LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 11:57 am I think what the piece in the National Review misses entirely, in its focus on "manly" brands "alienating" their consumers by targeting segments within their potential consumer market with "woke" ads and decisions is... that most of these decisions are being driven by attention to their employees.

It's less about seizing on opportunities to expand their customer base, though that's an important factor to consider, than it is about wanting to attract and retain the best, most productive, high value employees, both now and in the future.

And that means understanding what better educated young people expect from the companies they work for on a host of social values.

And indeed, prospective young, college and higher degree educated employees are demanding attention to such values as climate/environment and diversity/equity more openly and vigorously than had prior generations. We've known for the past two decades or so that mission-driven, 'change the world for the better', companies could attract employees at lower cost than those considered to be 'damaging' the world, but this has accelerated in an environment of scarcity of information age workers in America.

So, rather than just looking at the 'values' of current consumers of their brands, particularly the older consumers of their brands, they are concerned with assessing the values of their employees and particularly prospective young employees.

If they're not proud of their company's efforts on these dimensions, they'll hop in a heartbeat. And they'll say why, loudly.

And yikes, the "anti-woke" legislators and media have been creating a lot of tangible reasons for employees to look at their employers and demand they take a stand consistent with these employees' values.

Yes, that's played out in the NFL and NBA where they needed to take a stand against violence and harassment against women, parlaying that into campaigns to grow their audiences of women, maybe sacrificing the misogynist audience...turned out to be a big positive.

And then in the wake of George Floyd, their employees demanded that their employers take a stand, and allowing them to take a stand, against police violence and lack of accountability. That created considerable stress on the customer base, but it made these leagues more attractive to younger audiences.

Beer and liquor companies targeting LGBTQ+ audiences isn't really about appealing to new consumers, as they undoubtedly know they'll lose some, probably a net zero calc, but rather they know that to attract the digitally savvy marketing teams they employ, they need to focus on both who they hire and what the brand represents to a younger set of high purchase potential consumers.

Sure, big box retailers who decide not to sell guns sacrifice a part of their revenue...but it's darn hard to hire the very best young talent to these companies when they have so many other options...it's the employee attraction and retention issue, not the revenue.

Arguably CVS' decision to drop cigarettes was more 'on brand', but this was a conscious decision to actually be a health' brand, with the new CVS Health, acquiring Aetna, etc. Huge loss of revenue/profit from cigarettes, but the company is able to attract young employees with this brand that now isn't so obviously hypocritical as when they were selling death sticks. Others are following.

Disney was obviously an employee demand matter, given the very young employee base, many of whom are well educated, artistic, digitally savvy, etc. As the company had a legacy problem of not being as aware of sexism, racism, etc, as this generation would want, yet with an enormous cultural impact footprint, current employees over the past decade demanded that the company step up in what it produces, and be publicly opposed to policies threatening to some of its workforce.

Florida's law was such a threat and employees got loud.

I think we're going to see employees get very loud about their companies' stances on issues like abortions and guns in response to what the far-right legislatures have been doing. Almost all major companies are adopting policies that support time off and compensation for travel for employees in states with draconian anti-abortion restrictions. Pressure is going to mount on companies to choose their locations of plants, distribution centers, HQ, etc based upon the social policies of the state in ways that really didn't factor before. Employees will trump tax breaks.

And climate is definitely not going away as a big priority for young employees.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 11:57 am I think what the piece in the National Review misses entirely, in its focus on "manly" brands "alienating" their consumers by targeting segments within their potential consumer market with "woke" ads and decisions is... that most of these decisions are being driven by attention to their employees.

It's less about seizing on opportunities to expand their customer base, though that's an important factor to consider, than it is about wanting to attract and retain the best, most productive, high value employees, both now and in the future.

And that means understanding what better educated young people expect from the companies they work for on a host of social values.

And indeed, prospective young, college and higher degree educated employees are demanding attention to such values as climate/environment and diversity/equity more openly and vigorously than had prior generations. We've known for the past two decades or so that mission-driven, 'change the world for the better', companies could attract employees at lower cost than those considered to be 'damaging' the world, but this has accelerated in an environment of scarcity of information age workers in America.

So, rather than just looking at the 'values' of current consumers of their brands, particularly the older consumers of their brands, they are concerned with assessing the values of their employees and particularly prospective young employees.

If they're not proud of their company's efforts on these dimensions, they'll hop in a heartbeat. And they'll say why, loudly.

And yikes, the "anti-woke" legislators and media have been creating a lot of tangible reasons for employees to look at their employers and demand they take a stand consistent with these employees' values.

Yes, that's played out in the NFL and NBA where they needed to take a stand against violence and harassment against women, parlaying that into campaigns to grow their audiences of women, maybe sacrificing the misogynist audience...turned out to be a big positive.

And then in the wake of George Floyd, their employees demanded that their employers take a stand, and allowing them to take a stand, against police violence and lack of accountability. That created considerable stress on the customer base, but it made these leagues more attractive to younger audiences.

Beer and liquor companies targeting LGBTQ+ audiences isn't really about appealing to new consumers, as they undoubtedly know they'll lose some, probably a net zero calc, but rather they know that to attract the digitally savvy marketing teams they employ, they need to focus on both who they hire and what the brand represents to a younger set of high purchase potential consumers.

Sure, big box retailers who decide not to sell guns sacrifice a part of their revenue...but it's darn hard to hire the very best young talent to these companies when they have so many other options...it's the employee attraction and retention issue, not the revenue.

Arguably CVS' decision to drop cigarettes was more 'on brand', but this was a conscious decision to actually be a health' brand, with the new CVS Health, acquiring Aetna, etc. Huge loss of revenue/profit from cigarettes, but the company is able to attract young employees with this brand that now isn't so obviously hypocritical as when they were selling death sticks. Others are following.

Disney was obviously an employee demand matter, given the very young employee base, many of whom are well educated, artistic, digitally savvy, etc. As the company had a legacy problem of not being as aware of sexism, racism, etc, as this generation would want, yet with an enormous cultural impact footprint, current employees over the past decade demanded that the company step up in what it produces, and be publicly opposed to policies threatening to some of its workforce.

Florida's law was such a threat and employees got loud.

I think we're going to see employees get very loud about their companies' stances on issues like abortions and guns in response to what the far-right legislatures have been doing. Almost all major companies are adopting policies that support time off and compensation for travel for employees in states with draconian anti-abortion restrictions. Pressure is going to mount on companies to choose their locations of plants, distribution centers, HQ, etc based upon the social policies of the state in ways that really didn't factor before. Employees will trump tax breaks.

And climate is definitely not going away as a big priority for young employees.

+1

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:44 pm ...it's all those insecure, self-hating men, repressing their homosexual tendencies.
Don't knock it until you've tried it, right ?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maybelline ... y-boycott/

Maybelline faces boycott over partnership with Dylan Mulvaney

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... klash.html

Bud Light pours plummeted in thousands of bars and restaurants after Dylan Mulvaney backlash - with nearly 3,000 locations serving 6% less of the beer
In the week ending April 15, Bud Light's sales dropped 17 percent compared to the same week a year ago - and fewer people are also ordering the beer in bars
The drop comes after the suds' partnership with Dylan Mulvaney

Acceptance & tolerance is not sufficient, you must embrace & celebrate.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 5:14 pm Yes, you must...according to your employees who actually make the company wheels turn.

My bet would be that in 5 years this move will appear to have been obvious, a kerfuffle that initially alienated some customers, but which was the beginning of making the company's brands relevant with younger, new consumers...instead of being rejected by them. Indeed, I expect the bounce back to regular sales levels for the specific brand by this time next year if not a lot sooner.

And I'd be willing to bet that L'oreal will hardly see any negative impact...heck, the positive may come a lot faster there...apparently nearly all the calls online for a boycott of Maybelline are coming from men...

But all of that, up or down, is much less important than being able to attract and retain talent.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 5:14 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:44 pm ...it's all those insecure, self-hating men, repressing their homosexual tendencies.
Don't knock it until you've tried it, right ?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maybelline ... y-boycott/

Maybelline faces boycott over partnership with Dylan Mulvaney

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... klash.html

Bud Light pours plummeted in thousands of bars and restaurants after Dylan Mulvaney backlash - with nearly 3,000 locations serving 6% less of the beer
In the week ending April 15, Bud Light's sales dropped 17 percent compared to the same week a year ago - and fewer people are also ordering the beer in bars
The drop comes after the suds' partnership with Dylan Mulvaney

Acceptance & tolerance is not sufficient, you must embrace & celebrate.

Yes, you must...according to your employees who actually make the company wheels turn.

My bet would be that in 5 years this move will appear to have been obvious, a kerfuffle that initially alienated some customers, but which was the beginning of making the company's brands relevant with younger, new consumers...instead of being rejected by them. Indeed, I expect the bounce back to regular sales levels for the specific brand by this time next year if not a lot sooner.

And I'd be willing to bet that L'oreal will hardly see any negative impact...heck, the positive may come a lot faster there...apparently nearly all the calls online for a boycott of Maybelline are coming from men...

But all of that, up or down, is much less important than being able to attract and retain talent.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 5:35 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 5:14 pm Yes, you must...according to your employees who actually make the company wheels turn.

My bet would be that in 5 years this move will appear to have been obvious, a kerfuffle that initially alienated some customers, but which was the beginning of making the company's brands relevant with younger, new consumers...instead of being rejected by them. Indeed, I expect the bounce back to regular sales levels for the specific brand by this time next year if not a lot sooner.

And I'd be willing to bet that L'oreal will hardly see any negative impact...heck, the positive may come a lot faster there...apparently nearly all the calls online for a boycott of Maybelline are coming from men...

But all of that, up or down, is much less important than being able to attract and retain talent.

Same thing happened when they dared have black people on TV or had them in advertising. Businesses were punished for daring to have them endorse their products.

Because in America, home of the free, it's not cool to let the black people do stuff. They're supposed to be in the background, nowhere near TV screens...instead of "shoved down the throats" of upstanding white folk.

What with them standing there, being black in broad daylight, and all. Same logic applies to "the gays", of course. Seen, not heard.

Or apparently, they're not supposed to be "seen", either. Because if we do that, next thing you know, "the gays" will think that it's ok to do things like breathe, or earn a living.

And we won't stand for that in America, naturally...what with our Freedom and all. And next year, thankfully you can vote for DeSantis. He'll keep "the gays" away from you and your family....and out of sight, just as good white American families demand.

And not a moment too soon. Whew.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:12 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:13 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 11:57 am I think what the piece in the National Review misses entirely, in its focus on "manly" brands "alienating" their consumers by targeting segments within their potential consumer market with "woke" ads and decisions is... that most of these decisions are being driven by attention to their employees.

It's less about seizing on opportunities to expand their customer base, though that's an important factor to consider, than it is about wanting to attract and retain the best, most productive, high value employees, both now and in the future.

And that means understanding what better educated young people expect from the companies they work for on a host of social values.

And indeed, prospective young, college and higher degree educated employees are demanding attention to such values as climate/environment and diversity/equity more openly and vigorously than had prior generations. We've known for the past two decades or so that mission-driven, 'change the world for the better', companies could attract employees at lower cost than those considered to be 'damaging' the world, but this has accelerated in an environment of scarcity of information age workers in America.

So, rather than just looking at the 'values' of current consumers of their brands, particularly the older consumers of their brands, they are concerned with assessing the values of their employees and particularly prospective young employees.

If they're not proud of their company's efforts on these dimensions, they'll hop in a heartbeat. And they'll say why, loudly.

And yikes, the "anti-woke" legislators and media have been creating a lot of tangible reasons for employees to look at their employers and demand they take a stand consistent with these employees' values.

Yes, that's played out in the NFL and NBA where they needed to take a stand against violence and harassment against women, parlaying that into campaigns to grow their audiences of women, maybe sacrificing the misogynist audience...turned out to be a big positive.

And then in the wake of George Floyd, their employees demanded that their employers take a stand, and allowing them to take a stand, against police violence and lack of accountability. That created considerable stress on the customer base, but it made these leagues more attractive to younger audiences.

Beer and liquor companies targeting LGBTQ+ audiences isn't really about appealing to new consumers, as they undoubtedly know they'll lose some, probably a net zero calc, but rather they know that to attract the digitally savvy marketing teams they employ, they need to focus on both who they hire and what the brand represents to a younger set of high purchase potential consumers.

Sure, big box retailers who decide not to sell guns sacrifice a part of their revenue...but it's darn hard to hire the very best young talent to these companies when they have so many other options...it's the employee attraction and retention issue, not the revenue.

Arguably CVS' decision to drop cigarettes was more 'on brand', but this was a conscious decision to actually be a health' brand, with the new CVS Health, acquiring Aetna, etc. Huge loss of revenue/profit from cigarettes, but the company is able to attract young employees with this brand that now isn't so obviously hypocritical as when they were selling death sticks. Others are following.

Disney was obviously an employee demand matter, given the very young employee base, many of whom are well educated, artistic, digitally savvy, etc. As the company had a legacy problem of not being as aware of sexism, racism, etc, as this generation would want, yet with an enormous cultural impact footprint, current employees over the past decade demanded that the company step up in what it produces, and be publicly opposed to policies threatening to some of its workforce.

Florida's law was such a threat and employees got loud.

I think we're going to see employees get very loud about their companies' stances on issues like abortions and guns in response to what the far-right legislatures have been doing. Almost all major companies are adopting policies that support time off and compensation for travel for employees in states with draconian anti-abortion restrictions. Pressure is going to mount on companies to choose their locations of plants, distribution centers, HQ, etc based upon the social policies of the state in ways that really didn't factor before. Employees will trump tax breaks.

And climate is definitely not going away as a big priority for young employees.

+1

Very astute take. But the part Sowell and the National Review misses is that in the current example, Budweiser is following Jordan's adage....."Republicans wear sneakers, too". Did Budweiser say, in print "we hate evangelical Christians that hate gays". Nope. All they did was hire someone "different" to be ONE of the reps for their beer. Thats it. Selling to EVERYONE. And from this, National Review jumps to the wholly illogical conclusion that Budweiser MUST hate their customers. How do they not realize what an idiotic conclusion that is?

Hilarious, btw, that this is the same crew who decries "PC culture", and "getting offended by everything". Yet we saw a grown man smashing up cases of beer because he's "so offended".

It's the EXACT same thing as hiring a black man to rep your beer in the 1950's. Does Sowell think that having a black man rep a beer brand an overtly and inherently offensive act to racists buying beer? I sure hope not....but that's the claim here with this Bud Light kerfuffle.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:29 pm Yep. Tolerance & acceptance is not sufficient. We must ALL embrace & celebrate.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:46 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:29 pm Yep. Tolerance & acceptance is not sufficient. We must ALL embrace & celebrate.

Acceptance is enough. “Tolerate” is your word: accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:46 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:29 pm Yep. Tolerance & acceptance is not sufficient. We must ALL embrace & celebrate.

Acceptance is enough. “Tolerate” is your word: accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

You need to accept the reality that a significant % of the multiracial male population of the world finds the thought of male-on-male sexual activity to be anywhere from uncomfortable to abhorrent. They are not likely to alter that reaction. That's likely due to not being sufficiently groomed at an impressionable age. No amount of virtue signalling shaming attempts are likely to change that reaction.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:35 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:46 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:29 pm Yep. Tolerance & acceptance is not sufficient. We must ALL embrace & celebrate.

Acceptance is enough. “Tolerate” is your word: accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

You need to accept the reality that a significant % of the multiracial male population of the world finds the thought of male-on-male sexual activity to be anywhere from uncomfortable to abhorrent. They are not likely to alter that reaction. That's likely due to not being sufficiently groomed at an impressionable age. No amount of virtue signalling shaming attempts are likely to change that reaction.

What do you think?

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:39 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:35 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:46 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:29 pm Yep. Tolerance & acceptance is not sufficient. We must ALL embrace & celebrate.

Acceptance is enough. “Tolerate” is your word: accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

You need to accept the reality that a significant % of the multiracial male population of the world finds the thought of male-on-male sexual activity to be anywhere from uncomfortable to abhorrent. They are not likely to alter that reaction. That's likely due to not being sufficiently groomed at an impressionable age. No amount of virtue signalling shaming attempts are likely to change that reaction.

What do you think?

That does not matter. I don't buy enough beer to matter.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:02 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:39 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:35 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:32 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:46 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:29 pm Yep. Tolerance & acceptance is not sufficient. We must ALL embrace & celebrate.

Acceptance is enough. “Tolerate” is your word: accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

You need to accept the reality that a significant % of the multiracial male population of the world finds the thought of male-on-male sexual activity to be anywhere from uncomfortable to abhorrent. They are not likely to alter that reaction. That's likely due to not being sufficiently groomed at an impressionable age. No amount of virtue signalling shaming attempts are likely to change that reaction.

What do you think?

That does not matter. I don't buy enough beer to matter.

Just what I figured. I have met you before.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 12:05 am Drinks ? BFD. Did you have to watch them have sex ? Were they in a bubble bath wearing lingerie ?