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. -
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats. -
If you bring your 12 brothers and sisters and at least four of your wives (we only have one girl ... hi @Doog_de_Jour ), I’ll overlook this brazen attempt at inserting a Tug into the Club.89ute said:
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. -
Us? Utah guysm can be a little simpleton at times. I’ll take my pod @89ute to the Salt Lake Cuntry Club for an etiquette lesson.creepycoug said:
If you bring your 12 brothers and sisters and at least four of your wives (we only have one girl ... hi @Doog_de_Jour ), I’ll overlook this brazen attempt at inserting a Tug into the Club.89ute said:
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.
We have a meaningful, IRL frenship of the kind Bob really admires. -
I really thought I kept an even keel.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats.
I don't find what Delta did much of a head scratcher. The fact that they openly supported a conservative viewpoint may be a beginning. Nobody questions a company supporting a progressive or liberal view. No cries for boycott. It's become acceptable. I am thinking Delta did this to show other companies it's okay to have a conservative viewpoint. Other than Chick-fil-A, not many if any mainstream companies have supported something conservative. It's not going to hurt Delta in my opinion. If other companies start to do similar things than maybe my opinion of what Delta is doing might be correct. If it's okay to be progressive, why can't it be okay to be conservative? I think this is what Delta is doing. -
Well then I'll give you credit for that take. I don't particularly subscribe to it since their stance was scripted as very "both sides", but hats off to them if they truly are trying to be a first mover among blue chip companies going against the zeitgeist.89ute said:
I really thought I kept an even keel.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats.
I don't find what Delta did much of a head scratcher. The fact that they openly supported a conservative viewpoint may be a beginning. Nobody questions a company supporting a progressive or liberal view. No cries for boycott. It's become acceptable. I am thinking Delta did this to show other companies it's okay to have a conservative viewpoint. Other than Chick-fil-A, not many if any mainstream companies have supported something conservative. It's not going to hurt Delta in my opinion. If other companies start to do similar things than maybe my opinion of what Delta is doing might be correct. If it's okay to be progressive, why can't it be okay to be conservative? I think this is what Delta is doing. -
I myself agree with @GreenRiverGatorz : If it doesn’t at least indirectly relate to flying I’m not using valuable company airspace on it. I no more look to Delta for moral guidance than I look to Brad Pitt.89ute said:
I really thought I kept an even keel.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats.
I don't find what Delta did much of a head scratcher. The fact that they openly supported a conservative viewpoint may be a beginning. Nobody questions a company supporting a progressive or liberal view. No cries for boycott. It's become acceptable. I am thinking Delta did this to show other companies it's okay to have a conservative viewpoint. Other than Chick-fil-A, not many if any mainstream companies have supported something conservative. It's not going to hurt Delta in my opinion. If other companies start to do similar things than maybe my opinion of what Delta is doing might be correct. If it's okay to be progressive, why can't it be okay to be conservative? I think this is what Delta is doing. -
Airlines all know that they are sharing the same customerscreepycoug 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. -
-
@SledogRaceBannon said:Q?
-
You did. We're just here for your amusement in the hopes that you will bring your extended (89ute said:
I really thought I kept an even keel.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats.
I don't find what Delta did much of a head scratcher. The fact that they openly supported a conservative viewpoint may be a beginning. Nobody questions a company supporting a progressive or liberal view. No cries for boycott. It's become acceptable. I am thinking Delta did this to show other companies it's okay to have a conservative viewpoint. Other than Chick-fil-A, not many if any mainstream companies have supported something conservative. It's not going to hurt Delta in my opinion. If other companies start to do similar things than maybe my opinion of what Delta is doing might be correct. If it's okay to be progressive, why can't it be okay to be conservative? I think this is what Delta is doing.
) family to the Club. We're trolling for clicks. -
LOL an airline trying to win business in NYC, Seattle and Los Angeles (not to mention Boston and Austin) in super competitive environments isn’t going to be like “you know, going against the progressive grain is the way to the customer’s heart”.89ute said:
I really thought I kept an even keel.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats.
I don't find what Delta did much of a head scratcher. The fact that they openly supported a conservative viewpoint may be a beginning. Nobody questions a company supporting a progressive or liberal view. No cries for boycott. It's become acceptable. I am thinking Delta did this to show other companies it's okay to have a conservative viewpoint. Other than Chick-fil-A, not many if any mainstream companies have supported something conservative. It's not going to hurt Delta in my opinion. If other companies start to do similar things than maybe my opinion of what Delta is doing might be correct. If it's okay to be progressive, why can't it be okay to be conservative? I think this is what Delta is doing.
Again, this is mostly immaterial to the airline ticket buying decision process, but there is no way they thought going conservative was a good strategy considering their most competitive core markets. They did this for other reasons. -
Can you think of a reason? It's all I could come up with. I always question why a company or entertainer would go political to begin with. It's stupid. Ego probably? Can't resist exploiting your platform to stoke the ego?whlinder said:
LOL an airline trying to win business in NYC, Seattle and Los Angeles (not to mention Boston and Austin) in super competitive environments isn’t going to be like “you know, going against the progressive grain is the way to the customer’s heart”.89ute said:
I really thought I kept an even keel.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats.
I don't find what Delta did much of a head scratcher. The fact that they openly supported a conservative viewpoint may be a beginning. Nobody questions a company supporting a progressive or liberal view. No cries for boycott. It's become acceptable. I am thinking Delta did this to show other companies it's okay to have a conservative viewpoint. Other than Chick-fil-A, not many if any mainstream companies have supported something conservative. It's not going to hurt Delta in my opinion. If other companies start to do similar things than maybe my opinion of what Delta is doing might be correct. If it's okay to be progressive, why can't it be okay to be conservative? I think this is what Delta is doing.
Again, this is mostly immaterial to the airline ticket buying decision process, but there is no way they thought going conservative was a good strategy considering their most competitive core markets. They did this for other reasons.
Agree it is immaterial to ticket buying decision. So now I'm back to thinking they just want to be heard. -
doubt there's any impact.
all the people on twitter trying to 'boycott' delta can only afford to fly frontier anyway. -
I think they’re trying to support the GA legislature in exchange for support on what Delta actually wants. Tax breaks, grants, whatever.89ute said:
Can you think of a reason? It's all I could come up with. I always question why a company or entertainer would go political to begin with. It's stupid. Ego probably? Can't resist exploiting your platform to stoke the ego?whlinder said:
LOL an airline trying to win business in NYC, Seattle and Los Angeles (not to mention Boston and Austin) in super competitive environments isn’t going to be like “you know, going against the progressive grain is the way to the customer’s heart”.89ute said:
I really thought I kept an even keel.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats.
I don't find what Delta did much of a head scratcher. The fact that they openly supported a conservative viewpoint may be a beginning. Nobody questions a company supporting a progressive or liberal view. No cries for boycott. It's become acceptable. I am thinking Delta did this to show other companies it's okay to have a conservative viewpoint. Other than Chick-fil-A, not many if any mainstream companies have supported something conservative. It's not going to hurt Delta in my opinion. If other companies start to do similar things than maybe my opinion of what Delta is doing might be correct. If it's okay to be progressive, why can't it be okay to be conservative? I think this is what Delta is doing.
Again, this is mostly immaterial to the airline ticket buying decision process, but there is no way they thought going conservative was a good strategy considering their most competitive core markets. They did this for other reasons.
Agree it is immaterial to ticket buying decision. So now I'm back to thinking they just want to be heard. -
Which seems like an odd tactic. A few quick campaign donations would be a much easier road than braving the Twitter mob and a potential reputation hit.whlinder said:
I think they’re trying to support the GA legislature in exchange for support on what Delta actually wants. Tax breaks, grants, whatever.89ute said:
Can you think of a reason? It's all I could come up with. I always question why a company or entertainer would go political to begin with. It's stupid. Ego probably? Can't resist exploiting your platform to stoke the ego?whlinder said:
LOL an airline trying to win business in NYC, Seattle and Los Angeles (not to mention Boston and Austin) in super competitive environments isn’t going to be like “you know, going against the progressive grain is the way to the customer’s heart”.89ute said:
I really thought I kept an even keel.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats.
I don't find what Delta did much of a head scratcher. The fact that they openly supported a conservative viewpoint may be a beginning. Nobody questions a company supporting a progressive or liberal view. No cries for boycott. It's become acceptable. I am thinking Delta did this to show other companies it's okay to have a conservative viewpoint. Other than Chick-fil-A, not many if any mainstream companies have supported something conservative. It's not going to hurt Delta in my opinion. If other companies start to do similar things than maybe my opinion of what Delta is doing might be correct. If it's okay to be progressive, why can't it be okay to be conservative? I think this is what Delta is doing.
Again, this is mostly immaterial to the airline ticket buying decision process, but there is no way they thought going conservative was a good strategy considering their most competitive core markets. They did this for other reasons.
Agree it is immaterial to ticket buying decision. So now I'm back to thinking they just want to be heard. -
This thing might start to get a little bigger. Merck CEO and former Amex CEO are going to be on CNBC to seemingly drum up support to fight against "restrictive" voting laws, asking companies to take a direct stance against these types of laws.
So, can we add Merck to this discussion? This looks to be a very firm stance against where Delta's stance was more neutral with a definite lean for the law.
This reminds me of the .... okay, I'll say "demonstrations" because we're not in the Tug, we saw this summer where innocent outside diners were forced by roving groups of people to state a position on a social issue.
-
I'm genuinely fascinated to see what comes out of that. This seems like such a bizarre, no-win issue to take a stance on. And it would be one thing to simply not kowtow to the popular woke flavors of the day, but to go against it would be an unironic #profileincourage. But again, bizarre from a strategy standpoint, especially since Amex and Delta were certainly part of the milquetoast corporate support for BLM.89ute said:This thing might start to get a little bigger. Merck CEO and former Amex CEO are going to be on CNBC to seemingly drum up support to fight against "restrictive" voting laws, asking companies to take a direct stance against these types of laws.
So, can we add Merck to this discussion? This looks to be a very firm stance against where Delta's stance was more neutral with a definite lean for the law.
This reminds me of the .... okay, I'll say "demonstrations" because we're not in the Tug, we saw this summer where innocent outside diners were forced by roving groups of people to state a position on a social issue.
EWIWBI -
Delta caved
Delta CEO calls new Georgia voting law 'unacceptable'
This is what started all the backlash against Delta:
Delta believes that full and equal access to voting is a fundamental right for all citizens. Over the past several weeks, Delta engaged extensively with state elected officials in both parties to express our strong view that Georgia must have a fair and secure election process, with broad voter participation and equal access to the polls. The legislation signed this week improved considerably during the legislative process, and expands weekend voting, codifies Sunday voting and protects a voter’s ability to cast an absentee ballot without providing a reason. For the first time, drop boxes have also been authorized for all counties statewide and poll workers will be allowed to work across county lines. Nonetheless, we understand concerns remain over other provisions in the legislation, and there continues to be work ahead in this important effort. We are committed to continuing to listen to our people and our communities, and engage with leaders from both parties to ensure every eligible employee and Georgia voter can exercise their right to vote.
For Delta to now say "unacceptable" seems to be pretty far from what they were saying a few days ago.
-
While the government has ensured the major airlines won’t go bankrupt, all their expenses are under major scrutiny. FREE PUB!!! in the form of support for their people, is of course free.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Which seems like an odd tactic. A few quick campaign donations would be a much easier road than braving the Twitter mob and a potential reputation hit.whlinder said:
I think they’re trying to support the GA legislature in exchange for support on what Delta actually wants. Tax breaks, grants, whatever.89ute said:
Can you think of a reason? It's all I could come up with. I always question why a company or entertainer would go political to begin with. It's stupid. Ego probably? Can't resist exploiting your platform to stoke the ego?whlinder said:
LOL an airline trying to win business in NYC, Seattle and Los Angeles (not to mention Boston and Austin) in super competitive environments isn’t going to be like “you know, going against the progressive grain is the way to the customer’s heart”.89ute said:
I really thought I kept an even keel.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Read the room, maybe PM @iDawg. I think we're all on the same page. Though you have some hair trigger urges that should perhaps be unloaded in the Tug before you come back.89ute said:
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.
The liberal mob you're ranting about is a well known given. Hence the head scratcher of Delta intentionally jumping into that pit of rats.
I don't find what Delta did much of a head scratcher. The fact that they openly supported a conservative viewpoint may be a beginning. Nobody questions a company supporting a progressive or liberal view. No cries for boycott. It's become acceptable. I am thinking Delta did this to show other companies it's okay to have a conservative viewpoint. Other than Chick-fil-A, not many if any mainstream companies have supported something conservative. It's not going to hurt Delta in my opinion. If other companies start to do similar things than maybe my opinion of what Delta is doing might be correct. If it's okay to be progressive, why can't it be okay to be conservative? I think this is what Delta is doing.
Again, this is mostly immaterial to the airline ticket buying decision process, but there is no way they thought going conservative was a good strategy considering their most competitive core markets. They did this for other reasons.
Agree it is immaterial to ticket buying decision. So now I'm back to thinking they just want to be heard.
Of course now that they’ve changed their position who knows what will come of this. -
Its a fool's game. Now everyone hates them
