First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Do you think companies should pick a political side?
21555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17
Do you think companies, who's business is not politics, should pick a political side or do you think they should just follow whatever the local laws are and sell their products? Lately I've seen many companies pick sides in politics and some got massively burned while others got blessed beyond their wildest expectations (starbucks vs black rifle coffee company).





Do you think companies should pick a political side or do you think they should just focus on making money?

Personally I think companies should stay out of politics and just focus on making money.
22979 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Online
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/25/17
They both seem to be doing good things in all honesty. Veterans may need help as well. As long as they do not pick a fight, I do not see why we should care.

I prefer nonpartisan companies though.

Though it is called "Black Rifle" for a reason. It was created by a Green Beret, and reportedly has coffee names such as "Fuck Hipsters", so the political stance has been longstanding.


In any case, for Black Rifle it does not come from the need to cash in on current attitudes, but those prevalent to the one who started it and how he envisioned his company.

Starbucks is a bit more questionable, being apolitical.
642 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Lost.
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/26/17
We have had businessmen in politics from the beginning. They only have one side, the one they think benefits them the most.
21555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 3/25/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

They both seem to be doing good things in all honesty. Veterans may need help as well. As long as they do not pick a fight, I do not see why we should care.

I prefer nonpartisan companies though.

Though it is called "Black Rifle" for a reason. It was created by a Green Beret, and reportedly has coffee names such as "Fuck Hipsters", so the political stance has been longstanding.


In any case, for Black Rifle it does not come from the need to cash in on current attitudes, but those prevalent to the one who started it and how he envisioned his company.

Starbucks is a bit more questionable, being apolitical.


Thats why I picked Starbucks and Black Rifle as they both took a stance but on opposite ends. For one it started boycotts and for the other it caused better marketing than any campaign could have done.
8785 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 3/25/17
Nope.
271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Ypsilanti, Michigan
Offline
Posted 3/25/17
I don't care either way. It's a marketing strategy. As long as I don't find the company detestable, I will still go purchase their products. In general, if the company is being respectful and subtle about it, then it's no issue. If they are being obnoxious, then it's a problem.
39161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/25/17 , edited 3/26/17
Businesses should stay out of politics, period. It's because of their money that politicians don't listen to the voters.
11411 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 3/25/17

kata89 wrote:

I don't care either way. It's a marketing strategy. As long as I don't find the company detestable, I will still go purchase their products. In general, if the company is being respectful and subtle about it, then it's no issue. If they are being obnoxious, then it's a problem.


+1
TPmanW 
60 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/26/17

Rujikin wrote:

Do you think companies, who's business is not politics, should pick a political side or do you think they should just follow whatever the local laws are and sell their products? Lately I've seen many companies pick sides in politics and some got massively burned while others got blessed beyond their wildest expectations (starbucks vs black rifle coffee company).





Do you think companies should pick a political side or do you think they should just focus on making money?

Personally I think companies should stay out of politics and just focus on making money.


Why's it phrased as one or the other? The issues strike me as independant of each other.
7154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 3/26/17
As long as it doesn't change their flavor for the worse, I really could not care less.
731 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F
Offline
Posted 3/26/17
I personally think that companies should stay away from politics in general (or at the very least, stop giving money to politicians), but unfortunately we are far too late for that. We are already too close to being a plutocracy as it is. On the other hand, it's not always a negative thing (provided that the companies' views are not too extreme).
Posted 3/26/17

Flying_Sea_Turtle wrote:

We have had businessmen in politics from the beginning. They only have one side, the one they think benefits them the most.


this ^

35659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/26/17
Well, the fundamental problem is two fold:

When we say "political stance" in American politics it's often actually a social issue and therein lays the rub. From a moral perspective a person is obviously more likely to lean towards the stance that is morally "right". Such as something like Target and bathroom bills or companies embracing LGBTQ. Not discriminating tends to be favoured by the majority.

From a purely cynical pragmatic stance a company is going to go with the majority to keep the widest customer base. If 30% of your customers are screaming about Jesus and queers, you're going to go with the 70% that aren't.
33172 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17
Companies should stick to what they should do- Make fcskin' money for their shareholders.

Anything else and they're screwing with the wrong stuff.

That being the case, if picking a side just happens to serve a company's financial interests then hey- Go right ahead. Lots of companies do that- Cozying up to a certain lobbying group to garner favorable treatment in the form of legislation and whatnot.

Companies and corporations are amoral entities- When they go into social causes it's to self-serve.


runec wrote:

From a purely cynical pragmatic stance a company is going to go with the majority to keep the widest customer base. If 30% of your customers are screaming about Jesus and queers, you're going to go with the 70% that aren't.


Companies cave in to minority groups when they're loud enough to make a big enough stink to cause a PR problem.
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17

AlastorCrow wrote:

As long as it doesn't change their flavor for the worse, I really could not care less.


^ This is pretty much how I see it.

-------

Essentially, when it comes down to companies taking a social stance (not a "political" one), I don't really care. It seems like people make mountains out of molehills when a company decides to make a public statement about something that is viewed political when it's mostly a social stance as well. This means that people are correlating all social stances as political because they see the main division between "liberal" (Democrat) and "conservative" (Republican) are solely social stances.

Target and their announcement during the HB2 fiasco was a welcomed one (for me), as it showed that they won't let something as menial as politics change a policy they've had for years (this was their official stance back in 1999-2000 when I did overnight stocking for them). I would have considered them changing their stance as more political than just outright stating a known policy. What it boils down to, though, is that a company's public social view is - more or less - a publicity stunt. Boycotts aren't going to damage a company unless it's a small startup. Most companies like Target, Starbucks, Chik-Fil-A, and the likes can afford these public boycotts based on political/social stances. Yes, they lose money. No, they don't care. They're still raking in the dough; just not as much dough.

If it's a restaurant or company that handles food, as long as they don't change their brand identity/flavor to accompany this stance they've publically taken... I really don't care what they say or do. Speaking of Black Rifle, I have a pound of V-Tac Berzerker Blend downstairs (one of their medium roasts). I'm fairly anti-gun/anti-military. Whatever stance companies take doesn't mean that it correlates to anything that I give a damn about. Nor do I understand why people worry about what a company's public stance on something is when they know it's just a stunt to get more people.

Conservative boycotts equate to more liberal purchases. Liberal boycotts mean more conservative purchases. For example, some of my Democrat friends doubled up going to local Target stores due to their stances (here in Raleigh, NC). On the flip side, several of my Republican friends started purchasing more Hi-Gear and iCook products (both owned by the DeVos family) when Democrats started voicing concerns against DeVos. Worrying about it either way just shows that you're ignoring the fact that they're playing you and your political/social views to their favor.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.