[9oliYQjP]

Brands like Levis never weigh in on controversial issues until they've hit a certain inflection point of public discourse and it is clear where the majority of society will land on it. Then in hindsight, they will try to present themselves as pioneers of progressive ideals when they really only hopped onto the bandwagon when it was clear which bandwagon was going to win the race.

Today, some of these issues are being litigated faster than they were in the past. But don't be mistaken. Nike almost dropped Colin Kaepernick in the heat of the moment of his controversy. They only embraced him a few years later when it was safe to do so. I suspect Jennifer Sey drank her own koolaid in thinking that she'd be able to come out one way or the other on this still hotly contested issue.

Marketers choose their words carefully and more importantly than that, refrain from taking a stand until they know precisely how it can be dutifully exploited for their brand's needs. You might dislike this. But that's the game that's played in that industry. There's a reason that corporations, and the brands which encapsulate their identities, have been called psychopaths.

[p1esk]

You might dislike this. But that's the game that's played in that industry

I’m confused. Why would I dislike that marketers are doing their jobs? Are they not supposed to choose their words and bandwagons carefully? Do you want your dentist pushing his controversial opinions onto you while treating your teeth? If you have a conflict of interests (professional vs personal) you resign. I don’t see a problem here.

[ehnto]

It still surprises me how much we care about a company's opinion, as if it were some kind of entity capable of thinking for itself. It's perhaps a kind of parasocial relationship. People often feel connected to brands in a way that, of course, the brand does not think about them. I imagine that's why people get personally hurt if their favourite brands speak out on a topic that put's them at oods.