Posted on 06/30/2013 7:43:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
What do Chick-fil –A and Starbucks have in common besides food and beverages? Controversy – and lots of it – as the executive leaders of both companies have taken public stands on one of America’s most contentious cultural and public policy issues.
You probably heard about the Chick-fil-A fiasco of last year. Founded by S. Truett Cathy, today the company is headed by Truett’s son Dan Cathy, and in June and July of 2012 the company and its franchisees was subject to maligning in the media and attempted boycotts by liberal activist groups because of public statements that Dan made about his support for traditional heterosexual marriage.
The fact that Chick-fil-A is one of the most successful restaurant enterprises in the world and that it employs lots of Americans simply did not matter to the liberal activists. It also didn’t matter that in 2010 Chick-fil-A became the global chain restaurant leader based on an “average annual sales per restaurant” calculation, nor did it matter that the company has one of the lowest franchise entry costs in the world, or that it receives an average of 20,000 applications to fill its annual 60-70 franchise openings each year. And it probably didn’t matter to the boycotters that they were reacting to one man’s opinion, an opinion that isn’t necessarily shared by all Chick-fil-A franchisees and employees.
All that mattered, apparently, was that Dan Cathy expressed the “wrong opinion,” so far as the liberal activists were concerned, and it was therefore time to bring harm to his company. After an initial backlash was attempted against the company and its franchisees, a “backlash against the backlash” eventually ensued and Chick-fil-A saw an uptick in their revenues. But the lesson of this episode was clear: some of our fellow Americans are quite willing to damage a local employer in their area if it seems politically beneficial to do so.
While opposing same-sex marriage was good for Chick-fil-A (even if only in the short-run), supporting it proved bad for Starbucks. In January of 2012 an executive with the publicly traded company drew fire for his public statement in support of same-sex marriage, which soon engendered a public boycott of Starbucks by conservative “pro-traditional marriage” groups. After a few months of declining sales, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz was asked at a shareholder’s meeting about the wisdom of personal political statements being made by the company’s executives, to which Shultz replied, “"if you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38 percent you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company.” Starbucks sales continued to slide for a while, and then the controversy eventually evaporated – but the damage, if only in the short run, had been done.
The fact that Starbucks is by nearly any measurement one of the most socially responsible and generous companies in the world, apparently didn’t matter to the socially conservative activists. It apparently didn’t matter that Starbucks provides medical, dental and vision health coverage to nearly all of its employees including part-timers, nor did it matter that they lead the world in corporate recycling efforts and at times pay higher prices for coffee beans so as to ensure that they are patronizing coffee growers who pay “fair wages” to their workers. And the social conservatives who protested Starbucks over the marriage issue may very well have been unaware that the company has drawn other boycotts from gun control groups – along with support from gun enthusiasts -because Starbucks has resisted social pressure to ban concealed-carry weapons in their stores. Once again activists were reacting to the opinions of one or two executives – opinions that are not necessarily shared by all of Starbucks employees and shareholders – and there was not only willingness but a clear intent to damage the company.
Obviously, boycotts are in most cases perfectly legal, and often provide an appropriate way to express one’s opinions and preferences based upon expenditures that one doesn’t make. But given the current economic, cultural and political climate, individuals and activist groups would do well to become more thoughtful and careful about who gets targeted. In an effort to make a cultural or political statement, one can end up diminishing somebody else’s livelihood or even damaging one’s local community.
Targeting, protesting, boycotting – the plight of Starbucks and Chick-fil-A will likely become more common in the coming weeks and months, and probably will be felt by more and more businesses, including many local small business operators. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, employers will be faced with public pressure and lawsuits demanding employee benefits for same-sex domestic partners. And with the next implementation phase of Obamacare in January of 2014, businesses will be faced with public scorn and legal threats when they lay-off workers or cut employee hours while figuring out how to pay for Obamacare compliance.
There is a rough road that lies ahead for American enterprise. Activists and consumers alike would do well to become more thoughtful about the plight of the business owner, and less inclined to lash-out.
This is good to hear--surprising, to be sure, but good. I won't go near a Starbucks because of their "socially responsible" decision to destroy American family life, but I figured I was the only one.
Fiasco?
How was CFA a ‘fiasco’?
IMHO they were, and continue to be, a rather remarkable success.
Companies like CFA need to use the broken record technique. No matter what question the media asks, they should stick to a line like, “We sell chicken. We do not tolerate or practice discrimination in any form. Today’s specials are, chicken nuggets, etc.”
Just provide that as a stock, repetitive answer to every question and/or press release.
Answering the media’s questions is akin to answering questions of a car salesman, it’s not for information, but it’s looking for a weak spot.
That’s a good point, many businesses wished they had that CFA “fiasco” and people lining up around the block waiting to buy their product.
I will not spend a dime in Starbucks but I also won't block the entry to its doors or put pressure on elected officials to bar them from opening new stores in my town.
That's the difference between U.S. Persons on The Left and American Citizens on The Right.
It's all good and fine that Starbucks offers its benefits, but it also uses its profits to elect people who will then compel other companies to provide those benefits for its employees.
Nothing wrong with that. I just decline to participate.
So get off your high horse, Austin. I will spend my money where I want for whatever reason I want.
But I won't throw rocks through the windows of businesses I choose not to patronize.
I’ll lash out at whoever I damn well please, especially these anti-family trolls.
Wow, the author of this piece doesn't have an agenda now do they? Show me one product or service boycott carried on by consumers that was illegal.
JUST ONE.
The author either wittingly or not is opening the door to "illegal consumer boycotts" with this dog whistle. Look for some idiot politician in the future or some left-winger to start questioning the "legality" of Consumers who care about social issues conducting an "illegal boycott" of some favored left-wing product or service.
But given the current economic, cultural and political climate, individuals and activist groups would do well to become more thoughtful and careful about who gets targeted. In an effort to make a cultural or political statement, one can end up diminishing somebody else’s livelihood or even damaging one’s local community.
Obviously the author never attended an Economics 101 course either. ANY TIME under ANY CONDITION a company's product or service DOES NOT SELL has an impact on that company's emnployees.
Just ask the MILLIONS who've been impacted by the Obama Administration's malicious pursuit of business' across the health care, energy, and other private business sectors.
I hereby call for all Freepers to boycott anything Austin Hill writes in the future. I just wasted 7 minutes reading and responding to this tripe that I'll never get back.
Just trying to save y'all some valuable time this Sunday.
Boycott Austin Hill.
my only issue w CFA: even a basic meal is over 1200 calories, that is a truckload.
although i give them really high marks for the website that lets you design your mean and analyze that.
one of these days i have to get a spicy chicken sandwich and the waffle fries and a shake. but not today. bathroom scale says no
Never been in a Starbucks. For obvious reasons.
Amen, bro.
Be encouraged. You are NOT the only one. We simply choose to make our decisions without making a spectacle of ourselves or destroying public property in the process.
I love music but I don't watch MTV because of the filth.
And I wouldn't watch even if they threw in a few Perry Como videos. If CMT starts airing Gangsta Rap, I'll stop watching that channel, too. I don't give a flying fig what moral relativists like Austin Hill thinks of me for it.
I fart in his general direction.
Neither have I, and never will
If you don’t like to read him, that is your prerogative, but you can’t demand that other freepers don’t!!!
He just did. Now what?
Who do we “picket” the SCOTUS? IRS? BATFE? NSA?
MTV hasn't had music since the mid 90s..
An important distinction.
I hope Mr. Cathy is thinking of expanding franchises in Russia. I think Mr. Putin might welcome them there.
Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Austin Hill!
Oh. Wait. You were just being a smart-ass, weren't you?
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.