Just to take that logic a little farther… should they take a stance on climate change? Like, should they bother to aim for net zero emissions or is that too political?
How about civil rights? If a city bans trans people from using a bathroom that matches their gender identity, is the business obligated to enforce that law? Or any other morally reprehensible law?
I was about to write something similar to that original comment, but then started thinking about it a little bit more, isn’t part of the problem with Capitalism that profit is nearly the only factor that businesses consider? It’s like the only way we can motivate businesses to do anything “good” is if we give them some sort of carrot or stick that either makes them more money or lose less money if they do the good thing (that they should be doing anyways).
So even though I want businesses to “stay in their lane”, there’s a number of businesses whose lane is negatively affecting society and the planet, so they should actually be concerning themselves more with the environment or their products’ effects on society. It’s not that businesses should care less, it’s that they should care more.
It depends on how you look at it. Most business thinking nowadays, at least at the scholarly level, involves some extent of stakeholder theory. Part of that means acknowledging the community’s wellbeing. Similarly, you can look at the rise of Enterprise Risk Management, which forces businesses to think about risks like climate change or en the risk of ignoring vs embracing the LGBTQ+ community
So that’s sort of a shit response and far from accurate. I currently don’t drink Budweiser. Budweiser was attempting to market to a new crowd. From a business point of view having more customers is a good thing. If this little bit of marketing had caused Budweiser to double their sales they would have doubled down and released an article like this.
In fact in their response they said they still wanted to focus on “controversial” stuff. “I want to enjoy it with my friends. I want sports, I want music. I want fun.”
Sports is controversial. What sports? Will they sponsor Chess? Quidditch? Horse Dressage?
Music is controversial. Which music? Taylor Swift? Kid Rock? Jazz? Tap Dance? Country? Juggalos?
Budweiser will absolutely continue to advertise “controversial” things because if they don’t they die.
If the only thing that matters is profit next quarter then they need either current customers to buy more or new customers, but ideally both. If you only rely on current customers you’re fucked since eventually they die.
Sure Budweiser might be quiet for a few years, but they’ll be back because they’re not stupid at running a business, but their customers are.
Just to take that logic a little farther… should they take a stance on climate change? Like, should they bother to aim for net zero emissions or is that too political?
How about civil rights? If a city bans trans people from using a bathroom that matches their gender identity, is the business obligated to enforce that law? Or any other morally reprehensible law?
I’m just not sure where the line is
I was about to write something similar to that original comment, but then started thinking about it a little bit more, isn’t part of the problem with Capitalism that profit is nearly the only factor that businesses consider? It’s like the only way we can motivate businesses to do anything “good” is if we give them some sort of carrot or stick that either makes them more money or lose less money if they do the good thing (that they should be doing anyways).
So even though I want businesses to “stay in their lane”, there’s a number of businesses whose lane is negatively affecting society and the planet, so they should actually be concerning themselves more with the environment or their products’ effects on society. It’s not that businesses should care less, it’s that they should care more.
It depends on how you look at it. Most business thinking nowadays, at least at the scholarly level, involves some extent of stakeholder theory. Part of that means acknowledging the community’s wellbeing. Similarly, you can look at the rise of Enterprise Risk Management, which forces businesses to think about risks like climate change or en the risk of ignoring vs embracing the LGBTQ+ community
from a business point of view, no. they are solely there to make profit for the next quarter. and follow the law to a minimum to reduce costs.
So that’s sort of a shit response and far from accurate. I currently don’t drink Budweiser. Budweiser was attempting to market to a new crowd. From a business point of view having more customers is a good thing. If this little bit of marketing had caused Budweiser to double their sales they would have doubled down and released an article like this.
In fact in their response they said they still wanted to focus on “controversial” stuff. “I want to enjoy it with my friends. I want sports, I want music. I want fun.”
Sports is controversial. What sports? Will they sponsor Chess? Quidditch? Horse Dressage?
Music is controversial. Which music? Taylor Swift? Kid Rock? Jazz? Tap Dance? Country? Juggalos?
Budweiser will absolutely continue to advertise “controversial” things because if they don’t they die.
If the only thing that matters is profit next quarter then they need either current customers to buy more or new customers, but ideally both. If you only rely on current customers you’re fucked since eventually they die.
Sure Budweiser might be quiet for a few years, but they’ll be back because they’re not stupid at running a business, but their customers are.