Posted on 06/03/2022 5:53:41 AM PDT by LibertyWoman
“They’ll probably cave in the end.”
I really doubt it. The problem is that their agents have to directly deal with the public, a public that likely averages $1000 to $2000 each and can easily buy from another company.
That’s why State Farm folded so quick. If they marketed directly to the public, the Groomers would tell their upper management that it’s Rush Limbo (or whoever these days) that is manufacturing the outrage and headquarters would believe it (as happens at nearly every other ‘woke’ company.
But, in this case, the agents already know the people complaining, and headquarters already know their agents. So you have very direct, and CREDIBLE, communication from the grass roots to the top of the company...and the Groomers never had a chance.
State Farm Insurance?..... NEVER AGAIN!
You can’t put toothpaste back into the tube.
I would never forgive State Farm even if they are trying mightily to pivot in the other direction.
Too Late.
I’m guessing a lot of those customers will never return. I wouldn’t.
The big question for those dropping State Farm and hopefully finding some other insurance company is where are you going to go, You guys are probably going to goto another WOKE insurance company. Are there any good insurance companies out there that isn’t WOKE. I doubt it.
Last night I took my daughter to the local book store because she wanted a me to read a new story to her while I tuck her in. I figured we wouldn’t go to Target because the globohomo would be in every book available.
The local store, they wouldn’t have that mess (this is the South, right?).
But NOOOOOOOOOO. I looked everywhere for a book that wasn’t about having two or three mommies or discovering your gender. Finally I found a few books about Father’s Day. Purchased one book that wasn’t about sodomy or cutting off body parts.
On June 1 Nordstrom sent out a message saying celebrate Pride Month. I let them know I would not be shopping with them anymore.
Lemme see if I gots this straight...
The groomers make up maybe single digit percentage of sales.
So, in order to increase sales, we will alienate up to 60 percent of our current customer base.
My guess is whoever made this decision has a master’s or doctorate degree in business from some high falutin college.
Sigh.....
I'm thinking the vast majority of their actual customers would find such a statement refreshing. It's amazing to me the number of companies that have wandered trance-like into "political action" when there is absolutely no reason at all for them to do so.
A week or so when it first came out there was an original thread on it here... Someone within the first 20 comments posted about it. I’m at work otherwise I’d go find it...
All I see on that list is identity politics.
I am not represented there except that I foot the bill for all of it
“Philanthropy” is often poorly disguised political agenda
Agents are independent contractors to SF and SF blind sided them. Agents were hammered on Monday and by Tuesday afternoon the VP of agent / marketing management or something like that called a teleconference with Agents saying he “sincerely apologized” for all the trouble this had caused Agents.
What SF needs to do now is reconsider the social support affiliations they now have and drastically pare them. Not one on their web site list is a cause I support. I would much rather SF provide a good product at a good price and make money for their shareholders. Let individuals and philanthropies do the social engineering stuff.
I have and now openly suggest to SF Agents that they consider the terms of “Torturous Interference With a Contract” for their future relationship with SF and SF’s relationships with third parties. Such third party relationships that offend and push customers to other insurers significantly interfere with the Agent’s ability to make a living. If SF don’t care about their income and shareholders the Agents darn sure do.
SF and other businesses should stick to their primary business and support no social cause. Better to support none or all than cherry pick and put the business and profit at risk.
You have to read statements of this nature closely, because they are often drafted by lawyers who choose specific words for a specific reason.
The statement you just quoted said only that agents are not to bring those books to schools and other public places. It says nothing about the corporation or other organizations that the corporation supports sending books to schools.
Of course, as has been pointed out by others, it is entirely possible that some other insurance companies are doing something similar and simply have not yet been busted.
State Farm’s favorite vine is a creeper.
My opinion for what's it's worth: only stay or return if the people who approved of this perversion resign.
My credit union apparently has a discount arrangement with Liberty Mutual.
I looked at their giving statements/programs and they appear to be more balanced than State Farm’s.
But of course they had the obligatory “We support Pride Month” banner...very small near the bottom.
I will continue reseaching a bit
Changing things like banks, credit cards, insurance, etc. is typically a very involved and painful process. It takes a lot to justify the work to make a move which is why most companies know they can get away with a fair amount of garbage.
At this point I will take the pain and even in some circumstances might even pay more so that my money is not abused by the companies who receive it
My agent is the only reason I stay with SF and I’ve let them know that.
I’ve also suggested that the agents look into the terms of “Tortuous Interference With a Contract”. It can carry a lot of weight and create a lot of fear in the accused.
To me the same applies for shareholders vs. the company they invest in. The support of various social groups has been shown to inhibit business prospects and profitability thus damaging the contract between stock holder and company AND their management. I can’t think of a single instance where social support by a company has made a material positive contribution to the bottom line.
I suggest that it would be better for companies to support NO social cause and leave that to individuals and philanthropies specifically engaged in that line. Too many management mavens and board room controllers have used the company as their own social, woke sand box. They and their employees are free to do what they want on their own time with their own money.
Companies exist for one purpose, to make money. Anything that does not contribute to the enhancement of that goal is not acceptable. I don’t invest to further my social objectives and nobody with making money should either. Most of us invest for the money. Those seeking something else should channel their passions elsewhere.
“IMO the business of business is business and business only. Any community interaction should be limited to community infrastructure only like a contribution towards a new road or bridge.”
I remember working for a corporation which strongly supported the United Way and the Arts Council. Each level of management had a “recommended” annual giving amount and each department head had a “goal” for his/her department. It was a heavy handed approach and it was commonly known these contributions factored into performance appraisals. I knew many managers who met their department goals by giving enough over their own goals to make up the difference for the department for employees who declined to give.
Needless to say the “voluntary” contributions to these charities were despised by employees particularly when the 1995 fraud scandal broke involving the national United Way and its leader.
Perhaps the best course of action is for companies to end charitable giving now that most charities have been taken over by leftist social justice warriors. Let the property and sales taxes the company pays to local and state government be the company’s contribution to the community. If the company wants to do something good, give the money to the employees in the form of a special bonus or gift certificate to the grocery store.
Yep. Looks like we will be changing ins companies
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.