Liberals are generally supportive of Big Tech, and the so-called MAGA (or right-wing) aren't. We've seen Elon Musk dig deep into GOP support and Tesla now has two quarters of year-over-year sales declines. In this age of such polarizing politics in the US, is it wise for a company or their founders to make such endorsements - especially when it's out of step with the majority of their market and the people supporting them?
This happens both ways, too. We saw what happened to Bud Light when they ran a pride campaign - from which they're still recovering. Tractor Supply Company is currently reeling from their "woke" campaign. Both companies have right-wing majority markets and they lost significant sales and market share.
In light of this - why make such endorsements?
If anything, compare and contrast policies - and be specific. No hand-waving. Then regardless of who becomes president they understand your business concerns without you risking alienating a significant portion of your customer base.
> We saw what happened to Bud Light when they ran a pride campaign - from which they're still recovering. Tractor Supply Company is currently reeling from their "woke" campaign. Both companies have right-wing majority markets and they lost significant sales and market share.
Perhaps not the central point of your message, I find the above phenomenon fascinating. I.e., a company that inexplicably alienates its principal demographic of clients through a seemingly unwise publicity campaign. I have the feeling that we're dealing with amateurish attempts to gain some points for the 'S' in ESG.
Like I said, it's...interesting. Even more so considering we have more customer demographic data than ever, and these kinds of blunders are being made.
Readit News
Liberals are generally supportive of Big Tech, and the so-called MAGA (or right-wing) aren't. We've seen Elon Musk dig deep into GOP support and Tesla now has two quarters of year-over-year sales declines. In this age of such polarizing politics in the US, is it wise for a company or their founders to make such endorsements - especially when it's out of step with the majority of their market and the people supporting them?
This happens both ways, too. We saw what happened to Bud Light when they ran a pride campaign - from which they're still recovering. Tractor Supply Company is currently reeling from their "woke" campaign. Both companies have right-wing majority markets and they lost significant sales and market share.
In light of this - why make such endorsements?
If anything, compare and contrast policies - and be specific. No hand-waving. Then regardless of who becomes president they understand your business concerns without you risking alienating a significant portion of your customer base.
Perhaps not the central point of your message, I find the above phenomenon fascinating. I.e., a company that inexplicably alienates its principal demographic of clients through a seemingly unwise publicity campaign. I have the feeling that we're dealing with amateurish attempts to gain some points for the 'S' in ESG.
This contradicts the framing of JD Vance as an "anti-Big Tech" choice.
But I guess logical consistency and morals are for poor people. Billionaires can't afford those things.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment