"The Talk"

HOLEE FUK!

I love how some corporate types are doubling down in the age of Trump and saying Fuck You to the alt right and the Bowel-Movement-in-Chief. Despite Bernie Sanders and all the socialist talk, a lot of corporations were ahead of the curve on social issues before so called lawmakers. I worked for a Fortune 200 corporation in the 90s that had same sex partner health and insurance benefits years before anyone's lips formed "civil union" let alone "gay marriage" ( they also had a prayer room for Muslim and Buddhist employees they were so ahead of the curve).

HOWEVER I remember when Starbucks CEO tried this a couple of years ago (I still have the special race relations newspaper he put out) and all the hell he caught from white folks across the political spectrum for trying to move the conversation ("shut up and just serve my coffee").

So while I applaud P&G for being bold and committed to black consumers and employees (a college associate's father was one of their first black chemists),

it won't amount to a hill of beans...

 

Food for psychological thought; this why P&G will get zilch for their efforts

Affirmative action and white people. | SLTA___

 

This was the sh*t! Thanks for posting.

 

I work at Starbucks corporate headquarters. Trust me. The company, including the former CEO (now Executive Chairman), is very good at marketing. No special credit is actually due...

 

@Sean P Oh ok lol. I only have a slightly more favorable impression of P&G because of the college friend's family. Obviously, I don't know Schultz personally but I def remember when that whole campaign went over like a lead balloon. I often think it's better if corporate leaders let their charitable dollars and philanthropy speak for themselves rather than quasi-political campaigns.

There's also this concept which I came across in my current grad work

FAQ | Benefit Corporation

It might be better to work through these, but legally I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept as even SCOTUS case law says that a for-profit has a fiduciary responsibility to return value to shareholders.

 

@Rico

I feel you. I'm not giving P&G all that much credit. The ad wasn't made out of altruism. I've worked at Starbucks for a long time and worked at 2 corporations for a decade before Starbucks. While the corporations may have some good intentions, the ad campaigns are all about the money.

"Returning value to shareholders" has been completely misconstrued over the years. It has come to mean foregoing research and development, and reinvestment to return most of the profits to the billionaires and institutional investors. Arguably, that is not being a good steward of a company's money (i.e. fiduciary duty). Private companies that have reinvested and funded research and development have weathered economic downturns much better than publicly traded companies.

Most billionaires have foundations (i.e tax "mitigation" entities). If they really wanted to effect change and do good in the world, they could use their foundations to truly exert influence in areas that concern them (e.g. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, etc.). The Schultz foundation completely falls down in this regard.

 

Thanks for the insight, sir! My own experience with business law was strictly way on the small business end of the spectrum (bankruptcy and tax), nothing corporate; and for the last decade it's been all public sector admin law/law enforcement (analyst not an attorney). By returning value, I meant strictly the corporation's legal responsibility. That's why I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the concept of benefit corporations and "we're profit-making dogooders." It fits my own beliefs/thinking to a t and theoretically it's where I'd like to be in a couple of years (e.g. Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank) but real world, people buy stock, ADRs, etc because they want financial benefit not "the feels" lol.

As for the ad, I have no illusions about elite altruism, but I'm sure there had to be some cost benefit analysis of doing an affinity ad for one market segment (self proclaimed woke black folk) vs another segment (middle America butt hurt white people skewing Trump). Perhaps they're early adopters for the inevitable Trump backlash and failure, so they want to establish their brand as an early rebound market leader? Also, being a native Ohioan, its viscerally satisfying just to see a momentary middle finger from a Cincinnati-based company to the Boehner-McConnell region.

 

Some whites/conservatives/evangelicals get riled up because they feel threatened with the idea of having to deal with a truth that paints them unfavorably. They'd rather hide behind hate and keep with the status quo. It's so weird because when a movement gathers momentum, there's no stopping it. Then it's all about not being on the wrong side of history.

 

Odd ad. First I thought they are talking about gay people.
I wonder if the company is happy they made it?
And I'm not gonna buy their products.
It started to remind me of Roots...

 

I'm starting to understand that most symbolic things done towards and for black people are based on egoism not altruism

 

1. I don't care that white people are offended.
2. I thought the ad was honest and heart felt but completely pointless. Like, who was this made for or whats the target audience?