Q for our brand mgmt experts - Delta faces boycott threats for stance on new Georgia voting law
We're veering dangerously close to Tug territory here, so I urge everyone to stay on their best behavior. But this particular angle has less to do with the law itself, and more to do with Delta deciding to proactively sprint into such a hot political issue.
2020 was a year that saw corporate America act as a collective weathercock and put out countless statements with generic support for all of the hot-button cultural issues. My read is that most executives are generally loathe to wade into these waters and much prefer the business of old whereby money was the only politics that mattered. Hard to say if this moment is short lived or if the agnostic days of old are gone forever.
What's curious about this case is that Delta would seemingly choose to stick their neck out to voice support for an issue that they knew was going to buy them blowback from the Twitter crowd. What am I missing here? What the fuck does Delta have to gain for taking a stance here? I'm sure there's a business rationale buried in here somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.
Comments
-
I can't see how this would work. There are only so many flights and so many seats. People aren't going to adjust their vacation days because of Delta. This is just nonsense
-
Not to mention Delta is leagues better than American or those dog killers, United.greenblood said:I can't see how this would work. There are only so many flights and so many seats. People aren't going to adjust their vacation days because of Delta. This is just nonsense
-
I’m not a marketing expert, but I do know that these boycotts are generally not going endanger any company’s bottom line, only their reputation. A good read on the subject:
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2017/king-corporate-boycotts.html
Granted, this article was written in 2017, which was certainly a completely different world.
I agree that this made zero sense for Delta to do, but I also suspect they’ll weather any backlash. -
Early returns show no impact on Delta's stock price.Doog_de_Jour said:I’m not a marketing expert, but I do know that these boycotts are generally not going endanger any company’s bottom line, only their reputation. A good read on the subject:
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2017/king-corporate-boycotts.html
Granted, this article was written in 2017, which was certainly a completely different world.
I agree that this made zero sense for Delta to do, but I also suspect they’ll weather any backlash.
To the authors point re: reputation suffering but not sales, it'll be interesting to see if these sorts of things have any long term impacts on the company's prospects due to an alleged reputation hit. I suspect not, but I'm also not sure that that's data we'll ever be able to get. -
And airlines already have a horrible reputationDoog_de_Jour said:I’m not a marketing expert, but I do know that these boycotts are generally not going endanger any company’s bottom line, only their reputation. A good read on the subject:
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2017/king-corporate-boycotts.html
Granted, this article was written in 2017, which was certainly a completely different world.
I agree that this made zero sense for Delta to do, but I also suspect they’ll weather any backlash. -
My take: nobody is ever going to make a flight decision based on culture war stuff. They're going with their favorite airlines and price. "Favorite" is less about brand, IMO, and more about their collective flight experiences. I like Delta, and I'm selfish, like most people, and so unless they are supporting something that truly sickens me, I'm flying with them if the ticket price is close.GreenRiverGatorz said:https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2021/03/29/delta-georgia-voting-law-boycott/
We're veering dangerously close to Tug territory here, so I urge everyone to stay on their best behavior. But this particular angle has less to do with the law itself, and more to do with Delta deciding to proactively sprint into such a hot political issue.
2020 was a year that saw corporate America act as a collective weathercock and put out countless statements with generic support for all of the hot-button cultural issues. My read is that most executives are generally loathe to wade into these waters and much prefer the business of old whereby money was the only politics that mattered. Hard to say if this moment is short lived or if the agnostic days of old are gone forever.
What's curious about this case is that Delta would seemingly choose to stick their neck out to voice support for an issue that they knew was going to buy them blowback from the Twitter crowd. What am I missing here? What the fuck does Delta have to gain for taking a stance here? I'm sure there's a business rationale buried in here somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.
Plus, there are the loyalty programs. Once you've committed to one or two airlines, you tend to want to keep racking up rewards when you travel.
Yeah, there are those marginal folks who are all hopped up. But then again, the entire Aberdeen crowd was set to boycott "Fakebook" and about 40 other channels of entertainment. Like @RaceBannon , they haven't moved.
Mostly people are full of shit. Talk a big game online, but IRL they do what they want to do.
Bottom line: agree with your take, but with a twist. Nothing to gain, and really nothing to lose. NOC. -
To tie it back to this place:
"Better fares, seats and upgrades for me!"
It is a pretty bizarre statement for DL to put out unless the GA legislature needed their back scratched by one of the most important GA companies, and DL is getting very favorable treatment elsewhere. Which.... would not shock me.
Maybe they lose a few ticket sales when price and schedule are the same against another airline by ticket purchasers with no airline loyalty, but airlines get boycotted all the time for one reason or another. Valujet is about the only one who ever met their demise this way and it was due to getting grounded by the FAA for a month.
Either way it won't be interesting and DL already has the data on whether they have been materially impacted or not. -
Yup. I think consumers usually have the mentality of “love the art but not the artist” when it comes to companies.creepycoug said:
My take: nobody is ever going to make a flight decision based on culture war stuff. They're going with their favorite airlines and price. "Favorite" is less about brand, IMO, and more about their collective flight experiences. I like Delta, and I'm selfish, like most people, and so unless they are supporting something that truly sickens me, I'm flying with them if the ticket price is close.GreenRiverGatorz said:https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2021/03/29/delta-georgia-voting-law-boycott/
We're veering dangerously close to Tug territory here, so I urge everyone to stay on their best behavior. But this particular angle has less to do with the law itself, and more to do with Delta deciding to proactively sprint into such a hot political issue.
2020 was a year that saw corporate America act as a collective weathercock and put out countless statements with generic support for all of the hot-button cultural issues. My read is that most executives are generally loathe to wade into these waters and much prefer the business of old whereby money was the only politics that mattered. Hard to say if this moment is short lived or if the agnostic days of old are gone forever.
What's curious about this case is that Delta would seemingly choose to stick their neck out to voice support for an issue that they knew was going to buy them blowback from the Twitter crowd. What am I missing here? What the fuck does Delta have to gain for taking a stance here? I'm sure there's a business rationale buried in here somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.
Plus, there are the loyalty programs. Once you've committed to one or two airlines, you tend to want to keep racking up rewards when you travel.
Yeah, there are those marginal folks who are all hopped up. But then again, the entire Aberdeen crowd was set to boycott "Fakebook" and about 40 other channels of entertainment. Like @RaceBannon , they haven't moved.
Mostly people are full of shit. Talk a big game online, but IRL they do what they want to do.
Bottom line: agree with your take, but with a twist. Nothing to gain, and really nothing to lose. NOC.
That’s not to say outrage and protests aren’t a good thing...I do like to see shoe and clothing manufacturers held accountable for mistreating employees in their factories for example, but that can be dealt with by other means. Because of the threat of a boycott has become so disingenuous, all the Twitter posts really are just a bunch of grandstanding. -
Agreed - I am the mullet of airlines guys. Southwest for the cheap close flights/Delta for the long hauls. I'll be damned if I'm changing planes 14 times to go cross-country on SWA. Give me my damned first class seat for that this.creepycoug said:
My take: nobody is ever going to make a flight decision based on culture war stuff. They're going with their favorite airlines and price. "Favorite" is less about brand, IMO, and more about their collective flight experiences. I like Delta, and I'm selfish, like most people, and so unless they are supporting something that truly sickens me, I'm flying with them if the ticket price is close.GreenRiverGatorz said:https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2021/03/29/delta-georgia-voting-law-boycott/
We're veering dangerously close to Tug territory here, so I urge everyone to stay on their best behavior. But this particular angle has less to do with the law itself, and more to do with Delta deciding to proactively sprint into such a hot political issue.
2020 was a year that saw corporate America act as a collective weathercock and put out countless statements with generic support for all of the hot-button cultural issues. My read is that most executives are generally loathe to wade into these waters and much prefer the business of old whereby money was the only politics that mattered. Hard to say if this moment is short lived or if the agnostic days of old are gone forever.
What's curious about this case is that Delta would seemingly choose to stick their neck out to voice support for an issue that they knew was going to buy them blowback from the Twitter crowd. What am I missing here? What the fuck does Delta have to gain for taking a stance here? I'm sure there's a business rationale buried in here somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.
Plus, there are the loyalty programs. Once you've committed to one or two airlines, you tend to want to keep racking up rewards when you travel.
Yeah, there are those marginal folks who are all hopped up. But then again, the entire Aberdeen crowd was set to boycott "Fakebook" and about 40 other channels of entertainment. Like @RaceBannon , they haven't moved.
Mostly people are full of shit. Talk a big game online, but IRL they do what they want to do.
Bottom line: agree with your take, but with a twist. Nothing to gain, and really nothing to lose. NOC.
-
Maybe Delta likes conservative governance in the state where their headquarters are located. Delta approves of having to show ID if you want to absentee vote. But the hit piece that is linked in this thread makes Delta out to be an anti-human rights entity that enjoys denying people water. Lead by super objective Keith Olbermann. Delta has a state government affairs team, I'm sure they "fight" in every state for what they think benefits Delta.GreenRiverGatorz said:https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2021/03/29/delta-georgia-voting-law-boycott/
We're veering dangerously close to Tug territory here, so I urge everyone to stay on their best behavior. But this particular angle has less to do with the law itself, and more to do with Delta deciding to proactively sprint into such a hot political issue.
2020 was a year that saw corporate America act as a collective weathercock and put out countless statements with generic support for all of the hot-button cultural issues. My read is that most executives are generally loathe to wade into these waters and much prefer the business of old whereby money was the only politics that mattered. Hard to say if this moment is short lived or if the agnostic days of old are gone forever.
What's curious about this case is that Delta would seemingly choose to stick their neck out to voice support for an issue that they knew was going to buy them blowback from the Twitter crowd. What am I missing here? What the fuck does Delta have to gain for taking a stance here? I'm sure there's a business rationale buried in here somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.
They should not be dragged through the mud for not supporting the liberal agenda. Is Patagonia or Columbia Sportswear vilified by conservatives who do not support climate change?
I don't think this is so much Delta sticking it's neck out as it is the liberal contingency flying off the handle.
