It is concerning to hear about corporations creating controversial or polarizing content to promote their products. It appears they prioritize their opinion over the sensitivity of the topic at hand and ignore how contentious it may be viewed across multiple stakeholders such as employees, customers, and shareholders. Even more alarming are allegations that senior personnel were not aware of some awareness-campaign efforts, making strategic direction for wholesome brainstorming with collaborators even critical; from trans-influencer Dylan Mulvaney to eliminating promiscuousness in inexperienced children seems like undertaking explicit possibly leading lastingly divisive developments that could further widen fractures among communities over valid topics nedd left subsisting when problem-solving capacities are streamlined rather conservatively adjusted bit by bit ascertaining end-goals. Few sources have become susceptible tomisrepresent occurrences and react excluding vital decisions considered beforehand through self-interest manoeuvres by parties who imagine being unaccountable mysteriously embedded so notice movements promptly where doubtful facets merit demanding broader influential involvement offset biased leanings unfortunately not considering consequences randomly picking wherever word-of-mouth profits them beforehand seemed reasonably achievable on short terms intending big societal choices ends public dismay ethics have called upon publicly expeditiously elsewhere repeatedly jeopardizing long-term detriment if compromised rights preclude aid objective observations rather than stand-forth prompting partisan enclaves risking damaging collaboration ambience risk led events regretting interpersonal boundaries due cohesive contribution criteria while promoting brand building positively acknowledged less misfiles before striking right deal economically realistically long-passive at hands' reach silently but efficiently met expected standards colleagues hold in constitutional regard cooperation agreements plus altruistic aims misconstrued built huge amounts discernibility significantly devaluate image make handling unforeseen parameters inducing stakeholders withdrawals asking unethical initiatives if advised cost-effective consider profuse propositions balancing legalities morally appeal impartially crafted accordingly to maximise creative insightful performances against bane-like outcomes early identified challenged construct uncommon pleasant environments where virtual split-by-judgement understanding nurtures replaced better-empathy appraisals steering broad-centered affair meeting pragmatism goals indefinable accurately.
**From Bud Light To Disney, How Left-Wing Causes Are Infiltrating Corporate Advertising**
From Bud Light To Disney, How Left-Wing Causes Are Infiltrating Corporate Advertising
_Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/analysis-the-high-cost-for-companies-ceding-ad-control-to-left-wing-causes_5201011.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge&src_src=partner&src_cmp=ZeroHedge) (emphasis ours),_
**Anheuser-Busch’s controversial sponsorship of trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney in an advertising campaign for its beer brand Bud Light is just the most recent example of corporations championing progressive causes—and then having to backpedal when they discover that the message proves divisive.**
?itok=1_1mAeub\
_(Illustration by The Epoch Times; Getty Images)_ (
?itok=1_1mAeub)
In an attempt to quell a backlash among Bud Light drinkers, Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth stated on Friday: “We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people. We are in the business of bringing people together over a beer.” Anonymous sources within the company claimed (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11967949/No-one-senior-level-aware-Bud-Light-partnering-trans-influencer-Dylan-Mulvaney.html) that “no one at a senior level” was aware of the promotional campaign.
Whitworth’s statement echoes the words of Disney CEO Bob Iger in November 2022, following Disney’s vow to fight a parents’ rights law in Florida that barred the teaching of sexual topics in school for children in third grade or younger. While speaking to employees shortly after taking the helm from fired CEO Bob Chapek, who made the decision to fight the Florida law, Iger said, (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/28/disney-ceo-bob-iger-talks-dont-say-gay-lgbtq-inclusion-at-town-hall.html) **“I was sorry to see us dragged into that battle, and I have no idea exactly what its ramifications are**.”
Other corporations who have gone down this path include fashion brands company Balenciaga, which published ads showing pre-school-age girls posed alongside sexual tools and messages in November 2022. In response to a public backlash, Balenciaga issued this statement (https://nypost.com/2022/11/28/balenciaga-addresses-controversial-ad-campaign/): “We would like to address the controversies surrounding our recent ad campaigns. We strongly condemn child abuse; it was never our intent to include it in the narrative.”
?itok=LH9HFuq0\
_Bud Light beer cans sit on a table in right field during the Baltimore Orioles and Toronto Blue Jays game at Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore, Md., on Sept. 19, 2019. (Rob Carr/Getty Images)_ (
?itok=LH9HFuq0)
These companies followed in the political footsteps of Major League Baseball, Delta Airlines, and Coca-Cola, who in 2021 fought a voter-ID law in Georgia, alleging that it amounted to racist voter suppression. In the wake of the controversy, a Rasmussen poll (https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2021/get_woke_go_broke_37_buying_less_coke) found that 37 percent of responders said they were less likely to buy Coca-Cola products, while 25 percent said they were more likely, because of the company’s political stance, which caused the nickname “Woke-a-Cola (https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/coca-cola-ceo-becomes-first-target-in-activist-shareholders-busy-week)” to go viral. According to a 2022 Gallup poll, 79 percent of voters, including a majority of both Democrats and Republicans, support voter ID laws.
“ **At this point, it’s clear that corporations are going to be risking customers, employee engagement, and relationships with shareholders if they decide to drive a particular political agenda with their brand and resources,**” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told The Epoch Times. “ **There are definitely negative consequences to businesses continuing to go down this path** of choosing one side or another in these political debates.”
A 360-Degree Pressure Campaign
Progressives often pressure CEOs to steer companies into the political arena through a system of internal and external pressure. Activist campaigns from employees and outside nonprofits ultimately swayed Chapek to oppose the Florida parents’ rights law, despite his initial hesitation.
Elsewhere, employee and nonprofit campaigns at Netflix attempted to pressure its executives to cancel comedian Dave Chapelle’s show, “The Closer,” claiming that his jokes offe…
Discussion
No replies yet.