Trying to understand this.
Ben and Jerry started this brand of ice cream. They want to make liberal political statements, but when they sold the company and became quite wealthy, they lost the ability to make their statement as a corporate statement?
Can’t they still speak out as individuals and not on behalf of the brand?
I’m clearly missing something.
it would be in the clauses of the purchase.
Anything the owners say as individuals WILL reflect on the brand.
The same way that whatever Musk does or says will have an impact on the way people perceive his company.
There’s probably something in the sales contract.
I think what the issue is that B & J can no longer say their woke screen “as the owners of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream”. Ben can say all he wants, and quite publicly. So can Jerry. Just not “according to the owners of B & J...”
Most companies have contract terms that forbid public speech/action that is detrimental to company.
Like getting a DUI — you get fired.
Getting caught with kiddie porn — you are quietly let go.
Etc.
BJ took the dosh. Live with the terms or lose.
Maybe they want to name ice cream things like, “three cheers for Hamas”? Did they retained the right to come up with new names for their ice cream?
But they can’t make Traitor Trump ice cream.