|
Post by BØRNS on May 6, 2018 15:33:29 GMT -5
I think we can all agree that Vince is the biggest pimp that ever lived.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on May 6, 2018 17:15:49 GMT -5
That would all be well and good if their chief marketing strategy in America wasn't corporate reponsibility. It's been the core focus of their brand for the better part of the last five years and it's largely what they've built their rehabilitated reputation on. They chose to make that message a core element of their corporation, and because of that, they've opened themselves up to criticism. If they want to run their business immorally and driven solely by money with complete disregard for everything else, that's their prerogative, but then they don't get to dedicate 30 minutes of TV time every week to telling you what a great, corporately responsible company they are. They can't have it both ways. No one is forcing them to go anywhere, so, yes, they do get to tell a country how to run their show. It's their show. They have every right in the world to choose not to compromise the core values they preach to TV audiences and stockholders each and every week by saying, "this is what we are, and this is what we do, take it or leave it." We're going to see what the fallout from this is in the coming months. Stockholders will make a decision based on their own morality. Given the circumstances and the political climate, I don't think it's a given that they turn a blind eye to where this money is coming from. Lol, of course they get to have it both ways. That’s the American way. If revenue is generated, stockholders are gonna be just fine. Every single corporation operates on similar principles. We’re living in a time when a brand’s stock can be directly impacted by bad press generated by social media. It happens almost daily, and could easily happen here as well. Not to mention, the more detail we’re getting, the more it appears the deal is not for nearly as much money as we initially thought, and probably won’t impact shareholders in any discernible way. That makes it all the more questionable.
|
|
happygirl
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 21, 2016 17:13:47 GMT -5
Posts: 76
|
Post by happygirl on May 6, 2018 18:50:14 GMT -5
Lol, of course they get to have it both ways. That’s the American way. If revenue is generated, stockholders are gonna be just fine. Every single corporation operates on similar principles. We’re living in a time when a brand’s stock can be directly impacted by bad press generated by social media. It happens almost daily, and could easily happen here as well. Not to mention, the more detail we’re getting, the more it appears the deal is not for nearly as much money as we initially thought, and probably won’t impact shareholders in any discernible way. That makes it all the more questionable. Tell that to coca-cola, Walmart, Disney, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, ad infinity. People will be upset until they’re inconvenienced and then the stays quo will be resumed. It’s happened every generation and will continue happening until a major societal shift happens
|
|