Originally Posted by somigosaden
I can see how for some companies it makes sense to proclaim support for LGBT causes because that reflects the views of the vast majority of your customer base (Hot Topic, e.g.), but it's the instances where this clearly isn't the case that I can't figure out. I'm sure many of you will recall that Gillette ad a couple years ago that prompted a ton of backlash. Bud Light's recent ad with some trans guy has apparently decimated their sales. I recently saw an ad for Ford featuring their "Really Gay Raptor," which is a rainbow-painted full-size truck that manifests the company's embrace of LGBT advocacy. Why do this? I can't imagine that Ford actually believed that the share of drivers they would gain from that ad would be greater than the share they would lose. They can't actually think that gays and trannies are going to start buying F-150s now, and that it won't cause a greater number of pissed off, formerly brand-loyal rednecks to vow that their next truck will be a Chevy/GMC/Dodge/Rivian/Toyota. Think of all the people who had to sign off on the Really Gay Raptor—they really thought it was a good idea?
I realize ESG is a factor in share price, but I can't imagine upping your ESG score would be worth torching so much goodwill from your consumers. I don't know how ESG scores are determined, and maybe it now requires "advertisements explicitly stating LGBTQIA+ support" or something. You couldn't just have a BOD with all the requisite diversity pokemon, and have the person doing the voiceover in your ads be a gay guy without an obviously gay voice?
Anyone have any perspectives that would make me less inclined to blame this on a WEF cabal conspiracy? Does Ford's CEO have a trans kid? Who can make sense of this?
I guess in a related concern, the most recent replacement for Dr Who was female, which was fine, I didn't really have an issue with what had traditionally been a male role being taken over by a female.
I actually enjoyed the actress in the part as well, BUT...........they gave her absolutely terrible dialogue in a number of episodes. Where she'd just **** on "humanity" for how terrible we are to the environment. There was nothing subtle about it, the dialogue was pretty much in-your-face the way it was written and fully blatant, and just screamed "an activist wrote this" rather than "a writer wrote this"
So perhaps it's just an issue of extremist activists desperate to "get the message out" regardless of how the message will be received.
Kinda reminds me of people who pepper their brand new vehicles with ugly bumper stickers touting their political or religious beliefs. No ones mind was ever changed from reading a bumper sticker, so they're pretty much just waving at others who share their beliefs, and risking getting their vehicle keyed by the whackjobs on the complete opposite end of whatever political spectrum they are.
Growing up I remember shows were able to deliver messages without being so heavy-handed with those messages, without them feeling "forced". Todays activism lacks that subtleness and part of the issue may be that newer generations haven't been taught social cues and how to communicate effectively because their lives are dominated by more technology and less face-to-face interactions as well as "fake reality" where everything we are fed is typically twisted/perverted to match a bias (i.e. carefully edited videos to paint someone as the villain when they were actually the victim, etc)