I like this guy’s notion that these brands haven’t fully calculated the potential business loss of ‘not-homophobes’ boycotting them and balanced it with the gains of LGBTQ+ and allies.
These companies didn’t get where they are (and stay there) by making emotional decisions. They have absolutely run the numbers and determined that jumping on the pride bandwagon is of financial benefit to them.
Not saying there aren’t people in the organizations that genuinely care, but they don’t win the battle if there is significant financial risk.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the support is good for society as a whole. I just don’t think that these companies would take a big risk in support of pride month.
I get you. It’s not even an “evil corporation” thing. Non private companies have a legal responsibility to serve the share holders. Anything they do they need to be able to justify that it was reasonable to believe that move would make money or further the business.
So a company on the stock market that is public like Apple can’t just a bunch of money to a charity or cause because the head of the company or even every single employee thinks it’s the right thing to do.
They have to make a business case. Maybe there is a tax break, maybe they can show that in their key markets people value that cause or that companies that make such donations show higher customer retention etc. it can’t be quite so vague- you need some sort of metrics and the numbers have to add up-
But it is usually the case that for a company to put the resources into analyzing the feasibility of justifying a specific campaign or social move they need a reason. Sometimes it is not noble- maybe they need a PR distraction or to redeem their brand image, or maybe industry metrics are released that clearly show potential from that action. That said though, it often requires someone who cares to basically say “try and find me a business reason that will let us do this…” in other words they specifically do the work to try and justify doing what they think is right but being able to show that it was a smart business move versus picking the thing that seems like a smart business move and trying to look like they care. Regardless of how much they really care, a public company is legally bound and at some point they must follow the money whichever way it goes. It isn’t even about being smart, they can be sued and leaders can be fired or criminally charged if they don’t act..
prudently in protecting and increasing profits.
It is also the case that many brands are becoming more mindful of legacy. The concept of a company being a household name for 50,100,200 years has become common place. Huge companies with huge investments like Target etc. have very good chance at staying power as they are hard to compete with. Exercising a modicum of sense and adaptability they could theoretically remain industry leaders for the foreseeable long term future because they are so far ahead that it is hard for anyone to catch up. The trend has been increasingly to scrutinize brands and make decisions on perception, and for brands looking to be around long term and viable, it is in their interest to try to attempt to be “on the right side of history” as much as possible.
It is generally safer to lean towards liberal ideas in this game of guess the future.”
I won’t go into detail but it is usually much easier to heel turn from left to right and get away with it than to heel turn from right to left and be accepted. So I mean- at the end of the day of course business is business and it isn’t just greed but the actual law that mean it has to be; but just because people are doing business doesn’t mean there isn’t any room for personal feelings. Business doesn’t mean you can’t support people or causes you care about it, or means that if supporting them becomes bad business you’d stop.
These companies didn’t get where they are (and stay there) by making emotional decisions. They have absolutely run the numbers and determined that jumping on the pride bandwagon is of financial benefit to them.
Not saying there aren’t people in the organizations that genuinely care, but they don’t win the battle if there is significant financial risk.
So a company on the stock market that is public like Apple can’t just a bunch of money to a charity or cause because the head of the company or even every single employee thinks it’s the right thing to do.
They have to make a business case. Maybe there is a tax break, maybe they can show that in their key markets people value that cause or that companies that make such donations show higher customer retention etc. it can’t be quite so vague- you need some sort of metrics and the numbers have to add up-
It is also the case that many brands are becoming more mindful of legacy. The concept of a company being a household name for 50,100,200 years has become common place. Huge companies with huge investments like Target etc. have very good chance at staying power as they are hard to compete with. Exercising a modicum of sense and adaptability they could theoretically remain industry leaders for the foreseeable long term future because they are so far ahead that it is hard for anyone to catch up. The trend has been increasingly to scrutinize brands and make decisions on perception, and for brands looking to be around long term and viable, it is in their interest to try to attempt to be “on the right side of history” as much as possible.
I won’t go into detail but it is usually much easier to heel turn from left to right and get away with it than to heel turn from right to left and be accepted. So I mean- at the end of the day of course business is business and it isn’t just greed but the actual law that mean it has to be; but just because people are doing business doesn’t mean there isn’t any room for personal feelings. Business doesn’t mean you can’t support people or causes you care about it, or means that if supporting them becomes bad business you’d stop.