I’m writing in response to a classmate’s blog on “Taking a Stance on Social Issues.” I think its interesting how people get involved in social problems and how it’s perceived. In her blog Kate states that it’s more than just a new way to hit a wider audience and I’d be curious to hear more why exactly.
Yes more and more companies are coming out as gay friendly or taking stances on other social issues but I would argue against the fact that they are trying to accomplish something bigger. It would be hard without sitting in on all of the conversations happening at some of these major companies to see exactly what their bottom line is. Our culture is honoring, more and more, the gay rights movement. In fact it’s almost one of the biggest risks in our nation to come out against the gay rights movement as a company. The cost it has had even on religious institutions has been felt across the board. Companies that come out in favor of some of the social changes are receiving huge benefits for doing so.
So my question than is, if the roles were reversed and Target or other ad companies were put into a situation of which it cost them to take a stance on a social issue would they? If this was the case that Target desired to take a stance on a social issue wouldn’t they have done it when it was a risk? It wasn’t until the point that it was beneficial to the company to take a stance before they had done so. In the end I can only assume this is a result of shifting ads in response to culture for a financial gain, not for attempting to advocate for social and political change.
I’m not attempting to take a stance either way in this blog, what I am attempting to say is that it’s hard to assume a company taking a stance that is fairly universally honored at this point isn’t an indicator that they are advocating for anything other than broadening their audience.