I've never understood why businesses ranging from restaurants to big-box stores, banks and even Hollywood elitists, all of whom rely on customers of varied beliefs, choose to alienate and sacrifice so many of them by pushing agendas.
There's no need to name all the offenders. You likely already know the ones I'm talking about from their own well-publicized political and social causes.
Perhaps their plan is to willingly sacrifice potential customers by proclaiming allegiance to a particular candidate or an ideology. I can't really say what comes over business leaders who decide to shoot their own foot by intentionally inflaming controversial issues.
In 2015, Walter Robb, the co-CEO of Whole Foods, referred to such an intensely partisan approach to free enterprise as "conscious capitalism."
Got to admit, it has kind of a "nobly enlightened" sort of ring to it: "Our personal convictions matter more than our ability to succeed financially to the greatest degree possible."
Openly choosing sides on such issues, especially as a publicly traded company, can't help but cost a lot of potential business over time. I can't see it being part of any acceptable business plan at the Walton or Wharton schools.
My point certainly isn't limited to only one type of commerce.
Jeanetta McCroskey who for nearly 40 years managed popular restaurants and lounges in Springfield, Mo., for customers (and employees) of varying genders, religions, race and political views, said the unwritten policy around the bar was to avoid the subjects of politics, religion and race. "To ignore that meant to risk losing customers who no longer felt comfortable in what should be viewed as a predictably friendly and accepting environment," she said.
Twenty years ago when, as editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times, I asked a reporter during a local election to find out why a prominent bank president had circulated a memo to his employees with a list of candidates they were expected to support.
When the news story about the memo appeared the next morning, my phone was ringing early. He was demanding to know why I felt his memo had made news. I explained how unusual (and consequently newsworthy) we found it that a bank president with so many varied constituents would decide to become so openly involved in an election to the point of advocating for certain candidates.
Pressuring employees in that manner struck me as a potentially self-destructive and rather unusual business decision by a very influential and public institution, I said. "Your bank is a guiding factor in the city."
Since then, this kind of overt politicization of business has become more commonplace. There were the Target stores promoting their transgender bathrooms that triggered a national boycott.
This month an independent Chili's restaurant franchisee announced it would fundraise to benefit the intensely controversial agenda of Planned Parenthood in Kentucky and Indiana. That popular chain (also publicly traded) quickly received enough public flack over the decision to cancel the idea.
But why infect your public business with the emotional fervor of an issue like abortion? Why needlessly open any door into predictable widespread alienation and anger, especially for publicly traded companies with stock prices that also can and do easily tumble?
Then we see companies such as Starbucks, DreamWorks Animation, Costco and Google choose to actively and generously support a liberal ideology while UPS does likewise with the GOP. Yet again, when these actions make news, what do any of them realistically hope to gain?
We've also watched as any number of Hollywood stars the likes of George Clooney, Miley Cyrus, Debra Messing and the ever-belligerent Rosie O'Donnell stepped squarely into the limelight to protest the election of our 45th president, even threatening to strike until he resigns. Against what? The millions of voters across the nation who put him in office?
In return, I've read on social media that many potential ticket purchasers will now be permanently boycotting their films.
That leads us back to my point. If those who rely on separating money from the wallets of our diverse citizenry in order to acquire the products they are peddling (whether it be thespianism or high-dollar coffee), it's beyond foolish to actively alienate half of them.
Yet these captains of commerce somehow must believe by ballyhooing their "corporate consciousness" and pushing their political preferences or even threats, they will change anything other than the wide public support they rely upon for financial success.
How can any thinking adult not see that futile, unnecessary social advocacies and political actions alter nothing except their bottom lines?
Granted, their partisanship might change several easily swayed minds at the expense of thousands of lost customers. From a purely business sense, is all this exaggerated self-importance and ego really worth it when customers have choices?
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mmasterson@arkansasonline.com.
Editorial on 01/31/2017