I'm going there.

[drk]

https://www.google.com/search?q=nike...:1681308364708

[Optical Roy]

I dropped Nike after a certain NFL person started his stuff, mainly because most all the patients stated they would never purchase that line again.

[Elvis Is Alive]

drk - I agree with your point. In most cases, it doesn't make sense for a COMPANY to have a political stance unless the vast majority of it's customers have the same view or the stance will somehow positively affect future business. Why alienate a portion of your existing user base, or eliminate future potential business?

I don't begrudge a company from doing this, but there can be negative results from doing it. Besides, people running companies change all the time, and their views/beliefs aren't the same as those who came before them.

Frankly, I hate the political divide in this country. I've been a registered independent my entire life and don't plan to change. I prefer to think for myself and form my own opinions on issues and not be beholden to a "party line".

[AngeHamm]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture...ts-1234710724/

Companies that publicly support left-leaning social issues are often making record profits.

[juno]

I have a brother who works in advertising at a high level, so my representation of things is accurate and not naiive.

I didn't say "conservative", juno, you did. That's kind of a tired, cliched, gestalt that you are invoking. I'm talking about a particularly small subset of, say, Nike or Bud Light's market. What does the bigger subset think? Women? Are they "conservative"? Males? Are they "conservative"? Someone in their '70's graduated high school in the late sixties. These people are not "conservative" either. This doesn't turn on "conservative" vs. "not conservative". It turns on what appeals to the biggest subset of their market. That's how I would market and advertise, anyway.

My demographics are very broad in a very test-markety city. So I see a little of everything. I'm doing fine. But I am getting some negative reactions to the brand I haven't explicity named, and I expect more. I don't need polarized frame brands. I don't need to carry a brand that offends some of my patients. I'm just going to try to keep everyone as happy as possible and make money serving their needs.

m8, I'm not trying to attack personal politics here, trying to lay out thoughts for a discussion (after all, you asked for people to offer up their thoughts). Demographically speaking, Gens X and Boomers tend to be more socially conservative, while millennials and Z go the opposite way. This is not ironclad and absolute, this is a high level generalization (for completeness sake, women, holistically, tend less conservative than men in their cohorts). Companies like Nike, AB InBev (or whatever the conglomeration is called) are looking at their current consumers and market-bases and looking to grow. They are not selling goods with high costs-of-entry (again, like real estate or autos or appliances or the like). The goods they offer tend to be inexpensive enough that people across any socio-economic band can access and consume.

Those companies' actuarial departments are likely taking a look that the older segments of the market, who are more likely to be turned off by partnerships/advertising moves focused on things along the lines of LGBTQ+ and/or issues pertinent to minority groups due to the political associations made surrounding them, and contrasting that with the latter demographics, who broadly want to see more diverse representation. Then they're making the bet that they will extract more from the emerging demographics long-term than they would otherwise. There are similar furors in hobby/entertainment spaces too, when companies start including LGBTQ/minority/female friendly content (Kamala Khan as Ms. Marvel, lady Thor, black Ariel, so SO many videogames), but those companies are doing the same thing: "we're gonna make more $$$ long-term doing this"

As someone running a business, it's ok for you to not want to have to play middle-man in those tug-of-wars between corporate viewpoints and social issues! But again, it's not like this is a fresh thing for Nike in particular (going back to the 90s, in fact), and to expect them to not court controversy again is probably a doomed effort. So you're likely to get this again with something else in the future.

And honestly, with eyewear, we're probably pretty remarkably sheltered from this! With the exception of some multifaceted brands, like Nike or Under Armour or Coach, I can't think of many/any brands that I've actually seen ads for in publications that don't just cater to eye care! Any Kate Spade ads I might have seen definitely don't focus on the glasses (just "hanging with NYC's It-Girl" Ulta ad, which might have been a similar "controversy-as-intent" kind of ad, and even that was focused on the beauty products). I think probably just some Ray-Ban or Oakley ads? The point here being, how many brands can you point to on your board and be able to honestly say "I've seen an ad for them out in the wild"? Probably not many.

[drk]

It's kind of strange, though. We didn't see Nike market in the U.S. to asians, hispanics, or indians. (Although they're big in China.) I understand going after African Americans for sports. That's a good get. I don't feel that most AAs I know are all into racism stuff, but give it time and they'll probably succomb.

As to men dressing as girls and acting histrionically, that market has to be vanishingly small. Women aren't going to look at that dude and say "yes, I'm empowered as an athletic woman to wear this brand." In fact, the opposite is highly likely to occur.

It's just lazy marketing. Lazy, derivative, and divisive.

"Hey, let's get a tic-toc influencer that's a cross dresser, put him in a women's sports bra, and have him jump around like an idiot". I could do that.

[Kwill212]

It's kind of strange, though. We didn't see Nike market in the U.S. to asians, hispanics, or indians. (Although they're big in China.) I understand going after African Americans for sports. That's a good get. I don't feel that most AAs I know are all into racism stuff, but give it time and they'll probably succomb.

As to men dressing as girls and acting histrionically, that market has to be vanishingly small. Women aren't going to look at that dude and say "yes, I'm empowered as an athletic woman to wear this brand." In fact, the opposite is highly likely to occur.




It's just lazy marketing. Lazy, derivative, and divisive.

"Hey, let's get a tic-toc influencer that's a cross dresser, put him in a women's sports bra, and have him jump around like an idiot". I could do that.

Wow. I'll send you another shovel so you can keep digging yourself deeper.

Leaving aside the absurdly out of touch, shameful comments you made. I'll just focus on this one line since you seem to be missing the point by a country mile.


"that market has to be vanishingly small."

That is where you couldn't be more wrong. That market isn't solely comprised of just those individuals. That market includes all of those people's friends, families, allies, and frankly, believe it or not, the majority of the US, and is consistently growing. While the majority of people don't identify specifically with that individual, or even this individual issue, they can understand them and have empathy for them. They can also infer quite a lot about what their stance on other issues would be(not that I think any of these big corps is being altruistic, it's still all about the $$$$).

It's just lazy marketing. Lazy, derivative, and divisive.

The fact that you think trying to be inclusive, is divisive, speaks volumes. Also ya know what, I hope it is divisive. I would rather the type of people offended by something like this don't buy the products I buy, and don't go to the places I go. I would prefer it divisive, and divide those people right out of our attempted civilized society. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

[juno]

That is where you couldn't be more wrong. That market isn't solely comprised of just those individuals. That market includes all of those people's friends, families, allies, and frankly, believe it or not, the majority of the US, and is consistently growing. While the majority of people don't identify specifically with that individual, or even this individual issue, they can understand them and have empathy for them. They can also infer quite a lot about what their stance on other issues would be(not that I think any of these big corps is being altruistic, it's still all about the $$$$).

Done in one

[AngeHamm]

That is where you couldn't be more wrong. That market isn't solely comprised of just those individuals. That market includes all of those people's friends, families, allies, and frankly, believe it or not, the majority of the US, and is consistently growing. While the majority of people don't identify specifically with that individual, or even this individual issue, they can understand them and have empathy for them. They can also infer quite a lot about what their stance on other issues would be(not that I think any of these big corps is being altruistic, it's still all about the $$$$).

100%

[drk]

Wow. I'll send you another shovel so you can keep digging yourself deeper.

Leaving aside the absurdly out of touch, shameful comments you made. I'll just focus on this one line since you seem to be missing the point by a country mile.


"that market has to be vanishingly small."

That is where you couldn't be more wrong. That market isn't solely comprised of just those individuals. That market includes all of those people's friends, families, allies, and frankly, believe it or not, the majority of the US, and is consistently growing. While the majority of people don't identify specifically with that individual, or even this individual issue, they can understand them and have empathy for them. They can also infer quite a lot about what their stance on other issues would be(not that I think any of these big corps is being altruistic, it's still all about the $$$$).



The fact that you think trying to be inclusive, is divisive, speaks volumes. Also ya know what, I hope it is divisive. I would rather the type of people offended by something like this don't buy the products I buy, and don't go to the places I go. I would prefer it divisive, and divide those people right out of our attempted civilized society. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

Always with the ad hominem attacks. I'm talking about the companies. Not you. But you're talking about me. Why is that?

[drk]

Why is that? Care to reflect on that?

What have I said about you, personally? And why would that be the case, as well? Answer: It's actually not about you. I know that may be difficult for you to grasp.

[Kwill212]

Always with the ad hominem attacks. I'm talking about them. Not you. But you're talking about me. Why is that?

Shall I hold up a mirror?

I am simply calling out bad behavior when I see it. If you want to call that an ad hominem attack, so be it. My responses are nothing but a reflection of your comments. It would behoove you to maybe do a little reading and self reflection on how your purposeful and hurtful mislabeling of a MTF person as a "dude", or a "cross dresser", is having real and adverse reflections on your patients health care outcomes, Doctor.

https://eyesoneyecare.com/resources/improving-lgbtq-sensitivity-in-eyecare-for-improved-patient-outcomes/


https://www.reviewofoptometry.com/ar...lgbtq-patients


But I also, I though quite succinctly, addressed the monetary and business side of it as well. If I wasn't clear enough or it wasn't specific enough to your original question, I'll try a different tack.

If you don't want to be beholden to the marking of big corporations, why are you in business with big corporations?

[drk]

www.Virtue signaling.com

[NAICITPO]

Let's just say you have a frame line that essentially has, as it's main feature, branding.

Say that brand has been doing things that alienate some of your clientele, and they're apparently doubling down on doing that, now, to alienate even more client segments.

What would be the correct move to make?

Budwiser has glasses?

[AngeHamm]

www.Virtue signaling.com

If anything in this thread qualifies as an ad hominem attack, it's this. People who have a different ethical and moral focus than you do are not "virtue signalling," and this kind of dismissive insult is uncalled-for on a professional forum.

[Uilleann]

Just DUMP Oakley

[drk]

What did Oakely do?

[Elvis Is Alive]

Awww, Oakley was a good dog. Jim Jannard named the company after his dog before selling it to the Evil Empire for $2.1 billion in 2007. Fun fact: Jannard developed the Red digital cinema cameras that were very popular with movie directors after selling Oakley.

I used to manage a Sunglass Hut location in the early 90's and Jim spoke at one of our annual meetings in Dallas. He was asked if he would ever sell Oakley to Luxottica and he said "over my dead body". Company went public though in 1995 so he had shareholders to appease. Heck, I'd probably sell a body part for 2 billion lol.

Lux has done to Oakley what Lux has always done. Make it cheaper with more profit margin along with less quality.

[NAICITPO]

That is where you couldn't be more wrong. That market isn't solely comprised of just those individuals. That market includes all of those people's friends, families, allies, and frankly, believe it or not, the majority of the US, and is consistently growing. While the majority of people don't identify specifically with that individual, or even this individual issue, they can understand them and have empathy for them. They can also infer quite a lot about what their stance on other issues would be(not that I think any of these big corps is being altruistic, it's still all about the $$$$).

I 100% agree that the market is trending this way, whether that is a good thing or not is a different conversation. I think divisiveness isn't a good thing and focusing on intersectionality is a fools game but again different conversation. I know the market to be going this way because mega-companies are advertising to it. They aren't usually foolish with their money and when you start to see multiple companies doing this you know it is the direction the market is leaning.

[Hayde]

It's a completely legitimate angle of inquiry, and beyond the commercial implications keeping food on the table--it falls into the very material subject of bedside manner. Media culture has metastasized to a philosophy that maximizing and broadcasting agitation is itself the height of civic ethics, and that runs afoul of the truth of health care (and effective sales, for that matter:) Agitating patients rarely serves the purpose of raising their health care outcomes.

Rapport is an essential part of what we do--it's a precious resource that has to be governed just like docs have to. Health care providers in different population sets will have remarkably different profiles of what is 'comforting and affirming' versus what is 'agitating.' If Brand X wants to 'polarize,' then it has to be content with being restricted to the markets where its pole is appreciated. Otherwise, if Brand X is interfering with my ability to build rapport with a patient (...rapport I have to promptly cash in to persuade them to buy frames that fit right, hold their Rx, and upgrade to UV protection,) it's a hindrance to my health care job.

[Kwill212]

It's a completely legitimate angle of inquiry, and beyond the commercial implications keeping food on the table--it falls into the very material subject of bedside manner. Media culture has metastasized to a philosophy that maximizing and broadcasting agitation is itself the height of civic ethics, and that runs afoul of the truth of health care (and effective sales, for that matter:) Agitating patients rarely serves the purpose of raising their health care outcomes.

Rapport is an essential part of what we do--it's a precious resource that has to be governed just like docs have to. Health care providers in different population sets will have remarkably different profiles of what is 'comforting and affirming' versus what is 'agitating.' If Brand X wants to 'polarize,' then it has to be content with being restricted to the markets where its pole is appreciated. Otherwise, if Brand X is interfering with my ability to build rapport with a patient (...rapport I have to promptly cash in to persuade them to buy frames that fit right, hold their Rx, and upgrade to UV protection,) it's a hindrance to my health care job.

What a pile of unthinking, unadulterated, manure. I've now read the 2 worst comments on optiboard, all in the same thread.

[Hayde]

What a pile of unthinking, unadulterated, manure. I've now read the 2 worst comments on optiboard, all in the same thread.

Kwill, I'm delighted to see your handle again! How you been?

To the topic, Welcome to Debate Pyramid! Colorful hyperbole alone doesn't strike me as 'thinking.' If you've spotted faulty logic, feel free to point it out. I'll echo Dr K's request for a refutation. If you don't even present an alternative syllogism, how is anyone going to be persuaded you're right and we're wrong?

[AngeHamm]

Media culture has metastasized to a philosophy that maximizing and broadcasting agitation is itself the height of civic ethics

There is a lot of truth to this, and it applies equally to the right and the left. The perpetual grievance contest is tiresome, and it is dialogue's greatest enemy.

[NAICITPO]

There is a lot of truth to this, and it applies equally to the right and the left. The perpetual grievance contest is tiresome, and it is dialogue's greatest enemy.

+1

[Elvis Is Alive]

+2 Society has dehumanized people down to their opinions and beliefs only. No one wants to be kind to each other anymore. It is all attacks and insults instead of polite discussion and peaceful disagreements.