Companies That Get ‘Woke’ Aren’t Going Broke — They’re More Profitable Than Ever

I had to relay this article since the prevailing schadenfreude is centered around continuous apparent misinformation that the "Go woke, go broke" meme is actually real.

Ever since the 'enlightened' global movement regarding diversity, equity, inclusion, (and governance) took off, people have not seemed to appreciate that the incentives to follow these trends is financial. And it has nothing to do with sales, and 'customers.' It has to do with access to financial dealings in the business world. Hence the "scoring" game that makes one business have to face one less hurdle to do business in the larger, ideologue world.

Companies That Get ‘Woke’ Aren’t Going Broke — They’re More Profitable Than Ever

Not the 'ideology' line that is being place on show here...

“Get woke, go broke,” has become a rallying cry of the political right whenever they see a brand make the slightest effort to align itself with liberal or progressive values. It’s a meme that allows MAGA country to believe that there is ongoing, massive backlash to products that acknowledge and celebrate marginalized communities. But the supposed boycotts never seem to be reflected in the bottom line.

Besides, by the time we would expect to notice any effect, conservatives have already moved on to the next outrage. Kid Rock and Travis Tritt declared war this week against brewer Anheuser-Busch for a Bud Light partnership with trans actor Dylan Mulvaney, yet the focus has already shifted to the whiskey Jack Daniel’s because of its ad campaign featuring drag queens — which happens to be from 2021.

This article speaks of several "woke" brands... all of whom felt nary a bump, when the outrage of their marketing choices became controversial.

Brands such as Keurig, United Airlines, Carhartt, Disney, Nike, Amazon, Kellog's and the NFL are all given time in the article. I wont reiterate here.

With all the companies these grievance peddlers are busy trying to destroy, it’s none too surprising that some have slipped through the cracks. Though the U.S. economy is facing headwinds and earnings may be down across the board for the first fiscal quarter of 2023, there’s ample evidence that major brands tend to easily weather anti-woke furor.

I was particularly encouraged that they refer to the triviality that is how the market 'feels' is referred to as "grievance peddling" which implies their projection that 'someone' is driving the complaints, and the rejections that people generate these complaints on their own... they believe, because this is how they think, that any group consensus is caused by 'influence.' This is why they can never be completely successful in doing what they exemplify herein... to tell you what to think.

You see, if you have a problem with 'the whole "woke" thing, it''s because you are 'following' someone else's lead. You're 'just a consumer' that can't possibly make value judgements on your own... without the help of the 'select.' They believe in 'influencers' and other such contrivances to use like a trapping without admitting it's just more control.

What sometimes irks me is the assumption (or presumption) that this state of the masses being one shuffle away from drooling and pissing themselves in lethargic apathy is actually real... we can see its purely fictional, so they can't sell the illusion to anyone other than themselves ...

Oooh, I should stop... I'm getting cranky.

Sorry I do not buy that. Why is Disney laying off.

Facts are evil... we've been told by the media that "All is well...' or scratch that..."Never better!"

Some of these people are masterful at what they do. Assuming you're not really paying attention.

Basically they don't need customers to have access to capital. As long as they follow ESG principles the WEF will reward them. This plays into the global communist agenda which will eventually enslave us all, but did so under the guise of being for the common good. Just like climate change and just like obeying covid scamdemic policies.

The wording used WOULD make me so incredibly disgusted; however, it goes so far beyond sensible opposition that, like oh so often these days, it reaches both pathetic and totally fictitious.

It suggests that conservatives can’t handle, “products that acknowledge and celebrate marginalized communities.” In other words, to compete with common sense, tact, tradition, morals, sanity, decency, dignity, integrity, truth, science, and reality, they have to do the one and only thing they do…elicit an emotional response, usually misplaced anger, self-righteous moral superiority complex or feigned offense (usually by proxy for a group the person has squat to do with). So they tell the woke liberals, who are factually very low performing, simpleton, illiterate, ignorant, uncultivated, self-absorbed people driven by hatred, that republicans, conservatives, nuclear families, the religious, independents, white cis men, etc. are bothered by and unable to get on with life if we are bombarded by advertising and entertainment which portrays racial, religious, sexual minorities, or people playing make-believe.

Of course, they forgo the literal five seconds of scrutiny and reflection it would require to conclude that that isn’t something that actually happens, as it is quite a silly accusation, and they go straight to huffing puffing violent-ready anti-fascists, ready to impose violence, threats, loss, character assassination, and pain on anyone who doesn’t believe, talk, and vote exactly as they deem acceptable. In reality, no conservative gives a dumb about minorities being portrayed in media lol.

Sure, many of us have the back bone enough to say we are sick of woke, advertising specialists reimagining and replacing the characters we grew up with and love or those who play the roles of characters in classic tales and we point out that throwing a minority group a bone by coloring a character black or something is something they should not celebrate anyway, but be offended that they are seen as dumb enough to be appeased by such a lazy and uninnovative move.

Also, forgive us if we share disapproval with certain controversial ad campaigns. Well, forgive us first of all for thinking that freedom of speech is an ok thing, obviously that already doesn’t sit well with your war on and hatred of individuality beyond simple label collecting and obsessing. You also need to stop pretending like anyone ever said you can’t be black, can’t be trans…all nonsense. You’re the ones who let us know last year how racist milk is. The one and only thing we want is…nope not genocide, try again….nope, not taking away freedoms and not keeping kids from their true selves…..the only thing conservatives are trying to ensure is that all of these alternative ways of living and of looking at humanity and the world are both only introduced at appropriate ages and in appropriate places….and that they are factual and not ideology as is just about everything the left pushes lately from CRT to gender spectrum theory.

I remember when a company made a profit by putting out a quality product at a reasonable price. Word of mouth would do the rest.

The current business model seems to be, "It doesn't matter if it's crap. Advertise it as the best thing ever and sell as much as possible before people realize it's crap and then move on to the next." You don't make money on quality products that last.

I don't care what the spokesthing for Bud Light is, man, woman, trans, lesbian, muppet, CGI, cartoon, whatever. If Ron Paul himself were to get on TV and swear it was the best beer ever, I'm not drinking it. When I drink beer, I like Sam Adams Boston Lager. I would drink that even if Joe Biden was endorsing it.

It seems to me that if Anheuser Busch really wanted to promote the trans agenda, they might have attached it to a more popular product? Or even come up with a new and better beer? Maybe they knew the promotion would be a failure, and wanted to minimize their losses? Sort of a test run?

Whatever their objective, it wasn't to make a better beer.

a reply to: Maxmars

...it has nothing to do with sales, and 'customers.' It has to do with access to financial dealings in the business world.

These companies are not more ‘profitable’ because wokeness gives them preferential access to finance. Access to finance has no direct connection with company profits.

Loans are treated as liabilities on a balance sheet (except on the balance sheet of a bank, where they become assets, but that is irrelevant here). If you mean capital raised through share issues, equity investments, etc., these are separate items not related to the profit and loss account. Changes in the price of shares or other traded paper do appear on the company balance sheet (since they affect the company’s market value) but not in the profit-and-loss account.

If these firms are ‘more profitable than ever’ according to Rolling Stone, that means they’re selling more products and services than ever, or else have cut costs significantly. I doubt that their cost-cutting efforts have been any more or less successful than non-woke firms’, so we’re talking only about sales here.

I’m afraid the article headline means just what it says: MAGA boycotts aren’t affecting product sales. This, of course, would have been foreseen by the firms in question, or they wouldn’t have made the marketing moves they made in the first place. A lot of market research and testing went into those decisions.

And distressing though it may sound to you and others, what this trend reflects is the (at least temporary) eclipse of MAGA and extreme conservatism as forces to reckon with in American democracy. Society is moving in the opposite direction and these companies are going with the flow, as profit-oriented enterprises tend to do. They don’t want to be left behind.

It’s also worth pointing out that -- fantasies about George Soros and Bill Gates notwithstanding -- nobody is buying up vast quantities of Bud Light and Jack Daniels, or thousands of Ford SUVs, to shore up those brands’ bottom lines

I was particularly encouraged that they refer to the triviality that is how the market 'feels' is referred to as "grievance peddling" which implies their projection that 'someone' is driving the complaints, and the rejections that people generate these complaints on their own... they believe, because this is how they think, that any group consensus is caused by 'influence.

No, that isn’t what grievance-peddling means at all. The term is perfectly compatible with the existence of grassroots grievances. Professional grievance-peddlers always represent a real constituency. No-one is saying MAGA and the White Right don’t exist, or that people who start frothing at the mouth when someone says ‘trans’ or ‘BLM’ don’t exist -- every thread on ATS proves that they do. It’s just that the Constituency of Outrage (if I may so style it) is a lot smaller than it has seemed to be since the advent of Trump. The peddlers are peddling minority grievances.

If most knew what this album cover was showing back then and what is science NOW, lol
I know this sounds cross posted or 'Off Topic' but it's not really. You just need to remember timelines and stick to them no matter what the news agencies (MSM) say. it's our timeline not theirs. Always remember to be FEARLESS!

There are examples of films and series flopping due to their obvious woke credentials - such as Netflix's Ridley Jones, or Walt Disney's Strange World - to name but two. It's a poor business that repeats failure.

Nike will always be profitable - the use of child labour in Craplandia is always useful for profitability, but the employment of Dylan Mulvaney, a man, to model their range of women's sports bras and leggings, et al., is seen by many women to be both insulting and a good reason not to buy Nike products. Why buy from Nike if they demean and belittle women.

So, going woke may not lead to going broke, but it does mean that these companies alienate their natural customers, and that is not good business practice.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

It seems to me that if Anheuser Busch really wanted to promote the trans agenda, they might have attached it to a more popular product?

True. So we may conclude that AB is not using Bud Lite to promote the trans agenda but leveraging sympathy for trans and queer people among the young, socially aware consumers who form the Bud Lite target group.

This analysis of the beer market by brand and consumer makes the point obvious. AB is not using Bud Lite to 'promote the trans agenda' but cynically using sympathy for trans people to sell their beer.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

It seems to me that if Anheuser Busch really wanted to promote the trans agenda, they might have attached it to a more popular product?

???

It's the best selling beer in the US and the 4th best selling beer in the world.

originally posted by: Maxmars
Companies That Get ‘Woke’ Aren’t Going Broke — They’re More Profitable Than Ever.

That, is exactly the intention.

They can't rebuild, what is not destroyed.

The whole leftist agenda makes sense, if people stop trying to figure out the why's, and just see the results for what they are. ( Remember to globalists the end, justifies the means...)


The corruption problems that established mob/dem-ocracies face at home diminish their ability to confront the rising authoritarianism around the world.

What’s worse, these countries contribute to global democratic decline by failing to curb the transnational corruption linked to their jurisdictions.


A Constitutional Republic, is not mob rule. It's power is the whole people not factions of...

“We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.”
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 12, 1777

“A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings, and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.”
John Adams, Novanglus Papers, 1774

a reply to: Astyanax

What kind of monster would use the trans community?

originally posted by: Astyanax
AB is not using Bud Lite to 'promote the trans agenda' but cynically using sympathy for trans people to sell their beer.

No doubt that in university bars, Bud Light will be toasted, and sales will go up. They are a "trans ally". But in bars, clubs and bars where people are informed of all of this silliness, people may just start to drink something else.

There may be no net change in sales, but once the rot starts, it stays. If you treat any community with disdain and disrespect, the reputational damage will persist.

originally posted by: EmeraldCoastFreedm
Sorry I do not buy that. Why is Disney laying off.

I don't buy it either, in just a couple of days Bud Light's market cap dropped 4 billion dollars in valuation.

That's huge for just a few days of media play. Wait until the lack of sales actually posts on their P&L. [P&L's are usually quarterly.]

Disney laying off hella people after saying they raised the prices too much in their parks. All of these companies are down sizing, that's not what a company does that's growing. When you grow, you don't shrink the staff.

Unless, unless.... you know... they know something about the population. You can shrink the labor force despite record profits anticipating less business because of less people.

It's one or the other.

originally posted by: SRPrime
Disney laying off hella people after saying they raised the prices too much in their parks. All of these companies are down sizing, that's not what a company does that's growing. When you grow, you don't shrink the staff.

Layoffs don't necessarily indicate downsizing, they are frequently used to increase revenue. In Disney's case the layoffs were in relation to its streaming service, not the parks. Iger had similar strategies his first time as CEO, this is nothing new.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

And yet the VP of marketing's reasoning behind doing this was because sales were on the "decline"

But by golly they are now

Sure they are making money.
But do they specify how?

Because beside other grants and loans, I just learned about the CEI.
And the fact that if you promote "wokeness" heavily, Soros will throw money at you.

House of cards, that will hopefully fall soon enough.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SRPrime
Disney laying off hella people after saying they raised the prices too much in their parks. All of these companies are down sizing, that's not what a company does that's growing. When you grow, you don't shrink the staff.

Layoffs don't necessarily indicate downsizing, they are frequently used to increase revenue. In Disney's case the layoffs were in relation to its streaming service, not the parks. Iger had similar strategies his first time as CEO, this is nothing new.

Sometimes I wonder if y'all even listen to what you say? If you're laying off people; you're shrinking the labor force. If you're shrinking the labor force, there are less people to do the same amount of work. It's not like Disney shuddered their streaming service, or that it takes less engineers to maintain as it continues to grow and the number of projects they have cooking multiply. Like as a user base for a web based service increases, you need more servers, more servers = more work. Bigger streaming service, more shows in the lineup, is more work. They didn't shrink the number of servers they need, or cancel any shows in the coming lineup.

If you're laying people off, you're downsizing. If you're doing it to generate revenue, that's about balancing income to payout ratio's. If the revenue was increasing, you wouldn't need to fire people to generate more of it, you'd just be happy your machine was working.

The only time you need to bleed staff to sure up revenue is if you're losing money. I.E. That's called Shrink, not growth.

What do I know though; I only manage a franchise, hire/fire people buy the inventory and control the P&L [Profit's and Losses Ledger.]

What you read in the media is virtue signaling, it's not the truth. They want you to THINK they aren't having problems, because problems are bad for business. You never have to fire people if things are going well and you're growing. You don't go "We grew 20% this quarter, lets fire the staff that made the machine work so well that we enjoyed 20% growth to turn that 20% into 22%!"

When you do that, you actually removed the parts of the company that created the profit growth, and so your profit suffers as a result. If you're lucky, you'll end up net even in cash flow, but you'll ALWAYS produce less income.

Arm chair business men - "They aren't shrinking, they just fired 7,000 people to increase revenue."

Reality - "Profits are down, we're running in the red and going negative, instead of offer better service and content, fire 7,000 people so pay roll is smaller."

The reality is Quality in the product and service will go down, because now people will be over burdened doing the work of multiple employees for less money. This will drive profits down, and is the last thing a company should ever do to increase revenue. You don't accidentally hire 7,000 people too many.

You get it?

originally posted by: EmeraldCoastFreedm
Sorry I do not buy that. Why is Disney laying off.

Nor should you. It's propaganda.