|Multi-nationalism is a creeping disease.|
|Re: Yup, #MeToo. I may still have mine somewhere, but haven't worn them in years. Maybe I should mail them to San Francisco. They can give them to the Homeless. (Or Pantless) -- Russ Walden||Post Reply||Top of thread||Forum|
Posted by: LateForLunch ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
I guess you can't really blame companies for taking political stands on things - they are after all supposed to be focused on the bottom line, which too often comes down to offending the least number of customers enough to adversely affect their sales.
For a lot of psychological reasons, these days the mass market seems to be affected more by the intolerance of leftists and other anti-conservatives for disagreement. The most-prominent feature of the psychology of ACFs (Anti-Conservative Fanatics) is probably their tendency to feel desperately insecure/anxious when facing disagreement with /challenge to their beliefs.
ACFs tend to take disagreement over political or policy positions VERY personally. They often seem to feel that they can't afford to tolerate any sort of affront or challenge without risking a major loss of self-esteem.
People (like most conservatives/normal people) who feel strong psychologically are less-inclined to care much about what others believe, so they are far more-tolerant of disagreement or lack-of-support for their POV.
This psychological situation translates into a mass market which generally responds to the sensitivity of ACFs more than conservatives/normal people because the latter are far-less likely to react strongly enough to political/ideological issues to affect their spending/buying habits.
So companies which have public affiliations with political/ideological things who feel the need to minimize their customer losses due to conflicts in that regard must adjust their own public support of "causes" to whatever the customer base of weak, vindictive, insecure ACFs prefer.
This is especially a factor with global markets (multi-national companies). A company that does billions of dollars in annual sales which loses even a tiny percentage of its customer-base because they dislike the company's political stance are losing a significant amount of revenue.
This state of affairs could be changed if more conservatives and normal people who support conservative ideas were less-tolerant themselves - and were able to unify into a significant bloc of consumers who could counteract the pressure from ACFs.
As it is today, the losses a large globally-marketed company will take by holding more-conservative positions is likely to be more than they will suffer by taking anti-conservative ones.
It's a no-win situation for these companies because regardless of which way they go, they will offend/lose some percentage of their customer base. The executives who decide such things must try to calculate the up/down-side of their positions.
DJT and all politicians face similar dilemmas in adopting their policy platforms every time they campaign nationally. DJT had the foresight in the 2016 campaign to understand that more voters in every sector that mattered, favored the more-conservative (pro-American) policy-positions he adopted (and later enacted) than the anti-conservative (anti-American) positions of Hill-O-Lies.
The ACF's actual voter numbers turned out to be less than they hoped despite the head-fake the opinion polls made of telling them that most voters in most sectors (not just the mass media) were with them.
It's a balancing act for sure, both for companies who want to be and remain profitable and for politicians who want to win elections and be reelected.
One hopes that DJTs insight remains valid in the 2020 election cycle and he is able to ascertain the correct platform formula to accomplish his reelection.
Levi's is a brand that's been in decline for a long time, which likely feels it can ill afford to lose market share (though Wrangler may be in similar shape, so they are to be applauded for their refusal to kowtow to ACF intolerance).
Blue jeans though still popular, have as a style given way in their general popularity to a vast spectrum of casual, durable work-clothing offered by a fairly massive number of companies.
It's helpful to know that Levis has gone full-commie so I can avoid buying their products ever again.
As it happens, I have two pairs of old blue-jeans and a jeans-jacket, all which happen to be Wrangler anyway, so I feel good about that even though it had nothing to do with politics (my housemate and I shop at a local thrift store a lot 'cause we have a huge Goodwill store down the street where we get tons of fantastic products at pennies on the dollar compared to original cost).
We can even buy Levis if we want without worrying about supporting the company, 'cause everything is second-hand - so zero revenue from our purchase goes to the original maker - it all goes to the Goodwill!!
Modified by LateForLunch at Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 13:51:39
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||Where am I? Original Top of thread||Previous | Next | Current page|
|Replies to this message|