a reply to: carewemust
Yes very interesting indeed.
According to Reebok’s website, the company will donate $20 toWomen’s March for every shirt sold, the group behind the widespread protests
following President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
A lot of companies, and celebrities, and whatevers, have become very outspoken in their political leanings ever since the frenzied buildup in the
months leading up to Trump's election.
I wonder if any of these wealthy, influential super-"entities" will ever be effected in any way by political boycotts, if certain people are
persistent enough in spreading information to those who might appreciate and utilize and share that information... Or, are they impervious to the
1,000 tiny economic cuts from mere mortals and will marching on into history with their cultural legacy intact and furthermore imbued with a Godlike
sense of integrity and morality over all the filthy masses, oblivious to any of their puny attempts to be reckoned with?
Companies like Reebok, which profit from free advertising* by taking part in, and taking sides of, these ongoing political outbursts which are
covered by the media, especially in social media. Or celebrities who took the spotlight to make dramatic declarations (fairytales) of "leaving the
country". Will there ever be any economic price to pay, as the capitalistic system naturally works it's course, for outspoken stances they have taken
during controversial political discussions?
For the record, I fully agree with any person or company (owned by a person with rights) to have the right to do this sort of thing if they choose to
be meddling in a nation's politics. Just as I fully support the right of all people to choose where they want to, and do not want to, spend their
money. That is what my whole post is about: "can and will the act of people choosing to spend or not spend their money in certain ways ever have any
noticeable effect on any of these hugely wealthy individuals/corporations/etc?"
I'm curious if anyone, after a few more years, will begin to think to themselves that it would have probably been better if they had just stayed out
of the politics...?
* The actual money from shirt sales will presumably be donated...to a politically motivated Anti-Trump-leaning protest group, in a sense,
rewarding them for going on the offense against their political rival, Trump, and also, increasing their own brand's [an athletic clothing/gear brand]
populatity amongst the feminists, who we all know are stereotypically "into fitness" or are "athletic", I guess someone must have calculated that it
was a no-brainer for Reebok to seize this moment to become (further?**) involved in the current political environment.
**I haven't owned a pair of Reeboks (mens shoes) in a very long time. I have absolutely no idea what, if any, politically inspired maneuverings they
have been a part of in recent times.