Shopping Becomes a Political Act in the Trump Era(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Shopping Becomes a Political Act in the Trump Era
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/business/nordstrom-trump.html
4 comments
Playing politics as a retailer seems like a deal with the devil. At some point parties and power shift, and you are attached to a side now. They should know better. Unless your biz is directly political, maybe you should focus on your sector instead of chasing popular fancy in unrelated areas. The correct answer is to actually let the market decide, not the marketing.
Agreed on the deal with the devil notion.
Jumping on the anti-Trump wagon is the virtue signal du jour, but care should be taken as Trump is not a one-off event - it is a worldwide trend
Jumping on the anti-Trump wagon is the virtue signal du jour, but care should be taken as Trump is not a one-off event - it is a worldwide trend
Baloney. This was started during the Obama era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_...
I'm pretty sure if you go back to the 50's there would be people who would not shop at places owned by Jews or alternatively at places that do or do not serve "negroes" based on one's political and ideological affiliation....
Heck if you would go back to the age of colonial america you'll find people boycotting things like you know tea way before the famous (or infamous) boston tea party.
Voting with your wallet is one of the easiest things to do for most people and it's something that makes them feel like they've actually accomplished something whilst in reality actually accomplishing very little in most cases.
And if you want to point fingers at specific governments then if we go back to GWB then we can all recall the "french boycott" ala freedom fries and freedom toast...
One can say that there is a difference between individuals politicising commerce and companies, but honestly companies always did it, if albit in a less public manner.
This is in most cases just virtue signalling which results in things like "fair traded XYZ" which isn't fairly traded in any objective interpretation of the word fair to the workers and individual farmers. Fair traded coffee is only really fair to the coffee companies it sets an upper limit on the price of coffee and in effect consolidates coffee production which makes it easier for the coffee companies since they have to deal with fewer entities.
But in the west we buy it as some good act we've done to help the poor farmer in some central american countries that most people would not be able to find on a map.
Heck if you would go back to the age of colonial america you'll find people boycotting things like you know tea way before the famous (or infamous) boston tea party.
Voting with your wallet is one of the easiest things to do for most people and it's something that makes them feel like they've actually accomplished something whilst in reality actually accomplishing very little in most cases.
And if you want to point fingers at specific governments then if we go back to GWB then we can all recall the "french boycott" ala freedom fries and freedom toast...
One can say that there is a difference between individuals politicising commerce and companies, but honestly companies always did it, if albit in a less public manner.
This is in most cases just virtue signalling which results in things like "fair traded XYZ" which isn't fairly traded in any objective interpretation of the word fair to the workers and individual farmers. Fair traded coffee is only really fair to the coffee companies it sets an upper limit on the price of coffee and in effect consolidates coffee production which makes it easier for the coffee companies since they have to deal with fewer entities.
But in the west we buy it as some good act we've done to help the poor farmer in some central american countries that most people would not be able to find on a map.