- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Patronage Versus Boycotts
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:13 pm
Boycotts are fricking stupid. They rarely work, and they seem to be the primary tool of the progressives/regressives. They are glorified temper tantrums.
Patronage works.It's proactive versus reactive. Support the companies that mirror your ideals. Patronage seems to be the tool of the conservatives. It works. It boosts sales and promotes companies like Black Rifle Coffee or Chik Fil A.
Thoughts?
Patronage works.It's proactive versus reactive. Support the companies that mirror your ideals. Patronage seems to be the tool of the conservatives. It works. It boosts sales and promotes companies like Black Rifle Coffee or Chik Fil A.
Thoughts?
10
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:14 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:i fricking hate when my lunch becomes a political statement
Thoughts?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:15 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
I don't have time to pitch a bitch fit in the streets, but my wallet can speak loudly.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:16 pm to bamarep
quote:
I don't have time to pitch a bitch fit in the streets, but my wallet can speak loudly.
At the moment, mine is kind of like that guy who doesn't know how to whisper, just an audible, breathy statement.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:16 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
rarely work
quote:
progressives/regressives
Fits like a glove
quote:
Patronage works
Why yes it does
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:17 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
I agree with what you're saying, although I think boycotts (twisted as they are today) are more effective.
My argument would be that I don't think many people/companies look at Chick-fil-a and go "hey look at that model, we can do that because they do that."
Unfortunately, I do think a lot of companies go "ohhhh look at (some liberal target) getting skewered on Twitter. We should overreact on Twitter."
Plus to make our stuff work, we really need the company to be kind of exceptional.
My argument would be that I don't think many people/companies look at Chick-fil-a and go "hey look at that model, we can do that because they do that."
Unfortunately, I do think a lot of companies go "ohhhh look at (some liberal target) getting skewered on Twitter. We should overreact on Twitter."
Plus to make our stuff work, we really need the company to be kind of exceptional.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:19 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
You're right, but I liked it better when I didn't know what a companies' stance on political issues were. I could just buy coffee I liked. Now, I have to avoid Starbucks because their CEO is a social justice warrior asshat. Thankfully there are many other options.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:21 pm to Pettifogger
Good points all around.
Boycotts are brash and visible, although short lived for the most part. They definitely get the publicity for any given cause.
Patronage is quiet but sustainable, if the product is good or exceptional. So, I think patronage is better, but you're right that it doesn't make the "statement" an announced boycott does, even if it's forgotten in a few weeks.
Boycotts are brash and visible, although short lived for the most part. They definitely get the publicity for any given cause.
Patronage is quiet but sustainable, if the product is good or exceptional. So, I think patronage is better, but you're right that it doesn't make the "statement" an announced boycott does, even if it's forgotten in a few weeks.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:23 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
Boycotts are fricking stupid. They rarely work, and they seem to be the primary tool of the progressives/regressives.
quote:
Patronage works
Wait, what?
So, if I like McDonalds but they do something that makes me angry. Burger King then does something that makes me happy. According to your logic, I should still buy from McDonalds and buy from Burger King also. So, should I now buy two meals, one from each? If I just go to Burger King, doesn't that then become a boycott of McDonalds?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:25 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
Patronage is quiet but sustainable, if the product is good or exceptional. So, I think patronage is better, but you're right that it doesn't make the "statement" an announced boycott does, even if it's forgotten in a few weeks.
Agreed. Patronage is sustainable, but why?
The coffee company will be a wait and see thing obviously. For CFA, I eat there because it's pretty good, pleasant, and I basically grew up with the corporate structure in my backyard and it was always around my childhood. Only after those things do I elect to go there over politics/faith/etc.
I think we should certainly support good companies that put out good products (and take tough stances we agree with). I just think it's harder to use it for advocacy/messaging, because, as you said, it's inherently a quiet act of support.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:25 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
A boycott is only effective when you boycott the actual problem.
Montgomery Bus Lines was a problem, so people boycotted Montgomery Bus Lines. That makes sense, and the boycott was successful and historic.
When Sandra Fluke petitions Congress for easier access to birth control, and Rush Limbaugh calls her a slut, and Netflix advertises on Rush Limbaugh, so you boycott Netflix for that, that's a stupid boycott since Netflix isn't the problem.
It's quite simple. Find out what's the problem, and boycott that. If you can't follow that principle, your boycott will ultimately be much ado about nothing.
Montgomery Bus Lines was a problem, so people boycotted Montgomery Bus Lines. That makes sense, and the boycott was successful and historic.
When Sandra Fluke petitions Congress for easier access to birth control, and Rush Limbaugh calls her a slut, and Netflix advertises on Rush Limbaugh, so you boycott Netflix for that, that's a stupid boycott since Netflix isn't the problem.
It's quite simple. Find out what's the problem, and boycott that. If you can't follow that principle, your boycott will ultimately be much ado about nothing.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:27 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
I'm a believer in both, as I want to minimize my money spent being used to undermine the advancement of my own beliefs. And I also like supporting people like the Cathys.
But they can be an inconvenience or hassle. For example, ordered some LL Bean jeans instead of Levis I could get at Academy (which is a 2-for-1 in this context). Was a pain in the arse and I took a gamble on them fitting without me having to return them. I also have extra incentive to avoid the shittiness of Target.
But they can be an inconvenience or hassle. For example, ordered some LL Bean jeans instead of Levis I could get at Academy (which is a 2-for-1 in this context). Was a pain in the arse and I took a gamble on them fitting without me having to return them. I also have extra incentive to avoid the shittiness of Target.
This post was edited on 2/13/17 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:59 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:Not to throw off the intent of your troll thread, but isn't it effectively the same thing?
Patronage Versus Boycotts
Boycotts are fricking stupid. They rarely work, and they seem to be the primary tool of the progressives/regressives. They are glorified temper tantrums.
Patronage works.It's proactive versus reactive. Support the companies that mirror your ideals. Patronage seems to be the tool of the conservatives.
If you show patronage for one place, it effectively boycotts another.
And those who boycotted places that allowed/or considered allowing boys in girls' bathrooms; those were progressives?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 1:27 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
Boycotts are fricking stupid. They rarely work, and they seem to be the primary tool of the progressives/regressives.
quote:
Patronage seems to be the tool of the conservatives.
You're kidding, right?
There a rash of "conservative" boycott threads on this board constantly.
The NFL, NBA, Uber (or Lyft still not sure which one), the Grammies, The Oscars, Macy's, Kellogs, GrubHub, Starbucks, Target, Apple and/or Google and/or Microsoft.
I can barely keep up.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News