WEEKEND TICKETS GOING FAST!

PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE

PURCHASE TICKET
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Do you think companies should pick a political side?
5039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17
What they need is a political chick. It is good to have company backed by the government, as for politics it should not matter as much
14723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17
I tend to dislike/avoid companies who engage in anti-competitive practices. I do it because I don't want to support that kind of shit, but another advantage is that their products tend to be lower quality and/or overpriced anyway.

I'm including patent-trolls in this category too...
247 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17
Consider unity. Picking any side is to perceive a split. Knowing past all imaginable sides is to know everything is unity and everything is apart of us becoming more.

For unity to work as a word in the way I am doing, individuals are equal.

That being known, the extent of your schisms/sides already chosen going into another decisions about a perceivable difference that is really apart of an inevitable understanding that was never different but understood your own way, companies making a decisions within country within planet within universe within all else all the way to nothingness/unknown. You speak the way you feel yourself. Politics tend to leave everything out besides acceptable speech... beyond being the universe, most political discussions until fixed have only gone to accept you as what they have already accepted for themselves. Although aging til you die because you chose to pretend you're just human eventually gets you back to recognizing you are also the universe and beyond... upon death.

Well your decisions in speaking, representing the way you've always been and deciding between which babbling side of others do you want to pretend are going to adequately represent you through this repeated vote of what hasn't happened yet because you got to represent yourself to achieve yourself, changing forever the repetition of voting in a way that you already know is going to fail you. Ending denial ends all perceivable sides.

Well then if this hasn't happened yet, then obviously the current political game is rigged to exclude the entirety of valuing an individual. Do you really think a company is going to? Sure institutions could equate all individuals as equal instead of as a power that is only theirs if they convince you of something, but then that would heal us all and money would die off.

Except with unity, all suffering is apart of the evolution of us all with more possibilities. So spiritually, practicing money and not giving into materialism is the same as leaving behind all hysteria as you recognize being you is perfectly apart of the evolution of all, irreplaceable and beyond all discussion.

Picking political sides only lasts until the next war. By then sides are chosen and the collapse of new imaginative side choices begin to bring about whatever manifests to fall all over again. Only way that works is to choose fulfillment beyond disagreement. Knowing everything is the same as only unity always. From faith that unity always wins, one can figure out a way to perceive through all struggles.
20348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17

Rujikin wrote:


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.


Black Rifle appears to have made their political stances clear from its inception, which is part of their marketing appeal.

Starbucks can be said to be apolitical before their initiative to hire refugees.

Banned
20726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 3/26/17

TPmanW wrote:


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.


Thats a phrase companies typically use to say "were not picking sides let the local government decide".


runec wrote:

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.


Yeah those numbers aren't biased at all. A lot of times its more like:

20% don't want men in womens restrooms
60% don't care
20% Want men in womens restrooms

Or some number where the vast majority don't care or wouldn't know it ever happened. Most people just don't give a fuck and only a few people actually pay attention to the politics.
1312 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / The Great White N...
Offline
Posted 3/26/17
It should be their choice
2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 3/26/17

ninjitsuko wrote:


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.


I'm not sure I agree with your social/political distinction. My first instinct was to recall the slogan, "the personal is the political" (I guess slogans are useful); both a nation's laws and its foreign relations are entangled with its cultural morality.

Second, if a company comes out in favor of some side of an issue, its motive only matters insofar as motive is part of the social conversation about the company's stance. Sure, the profit motive is there, but the statement of support has impact beyond whatever its intended purpose was - which can't be so easily restricted to profit anyway. (This is just an application of the "death of the author" principle.) People on either side of the issue can point to the company's statement in tallying up support; it's now part of the narrative - one of "us", or one of the Other. So choosing a side has an effect on the world besides just getting more money from the side you chose. Brand identity isn't separable from political stances either, because a company's consumer base is part of its brand identity.

Further, not everyone has the ability to choose whether or not to give a damn about something. For those whose political philosophy is guided by the "first they came for the socialists" principle, any ground given is dangerous - especially for the ones "they" are coming for.

You can't tap into the existing narratives or power structures without strengthening them; this is why people talk about getting "business" or "money" out of politics. Which is an impossibility, of course, since the government has power over money-making - as it should. And technically American society doesn't allow the censoring of most speech, so it's not like anyone can stop companies from making political statements. What would be shocking is if we ended up doing so. I think it's hard to say that a company shouldn't be allowed to have an interest in its own surroundings.
14538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/26/17 , edited 3/26/17
I don't think companies should be pressured into making political statements, but I don't think there is really anything wrong with a company following through on whatever they believe (in principle).
17330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 3/26/17
I think a company taking a political stance shouldn't be done their job is to take my money with their product not appeal to my opinion on politics it's just a publicity stunt as well half they time while also having the hard neck to force their employees to agree with them if they want to keep their job or just make their own beliefs unknown is a bit hypocritical and unfair
11062 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M
Online
Posted 3/26/17
Irrespective of whether companies SHOULD stay out of politics, you are forgetting that western democracies largely operate in a capitalist system, in a global economy, and in order to 'make money' which many of the commenters are suggesting companies stick to doing, they need to pick a political 'side' in order to maximise their profits. That is what capitalism is - growing business and maximising profit. Capitalism is not about morality, and neither is company involvement in politics. It is about profit, (and sometimes about company image/branding, which is also ultimately for profit).
Companies make political donations both during and outside of campaigns, in order to buy votes for contracts, infrastructure or rubber stamping approvals for development. It may be considered corruption, but it is done and remains largely unseen due to lack of transparency, lack of funding for regulatory oversight, and the dependency political parties now have on that campaign money to stand a chance in any upcoming election against their opponents.

Do not forget that corporate law - legally binding shareholder obligation - FORCES companies (incorporated public companies at least) to go with whatever political 'side' will get them the most profit, usually meaning fiscally conservative small government policy with minimal regulation, minimal red tape, no oversight, insufficient resources to prosecute offenders, lower company tax rates, reduced union powers, ability to offshore labour, use of tax havens for income processing... etc.

You cannot run a public company and 'do the right thing' (unless it magically makes you more profit through customer goodwill) than you would get through conventionally aggressive bean counting, i.e. reducing costs & overheads, increasing margin, writing off whatever possible, and generally shifting numbers around to minimise tax against whatever profit occurs at the end of each fiscal quarter.

Privately owned companies run by charismatic leaders stand out here because the company (and its brand/image) succeeds or fails on the decisions and statements made by a leader without any obligation to please shareholders. There is more freedom for the leader to be outspoken in public on various political topics. (Irrespective of which political party they are actually donating to). But having said that, you cannot forbid those leaders from believing something and being outspoken about it any more than you can forbid celebrities, actors, sportspeople, or shock jocks from being politically outspoken.

It is certainly unfair that rich powerful people who are politically outspoken, are disproportionally influential because they are well known, and they often make controversial political statements not because they believe in something, but because it grows their celebrity following, and thus their brand grows, and thus they make more money, from followers who buy or vote for whatever the celeb endorses , & from sponsors (from public & private sector) who pay the celeb to make those statements.
160 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Southern Californ...
Offline
Posted 3/26/17
Simple answer, no. Same with entertainers. Especially considering how heated it's been this last election, they're basically pissing off and/or alienating half of their consumer base.
Posted 3/27/17

auroraloose wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with your social/political distinction. My first instinct was to recall the slogan, "the personal is the political" (I guess slogans are useful); both a nation's laws and its foreign relations are entangled with its cultural morality.

Second, if a company comes out in favor of some side of an issue, its motive only matters insofar as motive is part of the social conversation about the company's stance. Sure, the profit motive is there, but the statement of support has impact beyond whatever its intended purpose was - which can't be so easily restricted to profit anyway. (This is just an application of the "death of the author" principle.) People on either side of the issue can point to the company's statement in tallying up support; it's now part of the narrative - one of "us", or one of the Other. So choosing a side has an effect on the world besides just getting more money from the side you chose. Brand identity isn't separable from political stances either, because a company's consumer base is part of its brand identity.


I think my separation of social/political perceptions is mostly because I've lived in countries where there are more than two political parties that have some leverage in their politics. Which, admittedly, could be argued that it shouldn't be applied to America's political atmosphere because of the shift of dynamics in this country. I suppose it's ultimately another personal distinction I've made.

Looking at the situation in a "Death of the Author" perspective makes sense, sure. However, the overall end-game of companies is essentially to ensure that they do not lose/gain projected profit margins. While it is true that the company's political/social/religious stances do constitute its identity to the potential consumer, the company generally goes out of its way to create that identity (or "brand"). I agree that brand and political stance can be lumped together (at least, the latter can be a fraction of the former). Though, at the same time, not everyone marches to the drum of the brand; or rather, not everyone follows the "us or them" line of thought when it comes to politics. Which leads us to...


auroraloose wrote:
Further, not everyone has the ability to choose whether or not to give a damn about something. For those whose political philosophy is guided by the "first they came for the socialists" principle, any ground given is dangerous - especially for the ones "they" are coming for.

You can't tap into the existing narratives or power structures without strengthening them; this is why people talk about getting "business" or "money" out of politics. Which is an impossibility, of course, since the government has power over money-making - as it should. And technically American society doesn't allow the censoring of most speech, so it's not like anyone can stop companies from making political statements. What would be shocking is if we ended up doing so. I think it's hard to say that a company shouldn't be allowed to have an interest in its own surroundings.


You chose well, auroraloose. Niemöller's poem can easily be used in any political climate or stance, as long as you're following the "us or them" perspective. The political atmosphere in America (US) right now is pretty much tied to this philosophy. Neither "conservative" nor "liberal" sides of the political divide wants to give any ground up in the name of unity. So I agree that not everyone shift how much they care but this doesn't (ultimately) add up to a reason as to why political and social views cannot be viewed separately outside of the context of politics. For example, meeting a Republican who is pro-choice or a Democrat that is pro-life. There are outliers to the "us or them" perspective when you break it down to an individual versus that of a party/stance.

Those outliers are, at times, systematically lumped into whatever narrative that correlates to their political party versus their social stance ("all republicans are pro-life", "all democrats are pro-choice"..). The same goes for companies that make statements regarding social views. But, I digress. It's becoming more difficult to separate a social narrative to a political one because of the sheer "divide" between political stances or that we're enforcing social narratives into politics (equality for LGBTQ+, HB2 bill here in NC which has resulted in countless cancelled concerts and sports tournaments that helped our economy, and so forth). Depending on where you stand on these social issues (or "social progress" if you're in favor of them), you'll be lumped into a particular political party. This is kind of the ongoing issue I experience here on CR since I hold "liberal" social views but not registered as a Democrat - the same applies to companies, bands, actors/esses, and so forth.

Still, I don't necessarily believe that a company's comments regarding social views equates to justification to boycott them. That's a personal opinion/stance on things. Just like my view that perceives boycotts as petty and pointless. Unless it's a small company, a boycott (even at a national level) isn't going to impact them so significantly that they'll have to file for Chapter 11 and close up all of their stores. There's also the logic that just because the company takes a specific stance doesn't necessarily mean that every employee in the company views it the same. The company has only stated their "public views" that ties to their brand, not to every employee that they've employed (like someone locally going to a Target and screaming at employees saying that they're going to hell because they don't support the HB2 bill - it seems a bit irrational).

Agreed, though. It would be more alarming if companies were forced not to make political/social statements through our legal system. Especially considering how many people spout the whole "Freedom of Speech" narrative, this would only mean that our country is censoring businesses because of <insert political narrative>. But if a company is confirming a political/social view that is in direct correlation/conflict with the market that the company is in... that would leave a bit of a bitter/strange perception of the company.
1680 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Spokane, Washingt...
Offline
Posted 3/27/17
Personally, I think they shouldn't directly pick a political side, but instead generally align themselves with their target audience. For products with a niche audience (cough Senren Kagura series cough), this is surprisingly easy due to its narrowness, but also very easy to alienate your audience if you even slightly change your product to be more "inclusive" (cough Fail Emblem series cough)

However, for products more designed for the general population, having a political or ideological side is very risky. For them, as much as I hate the concept, being "politically correct" and relatively neutral is probably the best thing they could do to sell, since they lack a true focus consumer.

For Kellogg's, ditching those republican ads was a very dumb move. You just alienated a good chunk of otherwise perfectly fine consumers who would normally have given you perfectly fine money with no questions asked. Just because the consumer has an ideology doesn't mean the money is any less worthwhile. Like, aren't cooties a thing for grade school?

Producers, produce for your intended (or unintended, College age Pokemon, Bronies, Female MGS shippers, just to name a few) target audience. And whatever you do, DON"T FALL FOR THE SJW TRAP! odds are, if they are complaining about your product, they are NOT your target audience, and listening to them will alienate your real audience. Remember, consumers are fickle, and will almost always switch to a better product if their current one falls below their standards. I certainly have many times.

Phased out Fail Emblem, was gonna buy Mighty #9 till that fail of a promo. (otaku on prom night >:[ ), and most definitely can't argue about Senren Kagura PBS and Neir Automata being top 2 in current sales way above Mess Effect Pandering . (not that I have any of those games, dam toaster needs some new guts:I )
runec 
34835 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 3/27/17

Rujikin wrote:
Yeah those numbers aren't biased at all. A lot of times its more like:

20% don't want men in womens restrooms
60% don't care
20% Want men in womens restrooms

Or some number where the vast majority don't care or wouldn't know it ever happened. Most people just don't give a fuck and only a few people actually pay attention to the politics.


I was eluding to hard core religious stances on social/discrimination issues in general as should be evident from my examples. If you actually want the exact figures ( since you seem to be picking an argument for the sake it ) they are:

70% vs 24% with 6% in the "Don't care" category in terms of support/oppose LGBTQ protections.

53% vs 39% with 8% in the "Don't care" category over oppose/support "bathroom bills".

Unsurprisingly, that second one has a divide along political lines.

http://www.prri.org/research/lgbt-transgender-bathroom-discrimination-religious-liberty/

Ironically, my numbers were more generous in the topic you narrowed in on. So by somehow taking offence to them you just demonstrated it's actually even worse than I estimated and markedly worse for your "side" as among Republicans it's 59% vs 36%.

So congratulations. You're worse then I guessed and no one would have known had you not chosen to pointlessly accuse me of "bias".

-.-



2044 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 3/27/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

I think my separation of social/political perceptions is mostly because I've lived in countries where there are more than two political parties that have some leverage in their politics. Which, admittedly, could be argued that it shouldn't be applied to America's political atmosphere because of the shift of dynamics in this country. I suppose it's ultimately another personal distinction I've made.

Looking at the situation in a "Death of the Author" perspective makes sense, sure. However, the overall end-game of companies is essentially to ensure that they do not lose/gain projected profit margins. While it is true that the company's political/social/religious stances do constitute its identity to the potential consumer, the company generally goes out of its way to create that identity (or "brand"). I agree that brand and political stance can be lumped together (at least, the latter can be a fraction of the former). Though, at the same time, not everyone marches to the drum of the brand; or rather, not everyone follows the "us or them" line of thought when it comes to politics.


I agree that a company acting rationally (whatever that means) has profit as its goal; I just think that the goal of making a political stance can be separate from the impact of doing so. Even the people who couldn't care less either way, who just like the company's product, are affected.

I probably don't have a good definition for the words political and social, so I probably shouldn't claim to understand the difference between the two.




ninjitsuko wrote:

Which leads us to...


auroraloose wrote:
Further, not everyone has the ability to choose whether or not to give a damn about something. For those whose political philosophy is guided by the "first they came for the socialists" principle, any ground given is dangerous - especially for the ones "they" are coming for.

You can't tap into the existing narratives or power structures without strengthening them; this is why people talk about getting "business" or "money" out of politics. Which is an impossibility, of course, since the government has power over money-making - as it should. And technically American society doesn't allow the censoring of most speech, so it's not like anyone can stop companies from making political statements. What would be shocking is if we ended up doing so. I think it's hard to say that a company shouldn't be allowed to have an interest in its own surroundings.


You chose well, auroraloose. Niemöller's poem can easily be used in any political climate or stance, as long as you're following the "us or them" perspective. The political atmosphere in America (US) right now is pretty much tied to this philosophy. Neither "conservative" nor "liberal" sides of the political divide wants to give any ground up in the name of unity. So I agree that not everyone shift how much they care but this doesn't (ultimately) add up to a reason as to why political and social views cannot be viewed separately outside of the context of politics. For example, meeting a Republican who is pro-choice or a Democrat that is pro-life. There are outliers to the "us or them" perspective when you break it down to an individual versus that of a party/stance.

Those outliers are, at times, systematically lumped into whatever narrative that correlates to their political party versus their social stance ("all republicans are pro-life", "all democrats are pro-choice"..). The same goes for companies that make statements regarding social views. But, I digress. It's becoming more difficult to separate a social narrative to a political one because of the sheer "divide" between political stances or that we're enforcing social narratives into politics (equality for LGBTQ+, HB2 bill here in NC which has resulted in countless cancelled concerts and sports tournaments that helped our economy, and so forth). Depending on where you stand on these social issues (or "social progress" if you're in favor of them), you'll be lumped into a particular political party. This is kind of the ongoing issue I experience here on CR since I hold "liberal" social views but not registered as a Democrat - the same applies to companies, bands, actors/esses, and so forth.

Still, I don't necessarily believe that a company's comments regarding social views equates to justification to boycott them. That's a personal opinion/stance on things. Just like my view that perceives boycotts as petty and pointless. Unless it's a small company, a boycott (even at a national level) isn't going to impact them so significantly that they'll have to file for Chapter 11 and close up all of their stores. There's also the logic that just because the company takes a specific stance doesn't necessarily mean that every employee in the company views it the same. The company has only stated their "public views" that ties to their brand, not to every employee that they've employed (like someone locally going to a Target and screaming at employees saying that they're going to hell because they don't support the HB2 bill - it seems a bit irrational).

Agreed, though. It would be more alarming if companies were forced not to make political/social statements through our legal system. Especially considering how many people spout the whole "Freedom of Speech" narrative, this would only mean that our country is censoring businesses because of <insert political narrative>. But if a company is confirming a political/social view that is in direct correlation/conflict with the market that the company is in... that would leave a bit of a bitter/strange perception of the company.


Yeah, I definitely don't think people have to view every little thing as a microsortie in a zero-sum culture war. I think it's important to try to understand the messages one's actions send, but it's also important to have a healthy sense of alarm. It's impossible to keep track of all the signals one sends out, so it's prudent to give people the benefit of the doubt on things. Understanding that one's political opponents aren't pure evil helps. Except doing that makes it harder to excite people - and, thus, gain recruits. And in American society, in which we scrutinize every little aspect of ourselves - something I can relate to - people do view every little thing as part of a war. If enough people do that, the rest of us are forced to go along with it. (You said basically the same thing.)

I think of boycotts like I think of protests: they're team-building exercises. They probably won't achieve their stated goals, but they do bring people together, fire them up, and make them feel good about themselves. I feel like that's a waste, though, because all that energy that could've gone towards actually doing something worthwhile got expended in something superficial. And then doing superficial things becomes enough for people, the organizers realize they can gain status more easily by doing superficial things, and nothing actually changes. I'm sort of speaking from experience, and now I'm depressed thinking about it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.