Should US businesses avoid upsetting any group of people as to not provoke politicians willing to abuse power putting them in their place? There are many reasons in the US for companies to stay neutral. To prevent elected officials from abusing governmental powers is not one of them.
I'm just going to put this out there for the sake of this discussion (not to debate politics). I consider myself an independent and I know people who are very passionate about politics on both sides. My friends on the right even more passionate than those on the left. Through all the political turmoil between Florida and Disney over the last few months, not a single one of them have cancelled trips to Disney World, Disneyland or Disney Cruises. In fact, through their complaining, they booked more trips.
But, are they having fun or are they just ironic visiting?
They have fun and yuck it up with merch and the nighttime shows. They'll complain here and there but I know they are having a great time. Their biggest complaint is Genie+, not politics.
That's the spirit!
I’m guessing that at a minimum, Pixar would have revolted. They had already called the corporate equivalent of “BS” with Chapek’s interim statement about working behind the scenes on inclusivity.
Companies exist for any number of reasons. And shareholders are not the only stakeholders in a company. Employees, suppliers, contractors, the community and, yes, customers can all benefit from and rely on a company. Thus, they all have can have opinions about how the company is run. It's up to company leadership to take in all of those opinions and act on them. Companies are not beholden to shareholder whims.
See the stock change within the past year
This is 100% true. It’s a classic Facebook argument. When the issues with players kneeling came up I knew people who swore publicly they would never go to or watch another NFL game, but these were people who weren’t fans. I knew others who were huge fans and equally unhappy with that aspect but they still watched. It’s real easy for people to claim to be done with a business, but not so easy to follow through. For Disney it’s usually the classic excuse that the wife/husband and/or kids still want to go so they are “dragged along”.
Yes, everyone has seen the market as a whole this year...
Except that wasn’t caused by the companies politics
I think for the vast majority of people it has no impact either way. Even if most people have an opinion one way or the other on the underlying issue it’s not strong enough to move the needle. Anyone who “hates“ Disney over this political stance enough to refuse to buy their products probably already hated them anyway. I agree there is no way of telling for sure. Disney took a general stance favored by the majority of major companies in the country, but they did come out even stronger than most. Is that nuance enough to make a difference for people? Based on the reaction from the other side to Disney not coming out strong enough on condemning this bill I’d say they had a lot to lose staying silent. It seems unlikely they could have done nothing and made out better.
Considering that it's the shareholders who are the ones who fund much of a publicly traded company's operation, and accept the risk by investing their own money, I'd say that the demands of the "stakeholders" can buzz off.
Investor is different than consumer.
uhh.. Disney is not 'fund[ing] much of...' their operation by issuing more stock. The majority of its operating funds come from its actual business operation.
I didn't say Disney. I was referring to publicly traded companies overall.
I'm inclined to agree with you. Specifically, I'd say "buzz off" when the "stakeholders" are trying to goad you, as an executive of a publicly traded company, into making poor business decisions, as they did with Disney.
