Bud, Target and now Chick-fil-a

[hollohas]

Chick-fil-A has been infiltrated.

They're proudly advertising their new DEI mission, launched a seriously weird color scheme CLOTHING line (not sure which marketing dipshit thought that clothing should be on the business plan for fastfood chicken) and they are happy to advertise that their clothes are designed by a NYC based, "certified B corp"...which is apparently some sort of top tier elite level of commie social credit score.

These companies just won't learn. They are marketing to a demographic that will NEVER support them. At the same time, I'm sure they'll end up losing loyal customers over this. It's a losing strategy no matter what. I just don't understand why any company wades into those waters...

https://www.chick-fil-a.com/dei

https://shop.chick-fil-a.com/

[3beansalad]

I'm disappointed but not surprised. Every corporation has become a slave to ESG.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[TEAMRICO]

Places like this just save me money.
I actually stoped going there when they kept trying to take my order way before I even got to the drive thru menu. They kept tapping my window trying to get me to place an order. I told the kid to back until I get to the menu.

[eddiememphis]

Bah, who fucking cares at this point?

Is every little infraction to your precious sensibilities worthy of a boycott?

An advertising campaign by any company is not worth my time and effort to get worked up about.

If you like homos, or promote their lifestyle, I don't care as long as your chicken is tasty.

Is Chick-Fil-A advertising to the LGBTetc community reason to boycott them? What if they had commercials specifically aimed at jews or blacks?

Calling out companies for their advertising when your feelings are hurt is a tactic of the left.

Stop it.

[RblDiver]

Calling out companies for their advertising when your feelings are hurt is a tactic of the left.

Stop it.

Well, given that it's a tactic of the left, and given that many corporations are moving in that direction, it seems like it's working. Thus, the logical thing is to adopt the same tactics. What you're saying is like "The left is using both hands, but we don't want to stoop to their level, we must continue fighting with both our hands tied behind our back!" Just not effective. As Matt Walsh described it, we're collecting scalps from one company at a time, starting with Bud Light, as a warning to others. If they persist, then we collect the next scalp, and so on.

[eddiememphis]

Well, given that it's a tactic of the left, and given that many corporations are moving in that direction, it seems like it's working. Thus, the logical thing is to adopt the same tactics. What you're saying is like "The left is using both hands, but we don't want to stoop to their level, we must continue fighting with both our hands tied behind our back!" Just not effective. As Matt Walsh described it, we're collecting scalps from one company at a time, starting with Bud Light, as a warning to others. If they persist, then we collect the next scalp, and so on.

That is not what I was saying.

Calling for a boycott of companies (which Hollohas did not) because of an advertising campaign that offends one's delicate sensibilities is close minded and anticapitalist. Both are descriptions of leftists.

You are equating advertising with corporate influence.

If Chick-fil-A wants to spend money advertising to one-legged black midget trannys, good for them. Not my thing but I am not going to sit around, stewing about it.

When a company dabbles in politics through spending, trying to change laws to favor whatever their particular cause is, I certainly have a problem with that and it warrants more scrutiny.

Trying to sell some shitty, made in China shirts in rainbow colors through a third party vendor is capitalism. I applaud it.

[Fentonite]

I respectfully disagree. The woke movement is specifically trying to demonize and marginalize me and folks like me. I am all for tolerance, but when those who are screaming for it are anything but tolerant to me and mine, I take exception. I’ll defend their right to freedom of speech, and likewise, I won’t give up mine. And if you want to spend your money there, I’ll defend your right to do so. I’m not calling for them to be deprived of their right to pursue their business, but they won’t get money from me.

[eddiememphis]

You just said exactly what the left has been saying about Chick-Fil-A for years.

You feel Chick-Fil-A is bowing down to the left. People that lean left feel Chick-Fil-A has been kneeling to the religious right for decades.

The hungry guy in line is likely not motivated by politics but by the gurgling in his stomach.

There are more productive ways to expend one's political energy than boycotting a company because of an advertising campaign.

[Fentonite]

You have a point. I do believe that the left (or whoever) had the right to choose other businesses to patronize if they disagreed with the company’s values. I have that right too. I’m not expending any energy by choosing another lunch location. And I certainly not going to picket in front of their stores. I’ll just do what I feel is right for me.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Target has always been a liberal company, a favorite budget-shopping place for the leftists. Bud Light's descent was a product of a moronic Ivy League business school education indoctrination. I suspect Chik-Fil-A's drift is due to the pressures exerted by ESG scoring by the investment finance community but I don't know why profitable companies are bowing to that pressure. This seems to come from some idiotic need to take out loans to meet daily financial commitments which seems to me to be sheer stupidity in business operations but then I didn't attend Sloan or Wharton or what have you.

It would be nice to see at least one major American company tell Blackrock to take their money and shove it.