Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no companies, if any, have been materially impacted by silliness like this. The Bud Light debacle notwithstanding, companies usually do what they think is best for sales, earnings, and their stock prices; they are not motivated by tiny numbers of small customers proclaiming they'll spend their pennies elsewhere.

What about Target?

Absolutely Target was. Ditto the Washington Post.

Declines in sales at both companies are unrelated to "boycotts". They are instead reflective of changing consumer tastes and rising costs. Target's merchandise mix was losing appeal, and it had not fully exploited technology to streamline operations. Online sales at Target are growing, consistent with broader trends in the industry, where brick and mortar stores of all kinds have been losing business to virtual competitors. The Post has been dealing with a subscriber base unwilling to pay for physical newspapers which have become increasingly expensive to produce, and of course has lost advertising revenue to competing online platforms. Those factors have affected all newspapers.

Noticing a company has seen declining sales, and crowing that it must be because of a trivial consumer boycott is to draw an incorrect conclusion from a false premise. Correlation is not causation; actual market forces clearly account for those sales declines, not politically driven behavior by a handful of low-spending consumers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no companies, if any, have been materially impacted by silliness like this. The Bud Light debacle notwithstanding, companies usually do what they think is best for sales, earnings, and their stock prices; they are not motivated by tiny numbers of small customers proclaiming they'll spend their pennies elsewhere.

What about Target?

Absolutely Target was. Ditto the Washington Post.

Declines in sales at both companies are unrelated to "boycotts". They are instead reflective of changing consumer tastes and rising costs. Target's merchandise mix was losing appeal, and it had not fully exploited technology to streamline operations. Online sales at Target are growing, consistent with broader trends in the industry, where brick and mortar stores of all kinds have been losing business to virtual competitors. The Post has been dealing with a subscriber base unwilling to pay for physical newspapers which have become increasingly expensive to produce, and of course has lost advertising revenue to competing online platforms. Those factors have affected all newspapers.

Noticing a company has seen declining sales, and crowing that it must be because of a trivial consumer boycott is to draw an incorrect conclusion from a false premise. Correlation is not causation; actual market forces clearly account for those sales declines, not politically driven behavior by a handful of low-spending consumers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no companies, if any, have been materially impacted by silliness like this. The Bud Light debacle notwithstanding, companies usually do what they think is best for sales, earnings, and their stock prices; they are not motivated by tiny numbers of small customers proclaiming they'll spend their pennies elsewhere.

What about Target?

Absolutely Target was. Ditto the Washington Post.