Starbucks' image "suffered" in my book, but I don't buy coffee there. I'm sure lots of people will keep buying their daily fix at SBUX even though they might be annoyed at Schultz' spew. (Some people show their principles only "momentarily".)
Isn't there a diff between someone "saying" a brand suffered than it actually doing so? And if people keep buying there, what diff does it make?
U&A studies are perception based, not necessarily behavioral. So essentially people might say they hate Starbucks, and then leave the polling to go get a coffee there. It's not conclusive. But there might be some who decide to never buy coffee there again.
My point is, even if one person stops buying your product, it's not worth it. Big risk in speaking out politically - regardless of the side you take. No reward.
That's not the job of a CEO.
