Nobody wants big business as "allies". (lemmy.fbxl.net)

submitted 1 year ago by SJ_Zero@lemmy.fbxl.net to c/rant

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

On one hand, after backlash from making Dylan Mulvaney a brand ambassador, Bud Light is down to 14th place from 1st place in sales. On the other, Mike Lindell is selling factory equipment because his company got canceled so bad after backing Trump.

You know, I'm pretty OK if companies just get tf out of politics. I don't want to have to think about what brand of pillow or running shoe or beer or whatever says about who I'd vote for in a general election. It's hard enough choosing the best product for the best price without adding an entire arbitrary dimension on top of that.

It really reminds me of a comment from Fight club. What does your sofa say about you as a person? Except now it's What does the brand of some fungible product say about you as a person?

True story here: the reason companies pretend to care about this stuff is that a 2015 study showed that 70% of millennials claimed they would be more likely to pay more for a brand that had supported causes, and in 2014, Pew research found that millennials were more liberal and less conservative – on social views, millennials were 60% to say their views became more liberal. Therefore, to court those buyers companies supported causes, and they supported liberal/left causes.

But you know what? 25 years ago the opposite was true, and the religious right was the dominant cultural force and they were the ones leaning on the scale to get companies to pretend they care about their causes.

But they're companies. They don't care about any political cause, it's just a marketing gimmick. Whoever you are and whatever you support, they'll use you until they think they can't make more money off of you then they'll dump you.

https://12ft.io/www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/agencies-are-carving-out-niche-socially-responsible-marketing-168592/

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/03/2014-03-07_generations-report-version-for-web.pdf

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] vacuumflower 7 points 1 year ago

Therefore, to court those buyers companies supported causes, and they supported liberal/left causes.

And this is exactly why I hate this manifesting in Disney Star Wars and other recent stuff which came out rotten.

Not because I'm against treating other humans with love, but because I don't want a corporation spitting into my dish with their fake moralism on principles I already try to follow.

But you know what? 25 years ago the opposite was true, and the religious right was the dominant cultural force and they were the ones leaning on the scale to get companies to pretend they care about their causes.

I mean, judging by what I've read (I was a baby then), 25 years ago when companies wanted to look modern and fresh and human they'd rather pretend to be futuristic, intelligent, just a bit 31337 and a bit libertarian, not conservative. Even IBM.

But they’re companies. They don’t care about any political cause, it’s just a marketing gimmick. Whoever you are and whatever you support, they’ll use you until they think they can’t make more money off of you then they’ll dump you.

What's worse, the companies which succeed most in this game are those you'd want the least to succeed.

[-] CanadaPlus 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Funnily enough, I expect most people agree with this, but this is the exact line of reasoning that leads to the idea CEOs should only worry about profits, which people hate.

The truth is we haven't really figured out as a culture what we want big companies to do, exactly. If you like things like complex electronics they (or some version of them) are definitely necessary, and most people want governments to "consult with industry", but at the same time it's obviously bad when big tobacco gets to influence public health policy on tobacco.

[-] vacuumflower 2 points 1 year ago

and most people want governments to “consult with industry”,

I personally just want companies and governments to do whatever they want in their permitted space. So that there'd be no need to consult with each other.

at the same time it’s obviously bad when big tobacco gets to influence public health policy on tobacco.

Which is in fact similarly bad with every other big industry.

And the other way around, with governments dictating companies what to do, you'll in fact have exactly the same problem, just harder to see

[-] CanadaPlus 2 points 1 year ago

I personally just want companies and governments to do whatever they want in their permitted space. So that there’d be no need to consult with each other.

Typically, governments have a monopoly on power and companies just work underneath them. Is this an anarcho-capitalist thing?

And the other way around, with governments dictating companies what to do, you’ll in fact have exactly the same problem, just harder to see

I disagree as a blanket statement. Precision meddling in individual business decisions pretty much always has unintended consequences, but something like a carbon tax can be expected to reduce the amount of carbon emitted at the expense of other things fairly equally.

[-] vacuumflower 2 points 1 year ago

Is this an anarcho-capitalist thing?

No, in this particular case it's an institutionalist thing. A government in its entirety has power, but a government official has only narrow function he should perform, he's a part of a mechanism and no more. Same with a governmental mechanism. Governmental mechanisms should be limited in what they do. Have fine separation of functionality.

So that government's interaction with big or small businesses wouldn't stink of negotiating a deal.

but something like a carbon tax can be expected to reduce the amount of carbon emitted at the expense of other things fairly equally.

The less specific it is, the better.

[-] CanadaPlus 1 points 1 year ago

Ah. Totally agree. That's just good policy design.

[-] funchords 6 points 1 year ago

I know this is supposedly "Rant" but actually yours is quite astute and worthy, not ranty. What I say next is not meant to disagree at all.

The nice thing brands bring to a cause is money. It's so much easier putting on an event like Pride in your town with a bit of corporate money. It would be easy to do without that money if people would support the causes they love with donations instead of expecting them for free or on the cheap. We do want to include everyone regardless of ability to pay, but the blood of any cause organization is money to operate.

Very good post.

[-] SexualPolytope 4 points 1 year ago

I think capital is always going to be on the side of popular choice. The onus is on us to ignore them.

[-] people_are_cute 3 points 1 year ago

It would have been awesome if products were left unaffected by whatever antics companies' marketing people got up to, but that is not the case. When marketing people trump product people in official decision-making, product quality always deteriorates. And when these marketing people insist on having everyone cash in on every new political trend, you can imagine the outcome.

Just look at Netflix and Disney. In their quest to run after and force down every new political gimmick into their productions, they have sidelined putting in actual effort into writing and overall quality.

this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023

27 points (86.5% liked)

Rant

261 readers

113 users here now

A place where you can rant to your heart's content.

Rules :

Follow all of Lemmy code of conduct.
Be respectful to others, even if they're the subject of your rant. Realize that you can be angry at someone without denigrating them.
Keep it on Topic. Memes about ranting are allowed for now, but will be banned if they start to become more prevalent than actual rants.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

SexualPolytope