Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Of all things, what we really need is another luxury lifestyle brand? This is silly. They talk about service and charity, and do this? She is very desperate for attention and status.
Can you explain the connection you're trying to make here?
Yes sure - it is hypocritical.
Because…..
this new venture negates all of their philanthropy??
Because they made a huge stink during their departure from the BFR about "service is universal" and their foundation, and their unique position to contribute to positive change. They are "philanthropists" and "activists" oh but also luxury lifestyle tastemakers and hucksters? It is inconsistent garbage.
I don't view these things as inconsistent. They do in fact need an income stream of some kind, and there's nothing anti-charity or suspect about a lifestyle brand. We'll see what the actual products are and how they are made and distributed (
very easy for them to make missteps here if it turns out their wares are made in factories with underpaid workers in poor conditions, for instance). But I could see an avenue where the company is "mission-focused" -- say partnering with businesses owned by women and POC, who have good records on how they treat employees. I could also see them creating a charity focus with a certain percent of revenue, or all revenue from specific products, going to Archewell or Invictus or some of the other charities they've worked with. It would be an easy way to raise money for those organizations if it's successful.
It's definitely not hypocritical in terms of their desire to effect positive change. At least not yet. If it's a bunch of overpriced garbage stamped with "Made in Thailand," I reserve the right to change my mind.