Starbucks Brand Crashes After Announcement of Plan to Hire 10,000 Muslim ‘Refugees’

This is what I refer to when I say that CEOs need to stay the hell out of politics, as there is no upside, and a whole lot of downside risk. Stupidity.
2g5re5r-640x448.jpg


by WARNER TODD HUSTON24 Feb 201712975

The Starbucks Coffee brand has taken a major hit since the company’s announcement that it would hire 10,000 Muslim “refugees” in response to President Donald Trump’s temporary travel moratorium in January.

But since the company issued its anti-Trump statement its brand name has lost its luster with customers. Perception levels of the Starbucks brand name fell by an incredible two-thirds since its January announcement, according to a YouGov survey, as reported by Yahoo Finance.

The survey measures how potential customers feel about a company’s brand and asks if they have “heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative.”

In the week before the company’s January refugees announcement, 30% of respondents said they would consider spending money at Starbucks. But after the statement that number fell to 24 percent, the survey discovered.

The company’s announcement immediately sparked a #BoycottStarbucks movement on Twitter and brought condemnation from coast to coast.

Not long after Starbucks issued its anti-Trump refugee statement, many Americans began to wonder why Starbucks is slighting the hiring of Americans — especially U.S. military veterans — in favor of refugees.

Ultimately, on the heels of its refugees announcement, the company felt enough pressure to issue a second statement to explain to America’s military veterans that the company doesn’t actually hate them.
 
Schultz apparently "doesn't get it".

It should always be... and should always have been.... "America 1st", at home in America.... just as each country should be #1 first for themselves.

Not "America #1 to everyone in the world", of course. But America should take care of its own before trying to save the world.

IMV... all that TAX PAYER money spent on supporting illegals should be stopped. Better to be spent on American vets and homeless... before any is spent on illegals.

Sadly, illegals are flooded into America for the worst possible reason... to curry political favor from certain groups and people... none of which furthers the general welfare of American citizens.
 
Story is that "Starbucks brand crashes".... the stock took a quick 10% dip, but has since recovered most of that.

Remains to be seen whether the "brand" suffered any real damage.
 
Story is that "Starbucks brand crashes".... the stock took a quick 10% dip, but has since recovered most of that.

Remains to be seen whether the "brand" suffered any real damage.

Read the article. The brand did suffer. The stock price isn't always related to the brand's image - especially in today's distorted, Fed induced lunacy markets.
 
Read the article. The brand did suffer. The stock price isn't always related to the brand's image - especially in today's distorted, Fed induced lunacy markets.

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?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top