The broader point he’s making - that having his brand associated with one side in a polarized political landscape is terrible for profits - is legitimate. The problem is he’s saying it using the language of the other side, which isn’t helping either.
From the article:
A wide range of American companies have sought to distance themselves from behavior that may be perceived as “woke” since US President Donald Trump began his second term, including long-established DEI initiatives, links to LGBTQ+ causes, charities, and events, and environmental pledges.
I get why companies are doing this, but I also lose all respect for them. These things either represent important ideals or they don’t. If you believe they do, and then distance yourself from them, it shows a lack of integrity and moral fortitude. If you don’t believe they do, then the fact that you embraced them to begin with means you were simply pandering for profit.
I agree with your first paragraph, but I’ve got a different take than your second one. I don’t think they’re abandoning their ideals, just the way they’re presenting their goals. The product still does all the good it has from the start, but the sad reality is that an upsettingly large percent of the population has been brainwashed to see that as an opposition to their way of life. Instead of using messaging that is an immediate turn off to that sector, or making people think they’re taking a political stance by supporting something plant based, it seems win/win to find another way to talk about this. The company can be more profitable, which is obviously good for them, but in doing so it means more people are open to consuming something that isn’t hurting the planet or their own bodies. I think the point he’s trying to make is a good one. This shouldn’t be a political issue, but the once apolitical and admittedly niche stance has been tainted by smear campaigns. To make a bigger difference, you need a bigger audience. To get a bigger audience, you need to become appealing beyond your current one.
Once he said “The company is too woke,” he made it political.
But I’m not just talking about this company. I don’t know if they have any history of supporting diversity, but a lot of companies did and now have walked that talk back in order maintain profits. If I take a stand for something, and then abandon that stand if it impacts me financially, then I’m literally abandoning my ideals. That’s what many companies have done.
The broader point he’s making - that having his brand associated with one side in a polarized political landscape is terrible for profits - is legitimate. The problem is he’s saying it using the language of the other side, which isn’t helping either.
From the article:
I get why companies are doing this, but I also lose all respect for them. These things either represent important ideals or they don’t. If you believe they do, and then distance yourself from them, it shows a lack of integrity and moral fortitude. If you don’t believe they do, then the fact that you embraced them to begin with means you were simply pandering for profit.
I agree with your first paragraph, but I’ve got a different take than your second one. I don’t think they’re abandoning their ideals, just the way they’re presenting their goals. The product still does all the good it has from the start, but the sad reality is that an upsettingly large percent of the population has been brainwashed to see that as an opposition to their way of life. Instead of using messaging that is an immediate turn off to that sector, or making people think they’re taking a political stance by supporting something plant based, it seems win/win to find another way to talk about this. The company can be more profitable, which is obviously good for them, but in doing so it means more people are open to consuming something that isn’t hurting the planet or their own bodies. I think the point he’s trying to make is a good one. This shouldn’t be a political issue, but the once apolitical and admittedly niche stance has been tainted by smear campaigns. To make a bigger difference, you need a bigger audience. To get a bigger audience, you need to become appealing beyond your current one.
Once he said “The company is too woke,” he made it political.
But I’m not just talking about this company. I don’t know if they have any history of supporting diversity, but a lot of companies did and now have walked that talk back in order maintain profits. If I take a stand for something, and then abandon that stand if it impacts me financially, then I’m literally abandoning my ideals. That’s what many companies have done.
I feel like the rest of the comments here are validating his pov even further. Agreed with your take here completely