The conflicts and tragedy in Charlottesville not only revealed the best and worst of Americans, but also highlighted some of the best and worst about American brands. For all the sense it might seem to make to avoid divisive issues

  Show More »
More Videos
Videos In Other Channels
  • Sasha Kildare

    I think more brands should take a stand. Social injustice… income inequality… Many consumers want to do something, want to help and are eager to purchase from a socially responsible company.

    • Douglas Kelly

      You are quite free to take a stand about anything you desire. But you apparently lack the courage and intellect to make such a decision about what you deem social injustice. Why would you wait to find a socially responsible company that will offer income equality? If your income is not equal with what you believe it should be, then you have to act on your own without hiding behind the so-called socially responsible company.

      The most difficult thing you will encounter in your quest is determining the definition of a socially responsible company and what then will you do when the products or services it sells are not those you want to buy?

      Your naivete is breathtaking.

  • Douglas Kelly

    Those who would use their brand as a surrogate social justice warrior will destroy their brand because nothing could be more disingenuous than a consumer identification marker (a brand) used as if it had a life of its own. I doesn’t matter what “cause” one picks for a brand to advocate, there will always be another that disagrees. Some will disagree vehemently. Then what’s the result of that? More self imposed, man-made conflict and strife. There will never be a winner since most social issues break down into two approximately equal camps of advocates and the beliefs held by these two are their own perceptions of what is right and what is wrong.

    It is intellectually dishonest for one to assume a brand has, or should have, the power to convince a person that black lives matter or that war is evil, or that killing is wrong, or that white supremacists will disappear because one uses one brand over another.

    I for one have never bought the idea that racism is about the color of one’s skin. It is and always has been an issue of societal class. Lower socio-economic classes feel threatened by any competition to their jobs and their society. They realize they cannot go any lower on the ladder, so they stand and fight. Would you argue that these people are the victims or that people of color are the victims? Consider that neither are victims except in their own minds.

    Victimization is the big word used to mean anyone who cannot have his way because some other force is preventing it is a victim. Does anyone really want their brand associated with this arbitrary definition?

    There is no agreement on the causes of most social injustices or social issues, much less the solution to them. Most people are sheep and go with the flow of a crowd of people who believe in a thing that intrigues them. They are not in for the long term because they can’t stay focused on one thing. So what remains is little more than a worn out ideology as such. And a very shop-worn example of situational ethics. Does any thinking person want to use their brand as a bulwark against those who disagree with this?

    Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream was the longest running social justice joke in our history. They claimed to donate 10% of their sales to “world peace” but they never defined “world peace’ nor did they ever tell anyone what groups of world peace advocates actually received their donations. Everyone knew their silly little claim was nothing but a con to sell more ice cream to the naive.