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)

My guess is before the Bud Light issue there was no negative to LGQTPWUWHWUFHW advertising - now that Bud Light tried to capture .05% of the market and lost 25% in the process, businesses will be more cautious bringing in these fringe groups.

I think it makes a lot of sense for many companies to do. The progressive demographic is typically younger, wealthier, more educated, and more indicative of future trends. Primary target demo for many markets. Seems like a misfire for a brand like Bud Light though that is never likely to appeal as a product to this demo.


Ford makes more sense to me. They are not quite as legacy redneck of a product as you suggest. Making massive plays in the EV market, trying to push further into the global market, more luxury items etc. Can see arguments either way from a pure financial sense.


Also let's be real, the mistake from Bud Light in this case was overestimating the intelligence of their dumbass market. Weirdo snowflakes overreacting to a trans woman being in an ad is ****ing bizarre.

Terrible dialogue/writing is a fair criticism but I'm curious about your take on activism/whackjobs here.' Humanity is destroying the planet' is a fairly certain thing at this point. I'm not somebody that is screaming it on the streets here but I would be shocked if history doesn't remember those voices as the sane ones in retrospect. I find it hard to criticize people advocating for us to do better to our environment because it is very clear that we are not doing nearly enough.

I think a better question is why do companies choose to cater to a small number of people. It only takes a few loud voices on twitter and large corps bend the knee instantly. Luckily its usually over unimportant **** like how much Butt Katana shows in the latest MK game

They are trying to sell more stuff. Sometimes they don't do a good job selling more stuff.

That is all.

but WHY /s

It was just the way in which they delivered the message. It was just over-the-top in-your-face and didn't feel natural in the flow of dialogue or the episode, just felt forced for the sake of including it rather than organic is really the only way I can describe it.

I object to your sentiment that the people a Very Gay Raptor would appeal to are wealthier. Maybe you can find a study that says progressives are wealthier than conservatives, but that's not particularly relevant to Ford. Ford isn't courting Silicon Valley or ivory tower denizens—they're aren't enough of them, and they wouldn't buy an F-150 anyway. I can understand if Ford put out a Very Gay Fiesta, appealing to septum-pierced millennials commuting to school or to their NGO and retail jobs. But an F-150? This decision "makes more sense" to you?

Yah the pink haired barista crowd is definitely wealthier (thanks to student loan forbearance & debt jubilee) and in the market for a Big Gay Raptor

First off, I said I could see arguments either way on the Ford case. Not really product specific but as a general virtue signalling PR move to broaden their markets. Might be part of a campaign that makes long term sense or it could backfire (or most likely be kind of neutral imho). I think that corporations trying to predict the tides and making marketing moves to suit is not inherently illogical. Whether they're right or effective is entirely up for argument.


As an aside, loving the use of terms like "trannies", "septum-pierced millenials", "pink haired barista crowd", and some weird inference that young progressives are to blame for economic issues that began long before their time in this thread. Looks like this was just some thinly veiled thread to hate on some people that have nothing to do with you. Y'all some brainwashed mother****ers up in here.

I believe the reason is the ads get free advertising. For example, this thread was created to discuss a bunch of ads I have never heard of and would have never crossed my path. There were probably articles and other discussions occuring at the time they were released, resulting in more people viewing the ad, or at least discussing the company. For the most part customers are loyal enough to not really care, or at least that's what the company is betting on.

badly analysing of the marketable "wokish" value being mainstream ?

Because Ed Sheeran is in and Oasis are out.

It's depressing.

TGT and BUD stocks have both taken hits since their wokeness pissed off a lot of customers. Is there money to be made in these by buying now and waiting for things to return to normal?

Definitely, imo

They will prevail in the end

Just maybe some companies have a conscience who feel that expressing support for an aggrieved minority in society is the right thing to do, even if it doesn't help profits.

Yes, and the government only has the interests of "we the people" at heart in their decision making process too (insert eye roll here)

It could be that some companies are headed by people who are not that sharp and probably should be in the positions that are.

A publicly traded company's primary purpose is to make profits for it's shareholders.

If they are promoting the LGBTQ+ agenda, they risk alienating conservatives and those that are not down with the LGBTQ+ agenda.

When they backpedal, then they alienate the LGBTQ+ people. They also look weak, as they folded on their prior position. If they cave on the LGBTQ+ people/values, who will they cave on next? The LGBTQ+ people are right to feel alienated.

The retailer is in a NO WIN situation. The only way they "win" is by not playing the game in the first place. If management were smart, they would have seen this before it happened.

Perhaps they should just stick with their knitting, sell items that don't promote an agenda or alienate people.

There are only a couple of ways that this would make ANY sense:

A). Perhaps very large shareholders want the share price to go down, so that they can by a larger percentage of the company at a later date. Thus, they can own a larger percentage of the company for much less.

B). Perhaps "powers that be" bought puts OR sold share short before all of this happened. Thus, they profit off the lower share price.

I don't think that A or B happened, but I guess that it is not impossible?

The government has done both good and bad things for its people, the same as how some corporations have done bad things, others good. The world isn't as black and white as the sheep have been indocrinated to believe.

I don't see why this is hard to figure out. Companies mainly go after younger consumers because they want to hook them early and get their brand loyalty and $$$ for the rest of their life. They're obsessed with trying to make their brands seem young hip and cool.

Since companies are generally run by rich old farts who are totally out of touch with what's young hip and cool, they often shoot themselves in the foot with their marketing strategies.

There's about 50 people on earth who are actual "wokesters" and about 5 billion people who passionately hate anything that could possibly be construed as coming from or catering to wokesters.

Has bud light actually lost significant business from the whole thing or is it just trendy to talk about the stock price going down like it equates to reduced sales?

Funny how the topic attracted a bunch of people who don’t even post in BFI.

Agency problem. That is, someone making decisions for the company does so in their own best interest, not the company's.

Because of the big hedge and pension funds that are allowed to ignore their fiduciary duty and support companies based on their ESG ratings not their sales.