Responding to an earlier comment that non clothing companies sell clothes all the time, the example being Harley, so it must be a valid business model...

Harley is a motorcycle company, but they are selling a lifestyle more than just motorcycles. They are selling a BRAND.

How many people who don't own a Harley have a Harley t-shirt or mug? TONS of people. You can buy Harley branded EVERYTHING. A HUGE portion of their business comes from all the swag they sell. Swag IS their business.

So it's not a motorcycle company selling clothes. It's a lifestyle company selling motorcycles. Very bad comparison to Chick-fil-A selling clothes.

Here's the test:

Do people who don't buy your main product love your brand?

If yes, sell other shit too.
If no, sell what you do best.

Harley = yes
Chick-fil-A = no

Chick-fil-A is attempting to market to a demographic who is not interested in their sandwiches or their clothes but are interested in DEI. And people who are interested in their sandwiches are turned off by corporate DEI bullshit. Justified or not, that's a fact.

Their 3rd party clothing line company was selected 100% because of their social credit message. And that's why I tied in the clothing piece. Not because of the bright colors, but because it's obvious they were quietly trying to change their image. Chick-fil-A was trying to promote a new image using clothes and lifestyle stuff as the mechanism, to a customer base who liked their old image.

If they wanted to create brand recognition with a new lifestyle line, why not pick a clothing company that also promotes the tried and true Chick-fil-A image? There are plenty out there. But nope.

They purposely picked a commie clothing company, promoted that fact and proudly expanded their DEI mission at the same time. They have literally zero business to win by doing either.

They did it despite the easily seen fact it wouldn't increase their sales. They did it only to show they will play the social credit game.