Thursday, June 25, 2015

Questioning Corporate Actions

I've heard Amazon has removed the Confederate battle flag, and earlier had removed gender from their toy search.
I've heard Walmart has done something similar with the Confederate flag too.
Whoever else shows up to this party.

Do these actions reflect the desires of their customers?

I don't happen to own a Confederate flag, or any flag really. I tend to think they are unhelpful pieces of kit, designed to make people patriotic towards symbols rather than having a clear understanding of what needs to be defended. During monarchies and small city republics, I suppose it was easier, but here, where they are actively trying to edit our history right before our eyes- well, the republic is dead, and these displays of the flag as if she is alive seem offensive to me.

But I am concerned. Mostly due to the great annoyance, but possible need, of figuring out which corporation is doing what and then deciding whether or not it is necessary to stop doing business with them.

When I think of social justice warriors, I know with some certainty that they aren't particularly rich, that they certainly can't outspend the South, and that it makes no sense in terms of long term corporate success, to accede to their demands. In fact there are likely a variety of brands that would benefit from being associated with reactionary or aristocratic ideals. No, these are, no doubt, the actions of selfish people who are taking advantage of the political atmosphere to enrich themselves at their corporation's expense. At the very least, they seek to insulate themselves from competition by covering themselves in the cheap SJW version of sanctity, which I imagine smells like patchouli and American Spirit.

Thanks to my little hobby of working out, I have had occasion to notice hard working young people on youtube who are willing to record themselves doing fitness type things, and go on various social media outlets in a scantily clad manner. I have noticed very little in the way of contrary opinion- indeed these guys adopt a diet that I think is much harder than others- largely because the game is to develop a social media presence so that companies that want to sell to people will contract with you. The 'if it fits your macros' diet is, I think, a side effect of their need to be able to shill for sponsors. I do not think they are out right lying, but that they are young natural athletes naturally capable of handling more carbohydrates, and incentives do influence people's thinking.

Again, if we are talking healthy corporations looking to develop a market share, a certain level of difference leads to better sales. The big banks are suffering from this in a different way- they'll ask customers to refer a friend to them; I always look at this and ask myself what difference can I point to between one or the other?

No comments: