Major corporations with a gargantuan employee base such as Pepsi, Levi's, Kelloggs etc are heavy items in the news recently because of their individual leaders and their outspoken opinions concerning the political arena. Each have a grudge and each have spoken loudly about who they do not like to cater to which has earned the ire of millions of possible customers. In two days the stocks of Kelloggs alone has dropped about 3.5% because of boycotting and Pepsi and Levis are suffering about the same. Now, here's the catch 22 part: They all have employees who depend on these companies for their living and because of the boycotting it won't be long before a bunch of people will be on unemployment. As for me, I do not use Pepsi products nor do I use Levi's nor Kelloggs so their employees haven't gleaned a thing from me but obviously someone buys their products because they are all billion dollar industries with a large supply and demand ratio. So the question: Who are we hurting because of the boycotts? The CEO's already have major chunks in the bank but the employees go from paycheck to paycheck. What to do?
If the company's policies go against your beliefs do not buy their products. Boycotts affect the shareholders more than any employees. Falling stock prices rarely affect employment levels. Go with your feelings about the company.
Generally speaking I do agree with you but, for example, the recent boycotts involving Target because of their stance on transgender use of public restrooms has cost them huge amounts of revenue. Nearly 17000 jobs are expected to be lost which will be concurrent with 300 of their stores closing the doors for business. Granted, the stock market is merely a reflection or a barometer as it were, and also granted Target's problems do not all come from the boycotts. That said, if the boycott has cost even a meager 10% of revenue throughout the corporation there are still grounds for layoffs due to the loss of demand. Do Note: I am all for boycotting a corporation, bank, or anything else because yes, the action has changed the procedures of many companies throughout history but my concerns lay way beyond busting a CEO because he or she might voice an offensive personal opinion. I guess it all depends on what it is we're boycotting; a CEO's mouth, the product, or the employee who makes the product.
I know it is a catch 22 but if the people need those products either the companies will change or another company will replace them. It would be nice to see the companies who make unhealthy foods disappear and replaced with one who makes healthy foods. It is sad that the people using food stamps spend more on Pepsi than on milk.
Just to jump off topic for a second, you're right especially pertaining to the food stamp thing. People can buy all the soda pop, candy, sugar and caffeine ladened products like Red Bull, but they can't have Ensure, Metamucil, whey protein powder and a lot of other health based choices. If a product is located anywhere near the pharmacy section of a store the chances of it being accepted by EBT is slim and none.
I have always worried about mass boycotts for this reason. I'm still undecided about how to proceed in some instances, but one thing I think is important to speak out about it and let the company and public know why you are boycotting a specific company or product. That way, the shareholders will be aware of what is going on, and what they need to do in order to change the tide of public opinion. I don't shop companies that offend me. I haven't shopped Nike since the Michael Vick debacle. This is an interesting petition. If you scroll down, it's interesting to see which celebrities Nike has dropped, yet they re-signed Vick.
Yes, the Vick thing is still an angry sore on the bottoms of humanity but, he seems to have seen the light, so to speak. Still, I do wonder if it's the money or an actual regret for his mistreatment of animals that stops him from returning to his past habits. The endorsement thing you brought up is absolutely excellent because I now want to ask the question as to why Nike and other companies do not do a lifestyle check on those who they seek to endorse their products for pay? Certainly, if I were going to give someone money to endorse my product in any manner, I would wish to know if there are any snakes that might come back to bite me. Still, your post is spot on in my most humble opinion.
Thanks @Bobby Cole. I don't believe he saw the light and understands how reprehensible his behavior was, or how miserable he made the lives of the dogs, let alone how much pain they felt. I wouldn't want him near children or animals, but apparently Nike trusts him with their reputation. I wouldn't put money on him upholding that trust.
We need to do even more boycotts on products. I can understand someone upset at a company not respecting a person’s religion and boycott for that. One thing that I think we can all agree on is health and we should boycott for that. Try and find a tooth paste which has not got fluoride very difficult and fluoride by Harvard Health says it reduces the IQ of people maybe that is what happened in this election. Try and find lard very difficult oils fill the supermarket shelves which are mostly omega 6 which causes inflammation also oxidizes and becomes trans fats which plug arteries and cause cancer. The shelves are filled with cereals that are all processed and have to add vitamin and minerals because they processed them all out. The soda pop aisle in the supermarket is longer than the fresh juice aisle. If we are going to boycott there is lots of things but our health should be consider first .
My email showed that @Babs Hunt made a post but when I came to put a like on it and reply, it wasn't there. Hmmmm.......ghostbusters. Okay, back to boycotting. One of the things about boycotts is the lack of understanding why we're supposed to close our wallets to the product. In the case of Kelloggs, it's about a fight between Breitbart and the fact that Kelloggs pulled their ads from the show and other jounalistic venues. The reason they gave is that Breitbart journalism doesn't align with Kelloggs because of something about race and sex. Now, because Breitbart is having a problem with Kelloggs, we are all supposed to make our individual decisions to sign petitions and say nix to the product. Then, after the boycott was called for, suddenly a thing came out about Kelloggs using some kind of palm oil from Indonesia which is harvested using child labor. That.......I can almost understand when it comes to not wanting to buy someone's product but to satisfy someone elses battle that doesn't phase me in the least would be stupid. Of course, I generally do not use any products produced by Kelloggs so it doesn't phase me anyway. Which, brings me to another thing. If boycotting a product like Kelloggs is because of a human rights issue, so be it, I'm all for it. That said, why do folks still buy diamonds and chocolate? Diamond mines in Africa are full of slaves and child labor and so are the cacao fields but it would seem that going without diamonds and chocolate are certainly things that we cannot do without but can afford far less than a bowl of cereal. It is indeed a strange thing...............
I have absolutely no problem boycotting Target because of the transgender bathroom issue. They drew the line in the sand when they refused to respect the right of all people. On the other hand I am not going to boycott a car dealership etc. because I find out they hire people who are LBGT even though I believe these lifestyles are a sin. I don't want someone who was born a boy coming into the girls bathroom with me or my grandchildren whether he says he is a girl or not. When I have to make a major purchase like a vehicle I am looking to being the best stewart I can of the money we are blessed with and the best vehicle overall for safety, gas mileage, insurance rates, etc. And unless that car dealership chose the same route with their bathrooms that Target did I have no problem doing business with them. On making my choice over who or what to boycott it will always come down to my values and beliefs which for me personally are Biblically based. I have seen some Christians get so legalistic over stuff like this that basically they would not be able to do business with anyone in the World. I am a Christian but as such I know I live in this World for now and I will always have to use the wisdom and discernment the Holy Spirit and God's Word gives me to pick my earthly battles, etc.
By pulling their ads from Breitbart probably hurt them more than we will as Breitbart gets more coverage than CNN and the other news net works. They needed to be boycotted anyways for the garbage they put out.
Bobby Cole I think chocolate is different than you think. I visit the chocolate factories to buy my chocolate and they pick the pods off the trees beside the factory never seen children but there might be usually older people and not slave labour.
True you. But still, what I do not understand is that the conflict was between Breitbart and Kelloggs and an advertising dispute and not at all about health. As concervative as I am and as much as I enjoy most of Breitbart's commentary I refuse to get caught up in somebody elses war for the reason they initially gave. Instead of just calling out the CEO of Kelloggs for a negative comment, Bb called for an all out boycott which could potentially lose the jobs of quite a few employees due to the lack of sales but will not hurt the CEO's pocket but by a few shekels. If those who have quit purchasing products by Kelloggs wanted to do some real, honest damage they should petition the stockholdership and board to remove the person who did doo-doo in the nest instead of hurting some poor schmuck on an assembly line. Just my opinion mind you but I am really tired of the little guy getting it in the backside while the big wigs are the ones doing the target practicing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_cocoa_production Dunno, but here's one of a dozen articles about it. Maybe a different location................