‘Go buy Ivanka’s stuff,’ Kellyanne Conway said. Then Ivanka's fashion sales exploded

Ivanka Trump’s products weren’t always the hottest items online.

In January, for instance, the first daughter’s fashion line ranked No. 550 based on the number of orders from Lyst, the biggest fashion e-commerce website in the world, according to Forbes.
That changed dramatically the following month.
Sales of Trump’s products skyrocketed in early February, making her Lyst’s 11th most popular brand. The biggest spike, according to Lyst, came on Feb. 9, when sales jumped by 219 percent from the day before.
Yes, Feb. 9 — the same day that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway promoted Trump’s clothing and jewelry line on “Fox & Friends.”

While I know this has been known about for some time, I think a thread about it is deserving in that it shows a pattern emerging from the current Administration. Conway should have been fired on the spot.


Source

She didn't have malicious intent.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Really, you want to know what happened? This is the way that Trump's base and the Conservative community show support for a chosen candidate...by supporting them. Liberals tend to litigate, protest and burn stuff because they have more time than the Conservatives who have a job.
I started this post with the intent of it being humorous...but stuff happens.

originally posted by: xuenchen
She didn't have malicious intent.

Probably not.

You don't need malicious intent though to do something entirely inappropriate and get fired for it.

a reply to: alphabetaone

That thread about childishness could be linked here as an example.

I imagine the intelligent aspect of all American People is screaming inside their heads:

"Who gives a flying fornication under consent of the king?"

Now how many will listen to that still, small voice instead of reacting to the opportunity to attack something so inconsequential as to be less consequential than the size of Kim Kardashian's love handles?

Now there's a disgrace.

originally posted by: WilliamtheResolute
a reply to: alphabetaone

Really, you want to know what happened?

Yes, but I don't need to hear it from you as, because I have read the article, then subsequently posted about it, I already know what happened.

This is the way that Trump's base and the Conservative community show support for a chosen candidate...by supporting them.

So, they show support for them, by supporting them (legalities and caution to the wind)....prophetic.

Liberals tend to litigate, protest and burn stuff because they have more time than the Conservatives who have a job.
I started this post with the intent of it being humorous...but stuff happens.

What you're saying is that liberals have no job, and only conservatives do.

Well, I hate to disappoint you but this is not a partisan concern, so it hardly matters, it's an ethics concern which is non-partisan.

originally posted by: WilliamtheResolute
a reply to: alphabetaone

Really, you want to know what happened? This is the way that Trump's base and the Conservative community show support for a chosen candidate...by supporting them. Liberals tend to litigate, protest and burn stuff because they have more time than the Conservatives who have a job.
I started this post with the intent of it being humorous...but stuff happens.

I'm a conservative that happens to know that most of the people I work with and/or for are liberal.

As the British would say... "Bollocks".

Sales would have increased anyway. NOBODY pays attention to what Kelly Conway says. Most people, including most GOP, don't even know who she is. "Attributing" (to put it nicely) increased sales to Conway is like her claiming the sun will rise tomorrow and you giving her credit. The increase in sales is due to two reasons. First, Ivanka herself. She's beautiful, intelligent, and articulate and has been in the public eye for several years, but has increased exposure because of her involvement in the campaign. People like her. The second reason is the Dems "boycott" and the result that several stores caved to Dem pressure to stop carrying her products just because they don't like her father. How insanely stupid is that? People don't like the storm trooper Democrat tactics so they bought her stuff. It's just like being told you can't read a certain book because some self-proclaimed censor decides you shouldn't have the opportunity. What happens next? The book is on the bestseller list. People may not even want her stuff, but they are saying, "Screw your god-damned boycott." That's the reality of this. Conway is a nobody.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: alphabetaone

That thread about childishness could be linked here as an example.

I imagine the intelligent aspect of all American People is screaming inside their heads:

"Who gives a flying fornication under consent of the king?"

Now how many will listen to that still, small voice instead of reacting to the opportunity to attack something so inconsequential as to be less consequential than the size of Kim Kardashian's love handles?

Now there's a disgrace.

I honestly would find it inconsequential if there wasn't some ethics issues attached to it. It's been a pretty long-standing law that Officials who are not the President but hold in office in the Presidents administration are bound to not endorse products for obvious reasons, among them being conflict of interest....

Somewhere along the line though, I fail to see how intellect plays a part otherwise....knowing right or wrong is far more instinctual than it is intellect driven.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: xuenchen
She didn't have malicious intent.

Probably not.

You don't need malicious intent though to do something entirely inappropriate and get fired for it.

When did she get fired ?

It had nothing to do with what Kellyanne said. Trump became president so Ivanka's sales would probably go up just because of that. So Trump doesn't get rich by writing books like Obama did. What is the big deal. She had the business and it was doing all right before trump, and if you look at all the people boycotting the stuff, then why shouldn't the liberals attempt to undermine her have worked. Probably because people are not blind, people who are patriotic tried to balance the boycott. They did not need someone to tell them, they would have done it on their own. The Liberals have become unpatriotic I guess, spreading chaotic marches and defiance against our country all over the nation. They are acting like spoiled brats because their candidate lost. Pushing neo-nazi tactics to extremes in some cases.

I am usually not even Republican but I no longer want to be affiliated with the Democrats again.

a reply to: alphabetaone

.....your OP didn't deserve a careful or considered response....you get what you give.

originally posted by: schuyler
Sales would have increased anyway.

I think what you mean to say is they may have risen anyway. And frankly, I believe that the anaylsts at Forbes likely have their pulse on marketing and trends just slightly more than you might.

NOBODY pays attention to what Kelly Conway says. Most people, including most GOP, don't even know who she is.

My Google search on Kellyanne Conway articles, over 4 million hits....It seems to me quite a few people paid attention

"Attributing" (to put it nicely) increased sales to Conway is like her claiming the sun will rise tomorrow and you giving her credit.

Not even close...I think you'd be best suited to NOT dole out investment advice though.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Im a rather soft employer, and prefer to keep "one and done" type things to a minimal and choose a "benefit of the doubt" approach. My team has to know ill have their back if im to have their loyalty. However, had Trump fired her over it i wouldn't disagree.

That said, i'd like to posit that the sales increases aren't because of conways telling people to buy ivanka, but rather relate to people showing support to all things Trump after the "point and screech" method of political bickering was used on this story.


Trump likely won because of who he wasn't, not who he was. This Ivanka Trump clothing sales thing could be the same. Buy her stuff not becuse you like it, but because she is now a poster child for your team, and you want to stick it in "the other teams" eye. Does it seem to petty to be possible? Hell no...look around you.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: xuenchen
She didn't have malicious intent.

Probably not.

You don't need malicious intent though to do something entirely inappropriate and get fired for it.

When did she get fired ?

She didn't. I said she should have been. But one doesn't need malicious intent for anything as a reason to get fired.

I support Trump, but even I am honest enough to admit that although Kelly may not have intended to do some marketing for Ivanka, that is exactly what she did. If the power of marketing did not work, not only would her sales not have gone up as well s they did, but McDonald's and Coca-Cola would hardly have the market reach that they do today.

If you ever purchased a brand name over a cheaper store brand, it is more likely a result of marketing having already convinced your brain that you are getting a superior product, when in reality it is nearly identical or even exactly the same.

I also thought she should step down. Not because she does not do a good job, I think she does a great job. But you must be a grade A moron to be in that position and not realize you are marketing a private brand with your words.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I think this post speaks to a different perspective, too:

4 million free advertisements for Ivanka Trump posted online. conway said something once, and from there it echod incessantly.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: alphabetaone

That thread about childishness could be linked here as an example.

I imagine the intelligent aspect of all American People is screaming inside their heads:

"Who gives a flying fornication under consent of the king?"

Now how many will listen to that still, small voice instead of reacting to the opportunity to attack something so inconsequential as to be less consequential than the size of Kim Kardashian's love handles?

Now there's a disgrace.

I honestly would find it inconsequential if there wasn't some ethics issues attached to it. It's been a pretty long-standing law that Officials who are not the President but hold in office in the Presidents administration are bound to not endorse products for obvious reasons, among them being conflict of interest....

Somewhere along the line though, I fail to see how intellect plays a part otherwise....knowing right or wrong is far more instinctual than it is intellect driven.

I didn't mean intelligent as in IQ, I meant as in having general knowledge or the desire for it. I'm sorry you don't know me better, but I find a strong distinction between the two which English does not convey well.

Also, I tend to find ethics as less important than law when it comes to people under a microscope. Just my way of perceiving.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: alphabetaone

Im a rather soft employer, and prefer to keep "one and done" type things to a minimal and choose a "benefit of the doubt" approach. My team has to know ill have their back if im to have their loyalty. However, had Trump fired her over it i wouldn't disagree.

I'm much the same way, to be honest. Regretfully though, there were far more than "one and done" gaffes from her.

That said, i'd like to posit that the sales increases aren't because of conways telling people to buy ivanka, but rather relate to people showing support to all things Trump after the "point and screech" method of political bickering was used on this story.

To which I again, agree 100%....it was likely out of spite. Problem being, it still, rightfully, raised the etchics question of doing so no matter what the intent was nor the end result. If I fire a bullet at another human being and it misses that doesn't automatically free me of the intent that was there.

Trump likely won because of who he wasn't, not who he was. This Ivanka Trump clothing sales thing could be the same. Buy her stuff not becuse you like it, but because she is now a poster child for your team, and you want to stick it in "the other teams" eye. Does it seem to petty to be possible? Hell no...look around you.

Correct....which is why I have from the beginning maintained that we need change, and with that responsible change....not change because they aren't the other guy....

It absolutely does not seem too petty to be possible...I concur completely.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I didn't mean intelligent as in IQ, I meant as in having general knowledge or the desire for it. I'm sorry you don't know me better, but I find a strong distinction between the two which English does not covey well.

No it's ok, I think I understood yu perfectly and you're right! IQ is only a distant cousin to intelligence.

Also, I tend to find ethics as less important than law when it comes to people under a microscope. Just my way of perceiving.

Well, for the President there is nothing formally binding him to NOT endorse a product, but for the other officials in his/her administration they are bound by law....ethics law from the Office of Government Ethics....this is why I bring it up.