Ford Joining Budweiser

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: quintessentone
Or they did it all right.
Look at the bigger picture.
These people have more money than they can ever spend.
There is an agenda.
There is a date they want it accomplished by.
Bud light is a tool, just like the majority of the world's population.
Go team!
Smdh

No, Bud Light tried inclusiveness with the new whipping boy/girl, that being transgenderism and it just was the wrong timing, so they floundered and abandoned their ethics. Simple enough to understand.

They did what they were told to do to cause division.
It is simple to understand what you're saying. It takes critical thinking to understand what I am saying.

why would a money making entity care about politics beyond whether they profit or not? its like you forget our society is about money above all else or are just an idealist in denial of our lack of morality.

.........
Think about what you just posted.
You are on the edge of understanding.
.........
Now, ask yourself;
Why would a money making entity care about politics.........
Why would they do something they knew was going to drive down sells?
Come on.....
You're almost there.

i never said they cared about politics, you did. i said they dont care about politics, and i said its because conservative Americans are the minority and stopped being profitable.
that's the thing, it wont hurt their sales in a significant way to abandon conservative Americans.

This is demonstrably false. The 2nd largest amount of discretionary income and assets are held by the smallest generation currently (gen X) and the 1st largest are held by boomers who are rapidly devolving assets to gen X.

Gen X is, indisputably, in every poll and election since 1992, the most conservative generation since those who fought in WW2, by far and it’s not even close.

In 7 years, when the majority of boomers are dead, Gen X will control 3x as much discretionary income and inherited assets as compared to the size of the population in the US.

Again, gen X is, check any poll or measure, the most conservative generation since their grandparents who fought in WW2.

And, they already have outsized purchasing power. And that outsized purchasing power will dramatically accelerate as boomers age out of the living game.

So, as a corporation, and as a corporate exec, you guaranteed surefire best way to profit is to cater to what will be the most wealthy generation per capita in human history. Zoomers aren’t old enough for corporations to care about their purchasing power, and millennials are mixed between gen X and boomer parents, and generally carry a substantially larger debt load.

Now, I don’t think any of this is good. I don’t have an issue with student loans — but I have advocated for eliminating millennial debt burden including student loans, because that debt burden was highly predatory.

But, the idea that generally conservative people do not currently have and will not have greater purchasing power and wealth now and for the foreseeable future is a complete fiction.

If the smallest generation, gen X in the US, all drops dead at exactly the average life expectancy, that generation will control more wealth per capita for 28-30 years from today and they are by far the most conservative generation in 70+ years.

Look at the real numbers — rather than what you feel is true.

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

It's OK. As a member of Gen X, no one pays any attention to us. We have not and never will exist. That might be why we're largely conservative - we've had to be self-reliant. Since we're ignored, no one tries to "help" us like all the other generations get helped.

a reply to: namehere
Go Team!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

It's OK. As a member of Gen X, no one pays any attention to us. We have not and never will exist. That might be why we're largely conservative - we've had to be self-reliant. Since we're ignored, no one tries to "help" us like all the other generations get helped.

The greatest generation IMHO.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

It's OK. As a member of Gen X, no one pays any attention to us. We have not and never will exist. That might be why we're largely conservative - we've had to be self-reliant. Since we're ignored, no one tries to "help" us like all the other generations get helped.

As a gen xer I not only embrace this outcome, I helped cause this outcome.

I merely reference the generation in the prior post in reference to the idea that “conservative” US citizens are not now nor will be the largest purchasing power block for the next quarter century.

This is mathematically falsifiable using fourth grade math. Gen X will be both the most conservative (for myriad sociological reasons) and the most wealthy (for generational population curve reasons) group of people in the history of the country.

The idea that a company or brand should cater to abstract and theoretical future purchasing power is a canard — as a businessman I welcome the canard, it increases my advantage.

But I don’t post here to increase my advantage. I post here to provide context and information people are unlikely to get elsewhere — context and information that may be critical to their life choices.

The idea that a concentration of wealth for the next quarter century exists outside of the most “conservative” population is not merely disprovable, it is laughable and believing it evinces a complete misunderstanding of demographics and macroeconomics.

I also don’t think most of us will receive SSI, but I also don’t think it matters much to most people born between 1963 and 1981 (or whatever bracket you prefer).

a reply to: rickymouse

If Ford does that, I'll actually buy one...as that's damned near affordable...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: rickymouse

If Ford does that, I'll actually buy one...as that's damned near affordable...

At that price, I suspect most people would forget their anger against Ford's attempt at inclusiveness and it's business as usual.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: rickymouse

If Ford does that, I'll actually buy one...as that's damned near affordable...

I will glitter you to no end, think porch pirate🤣

Is this “marketing”really just an inside attack on American capitalism.
Some sort of Art of war thing, Or that thing that eats its own tail.. Ouroboros

originally posted by: M5xaz

No normal heterosexual guy will now want to be seen in a F-150

How about leaving all sexuality out of it? I'm pretty sure 99% of males do not use female deodorant no matter how great it smells or works...lol, but this is kind of like that to remarket something to be feminine and then they are surprised when men don't just gravitate toward it too.

If I was a marketing VP and I had a product that all could use in today's crazy world I would market it towards something very sexually neutral.

originally posted by: Observationalist
Is this “marketing”really just an inside attack on American capitalism.
Some sort of Art of war thing, Or that thing that eats its own tail..

I'm thinking it is people living in their own little self-created bubble of reality that actually think the population as a whole is drifting in that direction. One guy in their mom's basement today can be seen as 10,000s and it seems Ford and others are falling into the same trap that the loud noise from the woke means 10s of millions of people when it is actually a very small percentage of people and so they lost total connection with the physical world as to how the average person thinks who is not spouting nonstop on the internet.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I think there is a certain amount of "See? I'm not this brand of -ist or -phobe." going on as well. Everyone wants to prove their non-ist and non-phobe bona fides; what better way that to simply do what you've always done, only wrapped up in a pretty rainbow package?

You really don't care all that much, but it's not like you're doing anything either.

And when it was just those loud, annoying @ssholes over there whining a lot and making everyone miserable like a 3-year-old in the store who's been overindulged, it was no skin off anyone's back to pat them on the head and do some empty virtue signalling.

Then they started messing with your kids ... and all of a sudden, that 3-year-old become your son or daughter who came home from school and maybe loudly announced how their teacher taught them they really weren't a girl or a boy. That's when things started to change. Now they were messing with you directly and not just annoying @ssholes making a lot of noise.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Then they started messing with your kids ... and all of a sudden, that 3-year-old become your son or daughter who came home from school and maybe loudly announced how their teacher taught them they really weren't a girl or a boy.

How common do you honestly think this is?

I have 5 kids, mind you, all of which still attended school this year.

a reply to: LordAhriman

I suppose you could say the same about having a kid get molested by their teacher.

How common do you suppose that really is?

The point is that it shouldn't happen at all, and parents don't want it to, just like they don't want their kids molested. But I guess you can keep sending your five secure in the knowledge it's really uncommon and trust that it won't happen to them.

How common do you suppose it really is that teacher turns out to be the bully?

But it does happen. My kid got bullied by his kindergarten teacher, and we still deal with the damage that did to him to this day.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I suppose you could say the same about having a kid get molested by their teacher.

How common do you suppose that really is?

Most certainly more common than the other scenario. Yet it's a HUGE focus of the right at the moment because... idk. Someone told them it's a huge issue.

Trans. Trans. Trans...

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: ketsuko
I suppose you could say the same about having a kid get molested by their teacher.

How common do you suppose that really is?

HUGE focus of the right at the moment because... idk. Someone told them it's a huge issue.

Is that kind of like the left focusing on "gun violence" because someone told them it was a big issue? (I'll give you a hint, it's not a big issue)

originally posted by: PorkChop96
Is that kind of like the left focusing on "gun violence" because someone told them it was a big issue? (I'll give you a hint, it's not a big issue)

If you want to pretend that it's about the children, firearm related deaths are the #1 cause of death in children in America. Is that not a problem?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: PorkChop96
Is that kind of like the left focusing on "gun violence" because someone told them it was a big issue? (I'll give you a hint, it's not a big issue)

If you want to pretend that it's about the children, firearm related deaths are the #1 cause of death in children in America. Is that not a problem?

You must be high. Provide the proof.

a reply to: LordAhriman

I mean if you're looking at a leftist new site, sure, it will show that.

If you want to look at the real numbers, more children die in motor vehicles accidents each year than firearms.

originally posted by: Moon68
You must be high. Provide the proof.

I thought this was common knowledge.

www.kff.org... h-in-other-industrialized-nations/

wonder.cdc.gov...

www.nejm.org...

How many do you want?