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.
Remember the conservative members and that includes Chief Justice Roberts disagreed with the liberal Justices? So Why picket SCOTUS? Any of the other 3 is a good suggestion though
I would not blame him
Excellent point
I won’t go to Starbucks because it’s not fun to be snarled at for saying “medium” instead of using the Italian word for twenty (venti-20 ounces-ooohhh-so-cute)
Now, I stop in to Chick-fil-A as much as I used to while at UNC, when they were my favorite fast food on campus.
But, I do NOT go to or buy Starbucks any more, even on long haul road trips.
I've found that McD's coffee is usually pretty good and they're everywhere. MUCH cheaper, too.
Looks to me like things have worked out just fine and I am at peace. Thanks for the lesson!
Uh, yeah. It’s all good, though, MTV, like Austin Hill, sucks..
Since moving to FL, We’ve been hanging out at the CFA in Brooksville. They do their part in “giving back” to the community by holding charity cruise nights the first Tuesday of every month. And their peach thickshakes are delicious.
I went to Starbucks once years ago. Never understood why people would pay so much money for one cup of coffee when, at that time, I could buy a pound of Folgers or Dunkin’ Donuts for less than they charged for one cup. It was a matter of pure economics in our family long before it became an issue of boycotting because of their supporting gay marriage and not supporting the 2nd Amendment.
CFA is, however, another story, particularly since it’s peach shake season.
LOL! Are you saying you think Putin is “all that and a bag of chips”?
i wont go to 4bucks, first their coffee sucks second they were charging people during 911 for bottled water and third the despicable ad they released after the collapse of the towers.
http://www.connectingwithconsumers.net/public/starbucks2.jpg
What the.....?
I worked in Nashville at the Music City Sheraton Hotel in the early 90s when Starbucks was introduced. They gave us some to try and put it in the guests room. I like my coffee strong, but not that strong.
Boycotting doesn't necessary mean to stand in front of a business and make a bunch of noice
The article does not mention Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz going further and stating that he prefers that those supporting traditional families and other “non-progressive values” not even set foot in a Starbucks. What Dan Cathy said was merely stating an opinion. What Schultz did was very publicly - at a shareholders meeting - insult part of his customer base. Well, how is that going to work out for you, Mr. Schultz?
0bamaDontCare.
" taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito."
bump
Tastes like a cigar that’s been sitting in hot water for 3 days.
Now, that's the proper attitude, IMO. Well-said.
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.
