[woodruffw]

I respond to this partially in a reply to the commenter above.

> choosing the most visible instead of more effective organizations implies that they don't actually care about the effect or their support

Do we have any real evidence of this? The ACLU is a very effective organization with a long history of legal challenges across the political spectrum.

It's important to question the motives of businesses (in fact, it's necessary), but it's also myopic to assume that financial gain is the only motive involved.

[tnmrnis]

> Do we have any real evidence of this? The ACLU is a very effective organization with a long history of legal challenges across the political spectrum.

No, that's why I chose a different example.

[woodruffw]

Alright, let's take BLM then. There's no doubt in my mind that Ben & Jerry's factored visibility into their choice of organization - after all, visibility is the perpetuating force in activism.

The question is then whether that visibility was chosen over the organization's reputation for efficacy, which is very debatable. For example, BLM is in the forefront in the movement for law enforcement bodycams. It's once again up for debate whether that's a "good" thing, but it's undeniably a consequence of their activism.

This is more anecdotal, but I don't think about B&J's BLM support when I go to buy ice cream. I buy Cherry Garcia because I like Cherry Garcia, and knowing that some of my money goes to a cause that I like is just a cherry on the top. This, in my mind, is no substantially different from choosing McDonald's over Burger King* and subsequently recognizing that a small part of your purchase goes towards their children's charity.

* Sorry. I don't eat at either of these, but they came to mind as institutions that engage in (less partisan) activism on behalf of orphans and children.