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

Frederick Foresight said:
From the Yahoo Finance link:

Some of this resentment seemed to be rooted in a belief that Starbucks was hiring refugees instead of veterans. Starbucks, however, does have a program in place to support veterans and their families, hiring 8,000 veterans and military spouses since 2014 — an initiative the chain has attempted to highlight in recent days and weeks online and on social media.

I'm still amazed (amazed, I tell you!) that they survived the perception score drop after they changed their loyalty program, as reported by YouGov:

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/02/starbucks-perception-scores-drop-after-loyalty-pro/

:wtf:
More...

You're still ignoring that perception - whether based in truth or ignorance - is still customers at risk. The time spent educating and countering rumors on social media (as indicated in the link you posted about Starbuck's attempt to highlight veteran support) is not necessary if the CEO just stays the hell out of politically charged topics in the first place.

Shareholders aren't paying him to wade into the fray and put the name of the company into some murky fight on immigration or refugees. They are paying him to maximize profit. This initiative does not fit into that paradigm.
 
Tsing Tao said:
You're still ignoring that perception - whether based in truth or ignorance - is still customers at risk. The time spent educating and countering rumors on social media (as indicated in the link you posted about Starbuck's attempt to highlight veteran support) is not necessary if the CEO just stays the hell out of politically charged topics in the first place.

Shareholders aren't paying him to wade into the fray and put the name of the company into some murky fight on immigration or refugees. They are paying him to maximize profit. This initiative does not fit into that paradigm.
More...
I think part of its brand image is its social consciousness. So now you're telling them to not do the very thing that's tied up in their brand?

https://www.google.ca/search?q=star...=ssl#q=starbucks+socially+conscious+company&*
 
Frederick Foresight said:
I think part of its brand image is its social consciousness. So now you're telling them to not do the very thing that's tied up in their brand?

https://www.google.ca/search?q=star...=ssl#q=starbucks+socially+conscious+company&*
More...

I'm telling them to not pick sides on any social issue that is highly charged and contested, yes. You can still be a company that is socially conscious and support youth programs, or sustainability. You can still promote equal pay for equal work. You can donate to the needy. No one will ever go after you on stuff like that.

But what we have here is a CEO whose arrogance led him to project his own position on a sensitive issue onto the company, and now everyone has to scramble to mitigate damage and deal with issues spawned over such a publicly declared position. Completely and totally unnecessary.

If the Starbuck's CEO came out and pushed for a woman's right to choose, he would immediately piss off a huge portion of the population that believes Right to Life. What possible good could that do for Starbucks?
 
Tsing Tao said:
and now everyone has to scramble to mitigate damage and deal with issues spawned over such a publicly declared position.
More...
Are they really scrambling, or simply pointing out that they're addressing the other side of the equation as well, as I noted earlier?

Look, a company can choose to be hobbled and keep its collective head down, or it can take a stance. You don't like it. Some people agree with you. Others don't. Life goes on. Vote with your feet, but let's not declare a winner or loser just yet.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Are they really scrambling, or simply pointing out that they're addressing the other side of the equation as well, as I noted earlier?

Look, a company can choose to be hobbled and keep its collective head down, or it can take a stance. You don't like it. Some people agree with you. Others don't. Life goes on. Vote with your feet, but let's not declare a winner or loser just yet.
More...

I don't like it, not because of the position they take, but because as an investor, I don't want companies I invest in getting involved in anything other than making money for me.

Any resources devoted to correcting statements or clarifying positions are resources taken away from the bottom line. Period.
 
Tsing Tao said:
I don't like it, not because of the position they take, but because as an investor, I don't want companies I invest in getting involved in anything other than making money for me.

Any resources devoted to correcting statements or clarifying positions are resources taken away from the bottom line. Period.
More...
Somehow, I think you'd be more forgiving if you liked the message...
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Somehow, I think you'd be more forgiving if you liked the message...
More...

You are incorrect. I don't let my personal feelings influence business decisions, even if you or others would. For example, I equally I disagree with the decision for the Chic Fil A president coming out against homosexuality. I mean, why alienate potential customers at your restaurant just because you want to overtly state your religious preferences?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top