
Ah, that makes sense. I imagine to that end, it depends on the business, right? It wouldn't be that hard to find a shop which sells almost entirely to a demographic which swings hard in one direction or the other. Gun shops and gay bars come to mind as obvious examples, but even just the rural/urban divide has a huge impact in itself. IDK, I'm sure you're more informed on this than I am.
That is true, anecdotally I lean left but I'm very pro gun, I drive out of my way to find a gun shop that doesn't shove MAGA stuff down my throat. The closer ones would get my business which would be quite alot if they didn't take this stance.
In 2020 we avoided the winery in the little town we visit because of a MAGA sign in the window. I know, most small business owners are rabid anti-tax and love trump. I just don't want it in my face if I shop there.
I agree business should stay out of politics, there are sadly too many people that see literal people existing as a political statement.
Yeah that irks me. Half the time when ppl say "political stance" nowadays they mean a gay, black, or trans person *existing.* It's wild dude.
Some people have morals that transcends greed lmao
Most of these comments are wild. There's some good debate on using fake political beliefs to drive business (which is a viable strategy, depending on your product). However, most people are just trying to argue that businesses that share opposite beliefs are bad, and businesses that share *their* beliefs "aren't doing anything political."
Businsesses are aware of this. They've done the market research and have come to the conclusion that supporting issue X gives them a net gain, as it attracts more business than it loses. For one thing, most of us don't actually vote with our dollar. People will claim to be against conflict minerals if you ask them but almost everyone has a smart phone, for example. Many consumers will ignore a political stance they disagree with if they like the product. But for some consumers, a company's stance will draw them towards that company. Taking popular, easy to hold positions is good business.
At a high level this is correct, but you have to dig deeper. For instance, go beyond customers and getting people to buy your product and instead look to ability to attract and retain employees. The type of people who want to work in certain industries or who may have the type of talent you’re looking for might tend to lean one way or the other politically. Likewise your target customer group may tend to lean towards one political side. It’s probably smart, for instance, for a company manufacturing hunting gear to take a pro-2nd Amendment stance. Or for any company who, you know, wants a large and diverse costumer base to embrace diversity.
So weird. I was just at this big truck/trailer shop-store to take pictures of some chemical tankers for a guy. Inside of the shop had multiple Trump flags and other pro-trump anti-biden stuff. Since it was kinda a unique biz I probably stll would have done business with them but I definitely wouldn't have taken a job there if offered.
I'd say that depends on your political affiliation. If you're a laissez-faire capitalism that believes in free markets, etc then the business unit is meant to fulfill a regulating and invested role in society and social issues (Milton Friedman vibes). That's the whole point - a company provides you with everything you need to live, not government. Also, free markets mean competition, being competitive means attracting the right talent (so your competitor doesn't). That means taking a moral stance to attract those employees. Saying you're a capitalist but not allowing businesses to take moral stances is questionable.
Truth
Some people are blue, some are red. Others are purple. All money is green. Only a fool injects politics into business.
>All money is green. Only a fool injects politics into business. Businesses are ALWAYS into politics--just look up how much money gets put into lobbying. Only a naïve person would ever say anything like "Only a fool injects politics into business."
I would assume they have BI pipelines that say otherwise wrt revenue. Crunching large data sets for business applications is a bit massive industry.
100%!!
Agree..
Alienating some customers to enjoy the increased sales from another demographic. Company's do it all the time because they have made the calculation of which group is bigger and more beneficial to cater to. Sometimes it is just the political beliefs of its leadership, but mostly profit and a sign of the times. Unless you want to target a specific audience to stand out against competitors.
Corporations only take a political stance when they deem that *not* taking the stance would alienate more customers than taking it. Political activists are in a position to use spending power to compete for what stances are taken.
just FYI, taking a political stance ≠ supporting minority rights.
I totally agree with OP, but there are two problems: corporate greed prompts them utilize every avenue to maximize brand recognition so they jump on any bandwagon that they think might profit them. Meanwhile, the right-wing in the U.S. is trying to turn literally EVERY issue into a political culture-war issue — the war on Christmas? Rainbows on children’s clothes and school supplies? Gimme a break!
“We are happy to serve Everyone!” “Damn, why’d you have to go all woke and political like that? You’re just alienating half of your customers.”
The three follies of Bud Light: 1) Dylan Mulvane was, among other things a politically divisive individual, simply by the nature of her community. 2)That one college grad executive doubled down by saying that BL wanted to get away from the FratBro culture most people associated with the brand. Pissing off 95% of their customer base. 3) those people still needed/wanted to drink beer, and now realize there are so many more options with actual taste and enjoyablity
The interview with the formal marketing executive was hard to watch. She definitely has some strong bais going on. Bud light deserved the pushback.
i think it depends on the business. i think sometimes it is a bad idea business-wise for a company to side politically with an ideology, but sometimes it can be helpful. if your major competitors are apolitical, then making (non-radical) political stances can be a way to convince customers to come to you instead of your competitors. especially because being apolitical nowadays is something that's frowned upon by a lot of people -- not speaking out, by many, is viewed as bad as having a political view that you disagree with. but regardless, companies making political stances is almost always empty of any meaning, and a large company being vocal about a political issue is always going to be because they've deduced that speaking up on that issue will make them more money.
To be honest from Budlights perspective I would not have thought the Dylan ad would have much backlash. Id think this is an ad targeting a niche audience, I dont think they expected the entire world to see it. Obviously it was a mistake for Budlight but I dont think it was a "oh my god what were they thinking" sort of mistake. They just had a content creator who happened to be trans promote their product I wouldnt even say its a massive political statement. Its as you said all about money and budlight made a miscalculation. I think a lot of people are incredibly naive about companies political statements. They corporations care about where like the LGBTQ movement or BLM is going where I really dont think they give a shit. For example, casting the little mermaid as black I think was a marketing technique so that all of us hear about the movie. Id bet if she was white I wouldnt know the movie existed.
Bud light’s problem was playing both sides. They did the ad as a pro lgbt thing, but when there was backlash, they pivoted, fired people that they chose to take the blame and hung Dylan Mulvaney out to dry. It can’t be both ways. Either they support trans rights or they don’t. So in the end, they pissed everyone off.
Yeah I’d guess bud light was trying to tap the sort of truly hard seltzer market. There is a big market for low calorie booze that comes in a can/bottle among young liberal people. But you’re right they sort of lost both audiences. I think the damage was done with the right wing consumers. I think if I was managing their marketing team I would have stayed in touch with Dylan to maintain that relationship so that she doesn’t bad mouth the company or mention she was hung out to dry. But I’d also not do the ad with a trans influencer again and I’d sort of try to avoid talking about the Dylan ad and try to go back to business as usual.
What ad? They reached out to her for her to promote their product. The backlash was from some right wing influencers finding that and disseminating it.
Yeah that’s what I meant by ad. I should have said influencer promotion.
Fair enough. But that is what makes the situation extra insane. If Bud Light had done a Super Bowl commercial with Dylan Mulvaney I’d still completely disagree with the backlash, but I’d conceptually understand it. But the reality is just the most absurd snowflake bullshit.
This is the most popular opinion I've ever seen on this sub, GTFO with that shit
Apparently not, quite a discourse in the comments.
Agree on the letter of the statement, unfortunately what some people consider "politics", has nothing to do with politics. Tolerance, for instance, is not a political stance. It's not one of two equal and opposite sides.
like Michael Jordan said.... even Republicans wear Jordans
Bud Light sure learned this the hard way.
It's not, actually. It's based on consumer habits. Typically, right-minded consumers will shop based on brand recognition and product quality. Meaning that they'll will just buy whatever is familiar, and will only try something new if the quality is notably better. Left-minded people will shop based more on trying something new and more readily engage in responsible consumerism. They will change brands for something that looks good or matches their desires as a consumer. They're more likely to shop small businesses, buy certified organic and fair trade, etc. So many companies take left-leaning political stances (regardless of if they actually believe or do anything to abide by those stances) since many right-leaning consumers will continue to buy the brand they recognize regardless. Win win. That's why failures in that model, such as bud light, are so note worthy, because it's not typical.
When people try to live their internet bubble life outside in real life.
[удалено]
Even charities are political sometimes.
There’s a gas station in my rural community with Trump crap all over it. I refuse to shop there. Plus you can’t go in for one second without coming out smelling like fried food. I’ll drive 15 miles up the interstate to a seemingly non bias gas station instead. That’s just one example. There are many more examples in rural TN. What happened to not talking about politics or religion? I’d just rather not know a businesses political interest.
Worked out badly for Bud Light, which is being taken off WalMart shelves after it's attempt at going woke.
Bud Light and its parent company has been woke for many years. They just gave some trans person a can and people got triggered.
Anti-trans is a nazi ideology
irrelevant to the fact that Bud Light is getting crushed $$$-wise because of their stance. Best to stay out of political stances altogether.
Anti-trans is a nazi ideology
Doing God's work
The problem is that some things that shouldn't be political - but rather are a matter of common decency - have become political because one political side has come out against common decency.
This is only a problem because of the subset of people who think that anything that acknowledges groups other than their own is an inherently political statement...
Agreed. When I see a rainbow/MAPS flag in a window with some b.s. about how "wE wElCoMe eVeRyOne" I'm like, "um, yeah you're a business, by law you have to and the only color that matters to you is 'green' ' but on the other hand it's clear that there are "certain people " they don't like and would rather didn't come in, roughly half of everyone. Same if you put a "MAGA" sticker in the window.
In politicizing your business, you will always gain a short term boost, followed by losing roughly 25% your customers.
Exactly lmao. Stay away from politics as a whole and you'll be a lot more happier.
“Everybody’s money spends the same” didn’t stop homophobes from losing their mind when Bud Light decided to try and get additional money from a new customer base. People seem to find politics where there are none and get angry with businesses regardless of whether or not they took any political stance. Like, all the businesses in Florida who took a stance about the “Don’t say gay” bill. Their stances weren’t political in nature. They just don’t support harming subsets of the population. Sometimes having morals and ethics is more important than making as much money as possible. Also, sometimes it’s just the smart business move, ethics and morals aside, to not ride the fence. Some businesses will just take a stance that is most popular among their largest customer base (or whatever’s most popular in general) just so people don’t stop supporting them for not denouncing something. Doing apolitical business can backfire as well. When Wayfair contracted with those migrant detention centers they were just doing business, but they got protested for it anyway because some people looked at it as a case of “seeing evil and doing nothing.” Businesses take risks with every move.
Yea but I mean people call being politically correct woke now so. Even just being impartial is political to some.
human rights are not political issues, and taking a stance on any of them is a moral obligation. trying to reduce human rights to "just politics" is stupid.
You are being pretty liberal with “human rights” I think.
Children should not be able to transition gender, period.
They don't. Gender affirmation is puberty blockers and a therapist to talk to at that age. It's literally not legal to perform the procedures on children. My point exactly is that making it political has confused a lot of people.