November 24, 2023 • 50 mins
In this episode of "The Middle with Jeremy Hobson," we ask if brand politics matters to you, and if a company's political or social stances make an impact on the products you buy. Jeremy is joined by Nooshin Warren, a professor of Marketing at the University of Arizona and Micki Maynard, a business journalist and author from Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Middle's house DJ Tolliver joins as well, plus callers from around the country.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Jeremy Hobson and I am here today with our
house DJ Tolliver.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Hi Tolliver, Hey Jeremy.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
How's it going, man?
Speaker 1 (00:13):
It's going well.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
And I have a question for you, which is is
there a brand that you are very loyal too?
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (00:21):
That's a super easy one because I'm literally looking at
my phone right now. Apple is the kind that I'm mega,
mega mega loyal to. I would do anything for them.
I love you, Tim.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Cook, even though they make you change the chargers that
you have to use like every two years and you
have to buy a new device that doesn't bother you.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Absolutely, I'm a glutton for punishment, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Is there a brand that you don't like because of
their values, their politics something like that.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Yeah, just early on it, you know, became locked into
my mind that Nike was, you know, really bad because
of the labor practices. So I just I don't mess
with Nike anymore. I'm an Adidas guy. I'm a Doc
Martin's guy. But Nike no.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
No, Okay, that is good to know, and that is
our question this hour to our listeners. Do your police,
medical and social beliefs play a role in the products
you buy, the sports teams you root for, or the
music you listen to. Or do you prefer to keep
your politics out of your consumer choices. Let's meet our
panel guest today. Joining me from ann Arbor, Michigan is
(01:14):
Mickey Maynard. She is a business journalist and author covering
a range of topics from transportation to food and she
is the author of a number of books, including Satisfaction Guaranteed.
How Zingerman's built a Corner Delly into a global food community.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
Mickey, it's great to have you here.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
Jarremie, thanks so much for having me. It's just wonderful
to know that the middle has gotten off the ground.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Yes, and you were there right at the beginning with
praise and support for us as we were getting going,
So we really appreciate it. Tell me, by the way,
we just mentioned Zingerman's that is an ann Arbor staple
for people who don't know. Does Zingerman's get very political?
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Oh, Zingerman's is definitely an activist company. I would say
they're more interested in social justice than anything else. They're
very supportive of the African America and community here in
Washington County. They are very supportive of Pride community here.
They do many, many things for charity. So yeah, I
wouldn't say party politics, but definitely when it comes to
(02:12):
social issues.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
All right, well, Mickey, we are also joined today by
Nushan Warren, who's a professor of marketing at the University
of Arizona.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
She's in Tucson.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
Nushian welcome, Hi, thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Well, and we invited you in part because we wanted
to invite you, but also because everybody that we called
about this topic, said Nusian Warren is the one, and
that's because you did a big study on the impact
of corporate activism.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
You use a.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Phrase boycott or buycott.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Tell us what that means.
Speaker 5 (02:39):
Briefly, as we're talking about activist firms or firms that
get involved into politics or socio political issues, which then
will include social justice as well. We have a large
group of consumers that might be agreeing with the firm
on what that firm voice is as their own value,
(03:02):
and some that might be actually alienated by this. When
these issues are very close to people's heart on both
sides of political parties, then a group that is angry
about it or do not agree with it might stop
shopping from that firm, and that is what we know
as boycott, and it's more familiar. But on the other side,
(03:24):
there are people who try to overcompensate, shop more and
reward a firm that they believe is a standing up
for values very close to them.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Do you think that kind of thing is happening more
now at Nush and Warren than it used to that
people are really focused on the values of the companies
more than they used to be.
Speaker 5 (03:44):
Absolutely, and there are several reasons for that. One would
be changed that has happened in people's social or political morality,
what they call an issue that is not forgivable in
their opinion. We have the issue of political power of firms,
(04:05):
which increases daily by large firms that are now having
global reach. And third, I think is information accessibility. People
now can have those political debates that used to just
happen once day you're on Thanksgiving tables are now happening
on social media and with a large group of people.
(04:25):
And also they can have easily more information at hand
of what firms are doing, where they're donating, what is
their actual internal practice.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Mickey Maynard, You've spent a career reporting on and writing
about the auto industry, How have politics factored into people's
decisions about the cars they buy historically and today?
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Well, historically, I have to say, I have a number
of Jewish friends who've told me that their parents and
grandparents will never buy German cars.
Speaker 6 (04:53):
Right.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
We certainly heard in Michigan many many people saying we
will never buy Japanese cars. And it wasn't even as
much the war the World War Two. It was that
Japanese vehicles were taking market share away from the Detroit
auto companies in the sixties, seventies and eighties, and so
that fueled some anti Japanese sentiment. More recently, people have
(05:18):
got very upset when there was an Audi sudden acceleration issue.
I think in the early nineteen eighties it really hurt
their sales. And then more recently there was the whole
hidden diesel thing with Volkswagen. And then Toyota had its
own little trip down the Boycott Lane when it was
having trouble with stuck accelerator pedals. So you can go
(05:39):
back and back and back in auto industry history and
kind of the moment that imported cars came to the
United States, somebody was upset about.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Them, nu should Warren.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
How does the auto industry stack up in terms of
the industries that have been affected by people's loyalty or
disloyalty to certain brands.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
It is absolutely affected. Not just auto industry, but any
industries that are especially consumer markets, are always affected by
people's approaches towards this worm. Nothing actually in that discussion
has changed from long ago till now other than what
now counts for me as that behavior that I think
(06:20):
it's inethical. It's something that is crossing my boundaries of
morals and will I then shop from them or not?
When we think about the Jewish family that Maky knowns
that won't buy from German companies, that is a line
that is crossed for them. But these days what is
happening is that there are lines and values that can
(06:40):
get crossed that are related to politics, or there are
social justice issues that can be regulated through politics. Very
recently we had the overturn of viweight. That is something
that the issue itself pro life or pro choice is
not necessarily political, but when it gets regulated and can
(07:01):
create what a group of people might a large group
of people count as injustice towards women, right, then that
becomes that line that when it's crossed, consumers can decide
not to buy from a front.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
And before we get to the phones, let's listen to
something from this year when brand identity and social issues
really collide. You remember that Aneser Busch brought in a
trans TikTok influencer named Dylan mulvaney who did an online
ad for bud Light, and the company got a ton
of pushback and lost a lot of business. Here is
the CEO of aneser Bush, Brendan Whitworth, on CBS Mornings.
(07:37):
Following widespread boycotts of bud Light.
Speaker 7 (07:40):
It's been a challenging few weeks and I think the
conversation surrounding bud Light has moved away from beer and
a conversation has become divisive and bud Light really doesn't
belong there. Bud Light should be all about bringing people together.
And there's been impact on the business and I think
that's publicly covered on bud Light specifically.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Now I looked at the numbers and after that whole
bud Light kerfuffle, the brand remains down around thirty percent
in volume compared to last year. Nushen Warren that was
a big one.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Yes, it was, and that's a very interesting case. Butt
Light is not the first that people have been surprised
by their efforts. And butt Light's consumer base seemed to
be more older generations which were very upset and offended.
So there was a big boycott through older generation more
(08:39):
loyal to this brand, which was predictable. The second thing
that butt Light did that was in my opinion, very
bad a strategy was not a standing by that action.
So this happens. You already have lost a group of
your customers on the more conservative side, and now you
back out out and put your CMO and basically leaders
(09:04):
that were in charge of this action on leaves, which
makes that look very inauthentic to the other group of people.
That to me seemed from the beginning with this action
that butt Light was trying to recruit as consumers, because
if you look at the newer generation, there are more
for craft beer local brands. They're not bot Light buyer
(09:28):
per se. So it was a good strategy to kind
of change the courses and values and bring in these
new generations while inevitably we will lose our older generation
through time. But they did not do it well.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Let's go to a call This is Rob who's in Invergrove, Minnesota.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Hi.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Rob, Hi, how are you doing well? So tell us
tell us how this works out in your mind. Do
you care about a company's politics?
Speaker 8 (09:55):
You know, it kind of depends on how much visibility
they've had. And you know, as far as the bud
Light case goes, I still drink bud Light. That has
an effect to that choice. But if I if I have,
you know, say, two companies side by side and and uh,
(10:16):
I've gleaned information from what's been out on the news,
for example, like Home Goods and Hobby Lobby standing next
to each other, I would probably pick Home Goods over
hobby Lobby just because of uh, the owner of Hobby
Lobby Green's you know, notorieties gotten in the in print.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Because you're you're you're more on the left. Yeah, hobby
Lobby is more on the right, correct, right?
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Interesting? Thank you Rob for that call.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I want to go to Mickey Maynard on this because
I have to think, you know, as as as Rob
is explaining how he thinks about this and how he
doesn't think about this, I have to think that a
lot of people in this country and listening to the
show are saying, well, I don't really care.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
About a brand spot. I just buy what I need.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Now, I think people care, and the reason why people
care is that it's been churned up. If you think
about the world, say, you know, ten or fifteen years ago,
we didn't have the impact of the conservative media, right
wing media that we have now. I mean, we have
a whole massive number of people that watch Fox News,
(11:23):
that go on the websites from the right wing that
honestly don't listen to anything else or watch anything else.
And so if you're in that silo and somebody takes
off against a trans person, or somebody takes off against
a gay person or a woman, there's a bunch of
followers that will go with them. Now, I was actually
(11:44):
very surprised at the impact on bud Light, But bud
Light has a very specific market, and their very specific
market was offended by using a trans person as a spokesperson.
I would not think anything of it. But I'm not
a I'm not the bud Light target customer.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
And let me just take a quick side note break
here to ask you what is your beer of choice?
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Mickey.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
I am a zero alcohol since twenty nineteen, and I've
tried Guinness. I've tried Sam Adams. I've tried the Bats
from Canada, which is actually my favorite.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Okay, Nushen Warren, do you have a favorite beer?
Speaker 5 (12:22):
I do not judge me. I do not like beer.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
I don't judge.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
I'm not This is a non judgmental show.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Tolliver, do you have a favorite beer.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Yeah, let's give a shout out to Surly Brewing Company
in Minnesota. I love their IPAs super z I.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Love a good IPA.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
And before we go to break, I want to tell
you that The Middle with Jeremy Hobson is also available
as a podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts on the
iHeart app or wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome back
to the Middle, where we are bringing voices from the middle, geographically, politically,
(13:03):
whatever the middle means to you. I'm a middle child
by the way, we're bringing them into the national conversation.
I'm Jeremy Hobson. My guests are Nution Warren, professor of
marketing at the University of Arizona and renowned expert on
brand politics, and Mickey Maynard, author and journalist who has
covered business news for decades. She's in ann Arbor, Michigan.
We are asking you how important is a company's politics
to you? Do you care if the companies you buy from,
(13:26):
the athletes you root for, or the musicians you listen
to align with your political or social beliefs. Let's go
actually to another caller here. Katherine is with us from Urbana, Illinois,
my hometown. Catherine, Welcome to.
Speaker 9 (13:41):
The middle, Kathy.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Kathy.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Okay, we're on a first name basis now, So Kathy,
tell us about your feeling about brands and politics.
Speaker 10 (13:50):
Ever since I worked at Planned Parent, who have been
very aware of certain companies that have either donated or
given money to candidates that I did not like care
for because of their politics. And I had boy quite
a few.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
Companies down you do like what?
Speaker 11 (14:07):
Well?
Speaker 10 (14:08):
First of all, Domino's Pizza was one of the very
first ones that I became aware of that their money.
That company was founded by a couple of young men
who wanted to put their money to work against women's
real productive rights. So the profit from Domino's Pizza has
fund aids ecommas Moore University in Michigan, and their primary
(14:29):
job is to train attorneys to fight against women's right.
Speaker 11 (14:33):
And that's when I very.
Speaker 10 (14:34):
First became aware of money making a difference in what
we hear, what we see, and in politics. And so
I haven't had a Domino's pizza in twenty years.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
And you say that's when you first became aware. Did
you then go looking into other companies politics?
Speaker 10 (14:50):
Not necessarily deliberately, but when at the primaries, two of
the big telecommunications company, we're getting money to very right
wing candidates, and I didn't care for their stance on
birth control, on women's rights, on LGBT issues, and so
I switched the T mobile.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Interesting, Well, Kathy, thank you for your call. U shuld Warren,
What do you make of that?
Speaker 5 (15:14):
I think that two things we've been talking about both
when it came to hobbylobby and now when we ask people,
would you go and actively find what firms are doing
and then switch to a firm to shop from because
of their policies? There is, as we call it, negativity bias.
(15:34):
There is this difference that when a firm gets attention
that they are doing activities that you do not like,
it is more likely that you have an action reaction
towards it than going and actively looking for one that
you do like this comes very important when these are
(15:55):
consumer goods that are easy to switch. Applaud people who
can change their cars or their mobile line, which is
very difficult to do as big purchases or contracted purchases.
But it's very easy for people to change their brand
of shoes. It is easy for them to change packaged goods.
(16:17):
So that I think that will happen more. And also
I think that the effects of media and social media,
the effect of polarization of news media, all of that
now is a lot more than before. It's more likely
to happen after we have social media, and it will
make these effects even bigger.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
You know, it's interesting the calls that we've gotten so
far have been it sounds like mostly from people on
the left who are angry at companies being more conservative.
But that's not necessarily against the trend. Here's a survey
from Bentley Gallop Force for Good fifty seven hundred interviews
with US adults in June of twenty twenty two found
(16:57):
that Democrats are more likely than republic and independence to
feel businesses should publicly share their beliefs about social and
cultural issues. Seventy five percent of Democrats say they should
compared with forty percent of independence and eighteen percent of Republicans, Niswarren.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Does that line up with what you've found?
Speaker 5 (17:15):
It does? And the reason is the definition of being
on the liberal side. Liberal is usually changing its reflects change.
Conservative is generally being more conservative towards change. Therefore, the
side that has to push for a change of a
status go happening should be louder.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Mickey, do you think that brands can change people's minds
about social and political issues with their advocacy.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Well, you might look at Nike as an example. You know,
Colin Kaepernick was a very controversial figure when he took
a knee. He's kind of hung out to drive by
the NFL, no one would hire him. Nike made him
a representative, and I think it probably changed I mean
people at the time, there's a lot of rhetoric and
(18:04):
discussion about the whole thing, but I think the fact
that Nike brought him on board probably changed some attitudes
towards Nike because it was a situation of who do
you feel more strongly about Nike or Colin Kaepernick? And
if you were a fan of Nike, then them bringing
in Colin Kaepernick was probably something that made you reconsider
your feelings about him.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Yeah, Tolliver, you mentioned Nike did did Did that that
whole thing with Colin Kaepernick affect your view of Nike
even more? Did you are we're already against Nike?
Speaker 9 (18:35):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:36):
I was sort of like staunchly against Nike. It sort
of felt like something they just sort of threw out
there as like a mea culp almost for their past
in action.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
You know, Nusha Warren, you I heard you nodding there audibly.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
I think that I actually was what you heard was
me thinking about Nike's Colin Kaepernick at being the first
step of my research towards this topic. Because when that happened,
this whole consumers debate and Nike shoes on fire on
social media. I would see that so frequently that I
(19:10):
thought about when firms, why firms do this, and when
they do that, what happens in the long term. Nike
actually or a while lost their sales, but in the
long run got it back. And the reason is if
you are a runner and you are very comfortable running
with Nike shoes, now a year has passed from that
(19:30):
ad and you need new shoes, you probably will brush
it off. And go buy the shoes you were more
comfortable with. A lot of times boycotts will die down.
Not all the generations of boomers and X will stop
buying butt light forever. They will miss it again because
(19:51):
they've been having it. If you're seven years old and
we want to assume that you are a very good child,
fifty years of butt light drinking is at least in
your resume. And it's very difficult to boycott forever because
anger does not last unless the issue becomes so close
to your heart that is unforgivable to a point that
(20:12):
your anger will not die down for that firm.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Mickey Maynard, a minute ago we were talking about Domino's.
I know you had something good to say about that.
Dominoes is based in Michigan, is it not.
Speaker 4 (20:22):
It's based right here in Ann Arbor.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
There you go.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
And so Tom Monahan, who was the CEO, the owner
of founder of Domino's Pizza, is a very conservative Catholic.
He actually actually went to the same church for a
little while, and then I think he thought it was
not conservative enough and he founded his own church, which
is on the grounds of Domino's headquarters. He also wanted
(20:48):
to start a college called ave Maria College, and he
needed a whole bunch of zoning changes in the Ann
Arbor area and people said no. And it really had
nothing to do with the conservative philosophy, but he was
really pushing the envelope in terms of what he wanted
to develop. And he said, Okay, I will take my
college elsewhere, and he took it to Florida. Now, the
(21:11):
interesting thing is, you know he's the church is still there,
there's a convent, and there's actually ave Maria Radio, which
is the largest network of Catholic radio stations in the country.
You know, if you've ever been on a road trip
and only could get AM radio, you might have heard
some of ave Maria's programming or on FM. They're on
FM too. But you know, there's a lot of people
(21:31):
that were upset by that. But I think Domino's during
the pandemic was available to a lot of people and
so if you needed a you know, cheap pizza and
you couldn't go out to eat, they would drop it
off on your porch. So I kind of feel like
maybe some of that has been forgotten, although certainly not
for our caller.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Well, and you know, you mentioned Florida and Dominoes went
to Florida. We are definitely going to talk about Florida
in our next segment because that has been in the
news a lot with the dize, the Florida fight that
has been going on between Governor Ron De Santis, Republican,
and of course Disney and Disney World. Let's get to
another call that we have right now. We'll go to
(22:13):
Daniel in Philadelphia. Daniel, Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 8 (22:17):
Thank you, it's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Well, it's great to have you. And tell us. Tell
us how this topic hits you.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
How do you do How much do you care about
a brand's politics or company's politics.
Speaker 11 (22:26):
You know, I generally don't care much about it until
I care about it. I guess, for example, I don't
drink light beer. I don't buy light beer, but I
can tell you that if I did, I'm not buying.
Speaker 8 (22:39):
Any bugweisers what.
Speaker 11 (22:40):
So I was almost you know, I consider myself a
little right of center kind of guy, progressive in many ways,
maybe fiscally conservative. So I guess i'd sit the middle
by you know, bio. But generally generally I don't look
for that. But it doesn't hurt as a as a
tailwind or are positive, but it I guess it can
(23:02):
be a factor for me when it's overt and it's
kind of in your face. So yes, I think it does.
I don't consciously look for that, but I think advertising
should be relatively neutral and focus on features, benefits, funny
ways of marketing things. But today it's taken on a
(23:23):
different kind of a different level of energy. I guess
it's a good way to say it.
Speaker 8 (23:29):
I think.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
So you were turned off a butt light because of
Dylan mulvaney.
Speaker 11 (23:34):
I knew nothing about it until I heard about the controversy,
and I thought it was hilarious. I was actually happy
to hear it, and I was somewhat encouraged that. You know,
consumers fought back and pushed back, and then you know,
as you analyze the whole thing, you think you realize
(23:54):
what an incredible blunder on the part of a marketing team,
group of the top professionals on the planet selling beer,
which is all about knowing your consumer, knowing how to
position it for the consumer, and how they could just
blunder so so you know, profoundly to have such horribly
(24:19):
negative impact on the company and the brand.
Speaker 9 (24:22):
I'm shocked.
Speaker 11 (24:23):
I was just shocked by what I was I thought
it was kind of funny, and I thought it was
kind of I was a little encouraged a you know,
the average consumer to sit and sit there and say, oh, yeah,
this is the new way they market things, and they
really pushed back. So I mean that's kind of how
I took it.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Okay, Well, Daniel, thank you for that call. Nisian Warren,
what do you What do you make of what Daniel
just said there?
Speaker 5 (24:45):
I think that thinking about companies staying neutral and stick
to more types of traditional advertising off their product basically
would have been a great idea for some firms. We
have firms that genuinely, just like we talked about dominoes,
they're genuinely their CEOs stands for some value and they
(25:06):
will that kind of a leader will do what they
think it's right no matter what. So they're not thinking
about profit or business at that point. They're thinking about
the value. But a lot of firms, as we talked
about their even political donations, that they do fifty to
fifty mostly to just have a secure position on both
sides for regulations. These firms may like to stay neutral,
(25:29):
but the society and the narrative in the media might
not allow them anymore. The idea of silence is complicity
has been brought up. An example of it is voter
bill in Georgia a couple of years ago, where there
were people that believe that if this bill goes into effect,
a lot of people who will lose their voting right
(25:51):
would be from more minority groups. And Coca Cola did
not say anything about this. Very quickly, this was brought
up to attention from the media because that company in
Georgia where this bill was being voted on, Coca Cola
has an amazing power there, and the idea was if
(26:12):
they don't say anything, this bill will go into effect.
So Coca Cola isn't taking a site. Therefore, it's very
difficult to say, even as a firm that wants to
stay neutral, if you stay neutral, the narrative is written
by the media for you and then defended or opposed
by consumers for you. So strategically speaking, I don't think
(26:36):
that firms, are large firms especially are able to stay
out of politics these days.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Yeah, you know.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Actually that brings us to a very interesting point because
you had this fight in Florida, which was really pushed
in the beginning between you know, Disney and Ronda Santis.
They passed this law in Florida, the so called Don't
Say Gay Bill, and initially Disney didn't say anything about it,
and then they got a lot of pressure from people
(27:03):
to start to act out.
Speaker 1 (27:05):
Against it, and then they came.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Out and said we're against this law, and that started
this whole fight.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
Listen here to Ron.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
DeSantis and what he had to say, getting very upset.
He's speaking here during his presidential campaign kickoff about the
feud with Disney.
Speaker 12 (27:18):
Listen, and people told me, they said, listen, the media
is coming after you. The laugh. But if Disney weighs in,
they're they're the eight hundred pound gorilla, you better watch out.
They're going to steamroll you. Well, here I stand. I'm
not backing down one inch. We run the state of Florida.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Mickey Maynard.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
That fight started because Disney just basically couldn't stay neutral
in that issue.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
Well, Disney had a big financial situation too, because the
old Disney properties are essentially their own entity in Florida,
and that was going to be taken away from them.
There's some money definitely involved in this whole situation. It
isn't just social, it's also looked for the dollars. And
I think that when Disney realized that they were no
(28:08):
longer going to be able to call their own shots
on their own properties in the middle of Florida, they thought,
you know, we have nothing to lose here. We're going
to lose a great deal if we lose that, so
let's take off the gloves.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Mickey Maynard, is there a brand that you can think
of that is just beyond politics? I mean I sort
of think about McDonald's maybe, or like some of these
big companies that you just don't think of them politically
that much, even if they have a lot of impact
when it comes to environment and stuff like that.
Speaker 4 (28:38):
So I think I would disagree with you on McDonald's
because McDonald's has been a focus of the labor movement.
The campaign called five for fifteen Five for fifteen. The
whole push for fifteen dollars in our minimum wage got
started before the pandemic. I think this is fascinating because
people are very critical of McDonald's before the pandemic because
(28:59):
they weren't paying very well. And then here came the pandemic,
and here came the shortage of workers, and all of
a sudden you saw McDonald's across the country paying fifteen
eighteen voluntarily looking to hire people. And so I think
that let the air out of the balloon a little
tiny bit when it came to McDonald's. Is there a
company that's above everybody? I think there's a couple of examples.
(29:24):
I mean, regionally, I think there are some companies like
Stay Puffed Marshmallows, I mean the marshmallow fluff people in Massachusetts, Turkeys,
I think it is that's one of those companies that
everybody's got Jurkis on their shelf. Here in the Midwest,
let's see. I think in Chicago it would be Old
Style beer. Although you know that's another another one you had.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Like what's it like a department store?
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Do you think of like you know, Macy's or Sacksmith
Avenue or you know in the Midwest famous bar or
Marshall Fields in the old days.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
You know on this Marshall Field.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Now, I mean above politics absolutely. I think that the
criticism has always been, you know, are people getting paid enough?
And I think that's one of the things with the
whole union movement that's popping up right now is it's
causing a lot of people to think twice about some brands.
For example, Starbucks. I think until the pandemic, Starbucks was
(30:24):
cruising along, you didn't hear too much negativity about Starbucks.
But then the pandemic came and the union organizing drive started,
and now there's a whole feeling in the beverage world
about Starbucks, and you know, are they going to have
to let the baristas organize because there's now so many
places that are trying to organize.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
You know, there's an Axios Harris poll that came out
that looked at for Democrats what were the most trusted
brands and for Republicans at what they were And there
are five companies that showed up in both lists. And
they are Trader Joe's h B, which is a grosser, Patagonia,
(31:07):
which is super interesting because they, you know, have been
pretty active on the left, Hershey, and Apple, Tolliver's favorite brand,
Apple loved by both Republicans and Democrats apparently.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Yeah, I think there's also another element to this, Like
a lot of times I'll think like a brand is
politically neutral, and then I'll find out that, you know,
the CEO of Wendy's is donating to a political cause suddenly,
and I think there's like an element of you sort
of because you don't know, you kind of give up.
Sometimes you go, well, you know what, I'm just going
to spend my money however I can, because I actually
don't know what's going on behind the scenes with a
lot of these companies, because I I've never heard of
(31:40):
open secrets, you know that.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
Kind of.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Coming up more on brand politics, plus some tips on
how to keep things civil when talking politics with your
family over the holidays.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Stay with us. This is the Middle.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
I'm Jeremy Hobbs, and we're asking you today about your
brand loyalty. Do your political and social beliefs play a
role in your consumer choices? How about the sports teams
you follow and the entertainers you enjoy. My guests are
Nushen Warren, a professor of marketing at the University of
Arizona and renowned expert on brand politics, and Mickey Maynard,
author and columnist who's covered business needs for decades. Nushen Warren,
(32:21):
what do you think is there a brand or a
company that is beyond politics, that transcends politics and if
so how do they do it?
Speaker 5 (32:28):
Beyond politics is two meanings. Are they actually beyond politics
and not contributing to different lobbies and different regulations? My
answer is no. If there are large companies, are they
beyond politics in the eye of the consumers. That depends
on where they are, what regulation it is, whether media
notices it, whether there's one or two people working for
(32:51):
that company that tweets something and then it goes viral.
For large companies, this is always a possibility that somewhere
somebody says something and then it's in terms of political activities,
I actually while we were talking about McDonald, I looked
it up very quickly, which is another thing. We have
information access open secrets that are Election Commission is open
(33:13):
to everybody. They had twenty eight lobbying last year. Total
lobbying expenditure of them for the second quarter of twenty
twenty three is one four hundred and ninety thousand dollars.
So can we say they are beyond politics? Not necessarily.
Do they always voice their opinion loud for consumers?
Speaker 4 (33:34):
Maybe not.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Let's get to another call.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
This is data in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, who says that it
is important to express your ideals in consumer choices.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Hi, Dana, how are you doing well? How are you?
Speaker 9 (33:47):
I'm doing right. I personally am interested in the values
of a company, and it's important that companies that I
port with my money match my values that align with
equity and humanism and the environment and access to information
(34:11):
and knowledge. So I wouldn't actually want to even work
for a company that didn't believe in freedom of information
and open dialogue and many other freedoms that we have.
And I also wouldn't spend want to spend my money
in companies like for example, your last collar you were
(34:33):
just you were talking about Florida for example. So I I,
you know, I won't go to Florida. I won't spend
any money. I won't vacation in Florida. I won't do
business in Florida. I won't. Yeah, So it's super important
to me. And even if my child looks at colleges
we were really considering, I mean, can we go to
(34:56):
candice child, who's a free thinker and not of dominant
nationality and identity go to places that are where they
will be diminished? So you know, it makes us You know,
all of our choices right now are centered around people's
values because they determine our path and our future. These
(35:18):
companies are more powerful than we are, so the only
power we have, I believe, is voting with our dollars.
Speaker 1 (35:26):
Have you always felt that way?
Speaker 9 (35:28):
Absolutely?
Speaker 1 (35:29):
No.
Speaker 9 (35:32):
You know, when our governments, I guess, give corporations more
power than people. I think that changed and I started
looking at companies more seriously. And also, you know, to
look to the future. We can't have ass fashion. If
we want a future, we can't be just burning the environment.
(35:53):
If we want a future. You know, we can't be
dumping in the water if we want a future. So
I have children, I want a future. I'm thinking seven
generations ahead, so I need to be discerning in my
commitments financially and socially.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
Well, Dana, thank you so much for that call.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
And I guess, Nushian Warren, that kind of lines up
more with most of what we've been hearing today, which
is people that really do feel like they want companies
to reflect their moral values, their social values, their politics.
They expected of them, and they will reward those that
do and punish.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Those that don't.
Speaker 5 (36:33):
Absolutely true twenty eighteen. When companies like Piro Novali or
Pea center, we're serving people asking them whether you will
shop from companies that match your value. They announced about
sixty three percent of consumer saying yes to that question.
In twenty twenty, that percentage is eighty two percent. So
(36:53):
when you talk to consumers, it seems that we are
getting there. Some of it is because consumers, decision makers
for dollars in any household are now millennial generations. You
talk about Disney aside from a lot of concerns that
Disney had, one important one is decision maker for going
to Disney are parents of children which are now millennials.
(37:18):
Those children are not raised and would be taken to
Disney by Flory does more composition of population which are grandparents.
Therefore Disney will think about that as well. And also,
I don't think that was a bad political campaign for
the centis as well to be able to voice himself
(37:39):
loud and clear.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
That was Nushen Warren, a professor of marketing at the
University of Arizona, and Mickey Maynard, a business journalist and
author from ann Arbor, Michigan. You're listening to the middle. Well,
since it's Thanksgiving, we're going to do something special as
we close out the hour. We're going to give you
some advice on how to handle your family members if
(38:02):
you've been talking politics with them or plan to this weekend.
Catherine Richard is a correspondent for Minnesota Public Radio based
in Rochester, Minnesota, and she's working on an app that's
expected this holiday season that is meant to help people
preserve relationships in spite of their differences. It's called Talking Sense,
and Catherine Richard joins me. Now, Hi, Catherine, Happy Thanksgiving.
Speaker 6 (38:24):
Happy Thanksgiving, Jeremy, happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Well, what will this app Talking Sense exactly?
Speaker 4 (38:29):
Do?
Speaker 6 (38:30):
Okay? So, I think the thing to know about Talking
Sense is that it kind of pulls together a lot
of things that I've seen as a journalist in my
almost twenty year career into one place. Right. We have
a ton of great reporting, especially around disinformation and fact checking.
We have all of that, and that's been going on
for a while, and I think in the last few years,
certainly during the pandemic, we've seen more great resources around
(38:54):
how to have difficult conversations with people that you don't
see eye to eye on when it comes to what
you're reading about in the news. So the app kind
of pulls these two things together, and it really is
going to help people practice and think about hard conversations
in advance, you know, the ones that can kind of
upend Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas dinner or whatever holiday you celebrate,
(39:14):
or maybe just a challenging conversation you're having with your
spouse or your best friend around what's going on in
the news. So the app will provide tips and prompts
on how to enter these conversations, how to keep them going,
how to exit them gracefully, and then also allow people
to access, you know, solid quality journalism if they're interested
in knowing more about some of the extremely contentious topics
(39:36):
that surely will come up over the holidays, but also
going into the twenty twenty four election year.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Okay, a lot there, but let me ask you about
a few things. One is you talk about this is
something that people can look at in advance of a
difficult conversation. What about when they're right in the middle
of it, would they pull up their phone and look
at this app.
Speaker 6 (39:53):
To give you a little more detail about what it
will look like. Think of it as kind of a
flip card game, right, So it's going to kind of
of coach people on what type of person are you
talking to you? How does that person approach a conversation?
Are they coming in trying to make you feel bad
about your opinions? How do you approach a conversation? What
sort of role do you play? And it's going to
give you tips on okay, well, you know, if you're
(40:14):
talking to someone who really really wants to change your mind,
here's how you might respond to them saying, well, you're wrong, right,
And you will be able to sort of click on
these flip cards that will give you some ideas on
how you might respond to that without you know, blowing
up that conversation. And really the goal of the app
is not so much to convince people that you're right.
(40:35):
It's not meant to win an argument. It's really meant
to lay the groundwork for future conversations and develop a
deeper understanding of where neighbors and our friends and our
family members are coming from on certain political topics that
you know you don't agree on.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
You know, there's an old book that has been read
like zillions of times called How to Win Friends and
Influence People. I wonder if you've looked at that as
you've worked on this.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
Because it's the same kind of ideas, right, right, But it's.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
Sort of like, how do you tell somebody something when
you disagree with them without making them feel bad about it?
Speaker 6 (41:06):
You know, over the course of my reporting career, which
has you know, started in Washington, d C. Covering Congress,
had a brief stint at a website called PolitiFact where
they rated political claims. I did something really similar for MPR.
I think, you know, in my career, just thought, well,
if we give people better information, they'll all get on
the same page, right, And I just don't think that
that has happened in the way that as journalists we
(41:28):
assume that it will. What I have seen, and especially
as MPR's lead COVID reporter for you know, two and
a half years, occasionally from time to time still take
on that role, is that people have really stopped listening
to each other. They have stopped really trying to better
understand where someone's coming from. And I think that this
really hit home for me as a reporter during the pandemic,
(41:50):
when I was talking to people who maybe saw things
really differently.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
Well, and that you bring up people you know, actually
listening to each other. That is exactly what we're trying
to do with the show. The middle is to say,
let's have a civil conversation. People can disagree, you can
come in with different views. Everybody's welcome. Let's stick to
the facts. So you've brought up facts a lot. How
much does that have to do with the problem of
people not being able to have a civil conversation even
(42:16):
with their own family members. Is you know, people aren't
sticking to things that are actually true. They're getting their
information from places that are not trustworthy.
Speaker 6 (42:23):
Right. I think we do not have a common set
of facts anymore. It feels really cynical to say that
as a reporter, as someone who really tries very hard
in her reporting to produce a story that is factual. Right.
But I think what we're asking our audience to do
in this upcoming election cycle is to set that aside
for a little bit. Right. We might be operating from
(42:45):
a different set of facts as someone that we love
and care about, and I think the real impact that
disinformation has had and political division has had is upending
those relationships, severing those ties. Right. If we want to
defeat the impact of what the is doing to our society,
maybe we just say, okay, look like, let's set aside
the fact that we don't have a common set of facts.
(43:06):
Just tell me more about where you're reading this information,
Show me where you're getting it. How did you come
to believe that these questions that are genuinely curious? And also,
you know, again, just help people really figure out where's
dad coming from on this, because I just don't get it.
And I hope that that means that they have just
a deeper relationship overall.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
And how much do you think that that is social
media and like, not even just social media, but email
chains with one thousand forwards on it that just have
complete nonsense in them, and that people send them around
to their friends and they're trusted as if they're facts.
Speaker 6 (43:39):
I think so much of it has to do with
social media, and part of talking sense too, will really,
you know, provide people some tools on how to identify,
for instance, AI generated content that you know, four years
ago was not really as much of a thing as
it is today. So a ton of it is social media.
Speaker 4 (44:00):
I think.
Speaker 6 (44:00):
The other thing I see a lot on social media
as well is this idea that if someone does not
agree with you, cut them out of your life. You
don't have time for this, you don't need to listen
to them. And I think both of those two things
together sort of this swirl of you know, seeing only
what you want to see, especially on social media, especially
in these bite sized, you know, snippets that often don't
(44:24):
tell the whole story, combined with this empowerment of just
sort of being like, you know, what we're done really
is is a potent combination of factors coming together at
the same time.
Speaker 2 (44:35):
So let's come back to the sort of dinner table
with the family. I feel like when I was growing
up in the Midwest, we didn't talk politics at the
Thanksgiving table. We probably were more likely to talk about
what games we were going to play or what movie
we were going to watch after dinner. Is that a
new thing that people are just talking about these serious
(44:55):
issues with their family members that have completely different beliefs.
Speaker 6 (44:59):
I will s In my personal life, I have seen
it more often. You know, I can't speak for everyone,
but I can think of a Thanksgiving dinner a few
years ago where things felt like they were getting heated
and then they went well, and actually it helped me
and my husband have a better sense of where my
dad and stepmother were coming from on some certain topics,
(45:19):
and I think that I look back on that and
I think, pen I wish I could like bottle that
up sometimes and like, you know, access it whenever I
want to. You know, I think though that what I've
seen work successfully is we need to let go of
any expectations that we are going to win an argument
over you know, twenty minutes to thirty minutes while we're
eating dinner. Maybe everyone's had a little bit to drink, right,
(45:41):
Just that's not going to happen. Let go of that.
The second thing is I think people need to come
into these conversations genuinely curious rather than just interested in
telling everyone what they read on you know, this website
or telling everyone that they know they're right because X,
Y and Z. I think that there's a lot of
(46:02):
that need to win that comes into these conversations that
you need to set aside for these things to go better.
I also think it's okay to say, hey, look, maybe
this isn't the best time to talk about it, but
I would love to come back to this with you
at a different time. Those are all that's okay to
say too.
Speaker 2 (46:16):
What are some of the topics that you find are
the easiest for people on opposite ends of the political
divide to talk about, to find some sort of common
ground or at least have a pleasant conversation.
Speaker 6 (46:25):
Well, you know, I think that when it comes to
our hopes and dreams for the community that we want
to live in, I bet there is a lot of
common ground if you take the time to figure it out,
the getting there might look really different, right, I mean,
I think we all want safe communities. I think we
all want communities where people can thrive and have good lives. Right,
you know, I think it's in the details, in terms
(46:47):
of how you get there and what that maybe looks like.
Speaker 2 (46:50):
What made you want to spend so much time in
the last couple of years on this particular thing. You
saw a problem, you wanted to find a solution for it.
Why was this one the one that you wanted to
spend that time on.
Speaker 6 (47:02):
I think it was the culmination of a few things. So,
first of all, I go back to my stint doing
political fact checking, both for PolitiFact and then for MPR
for five years. Right, you know, I'd pick these claims,
I'd take them apart, I'd rate them true, false, misleading,
whatever it was, and I think what I saw were
people using those ratings to show that they were the
(47:25):
smartest person in the room. And I think that that
reporting is important and I still believe in it. I
think as journalists we are morally obligated to tell people
what is right and what is wrong, what is supported
by facts, and what isn't. I think the thing that
we didn't do well both in that practice and then
during COVID too, was giving people the tools to actually
(47:46):
talk about this stuff in meaningful ways, to have civil
discourse around it. I think the COVID experience as well
for reporting for me, was really kind of the thing
that pushed me over the edge and wanting to do this.
I feel like for every person I talked to you
who lost someone that they loved to COVID, like the virus,
I talked to you, that many more people who had
lost an important relationship right that couldn't talk to grandma
(48:10):
or their sibling or their best friend anymore because they
simply did not see this pandemic the same way. And
I thought, man, like, what if we could just give
people better tools to talk about this stuff?
Speaker 2 (48:19):
So when can people actually use this app? I know
you have a soft launch targeted for the holiday season.
Speaker 6 (48:24):
Yes, so I am not a software developer, but other
people that I work with are, and we are sort
of in phase two of developing the app. We created
a prototype, we did some user testing, got some excellent feedback,
and we are refining it right now and we hope
to have it soft launch around the holidays, and then
in early twenty twenty four, as we're ramping up into
this pivotal election year, we're going to be doing a
(48:46):
hard launch. And we're also going to be doing two
other things that I'm really excited about. The First is
that we're going to take this whole concept on the
road around Minnesota. We're working with a nonprofit called Braver
Angels Right. It was founded by marriage and family therapists
at the University of Minnesota back in twenty sixteen, really
in the weeks after that election, and their whole mandate
is to go around the country and host these workshops
(49:08):
that help communities bridge their political divides. And then we're
also just going to use this as a reporting tool.
What do people want to know about, what are they
confused about, and really gain feedback from our audience on
what it is that we should be doing more reporting.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
On that is Catherine Richard, a correspondent from Minnesota Public
Radio and creator of Talking Sense. Catherine, thank you so
much and good luck with your family this weekend.
Speaker 6 (49:30):
Thank you two.
Speaker 2 (49:31):
Jeremy, Well, next.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
Week we have a great show for you.
Speaker 2 (49:33):
We're going to be talking about mental health challenges and
solutions across the country with Mayor Hillary Shiv of Reno, Nevada,
she's president of the US Conference of Mayor's and Jason
candor in Kansas City, Missouri, who ran for mayor there
but dropped out of the race citing mental health and
PTSD after his tours of Afghanistan.
Speaker 1 (49:51):
So we'll be taking.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
Your calls the question how do you tend to your
mental health and do you have access to care in
your community? You can call us an eight four four Middle,
leave us a voicemail or call in live next week,
or go to listen to the Middle dot Com and
drop us a line there. You can also sign up
for our weekly newsletter there. Every week we've got stories
from the Middle, our Call of the Week, a lot more.
(50:13):
Listen to the Middle dot Com for the newsletter and
don't forget the Middle with Jeremy Hobson is also available
as a podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts on the
iHeart app.
Speaker 1 (50:20):
Or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (50:22):
The Middle is brought to you by long Enough Media,
distributed by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois. Produced by
Joeanne Jennings, John Barth, Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander.
Speaker 1 (50:31):
And Charlie Lyttle.
Speaker 2 (50:32):
Our technical director is Jason Croft. Our theme music was
composed by Andrew Haye. Thanks to Nashville Public Radio, iHeartMedia
and the more than three hundred and seventy public radio
stations that are making it possible for people across the
country to listen to The Middle, I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 1 (50:47):
Happy Thanksgiving. Talk to you next week.
Welcome to the middle.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Jeremy Hobson and I am here today with our
house DJ Tolliver.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Hi Tolliver, Hey Jeremy.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
How's it going, man?
Speaker 1 (00:13):
It's going well.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
And I have a question for you, which is is
there a brand that you are very loyal too?
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (00:21):
That's a super easy one because I'm literally looking at
my phone right now. Apple is the kind that I'm mega,
mega mega loyal to. I would do anything for them.
I love you, Tim.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Cook, even though they make you change the chargers that
you have to use like every two years and you
have to buy a new device that doesn't bother you.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Absolutely, I'm a glutton for punishment, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Is there a brand that you don't like because of
their values, their politics something like that.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Yeah, just early on it, you know, became locked into
my mind that Nike was, you know, really bad because
of the labor practices. So I just I don't mess
with Nike anymore. I'm an Adidas guy. I'm a Doc
Martin's guy. But Nike no.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
No, Okay, that is good to know, and that is
our question this hour to our listeners. Do your police,
medical and social beliefs play a role in the products
you buy, the sports teams you root for, or the
music you listen to. Or do you prefer to keep
your politics out of your consumer choices. Let's meet our
panel guest today. Joining me from ann Arbor, Michigan is
(01:14):
Mickey Maynard. She is a business journalist and author covering
a range of topics from transportation to food and she
is the author of a number of books, including Satisfaction Guaranteed.
How Zingerman's built a Corner Delly into a global food community.
Speaker 1 (01:27):
Mickey, it's great to have you here.
Speaker 4 (01:29):
Jarremie, thanks so much for having me. It's just wonderful
to know that the middle has gotten off the ground.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
Yes, and you were there right at the beginning with
praise and support for us as we were getting going,
So we really appreciate it. Tell me, by the way,
we just mentioned Zingerman's that is an ann Arbor staple
for people who don't know. Does Zingerman's get very political?
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Oh, Zingerman's is definitely an activist company. I would say
they're more interested in social justice than anything else. They're
very supportive of the African America and community here in
Washington County. They are very supportive of Pride community here.
They do many, many things for charity. So yeah, I
wouldn't say party politics, but definitely when it comes to
(02:12):
social issues.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
All right, well, Mickey, we are also joined today by
Nushan Warren, who's a professor of marketing at the University
of Arizona.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
She's in Tucson.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
Nushian welcome, Hi, thank you for inviting me.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Well, and we invited you in part because we wanted
to invite you, but also because everybody that we called
about this topic, said Nusian Warren is the one, and
that's because you did a big study on the impact
of corporate activism.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
You use a.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Phrase boycott or buycott.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Tell us what that means.
Speaker 5 (02:39):
Briefly, as we're talking about activist firms or firms that
get involved into politics or socio political issues, which then
will include social justice as well. We have a large
group of consumers that might be agreeing with the firm
on what that firm voice is as their own value,
(03:02):
and some that might be actually alienated by this. When
these issues are very close to people's heart on both
sides of political parties, then a group that is angry
about it or do not agree with it might stop
shopping from that firm, and that is what we know
as boycott, and it's more familiar. But on the other side,
(03:24):
there are people who try to overcompensate, shop more and
reward a firm that they believe is a standing up
for values very close to them.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Do you think that kind of thing is happening more
now at Nush and Warren than it used to that
people are really focused on the values of the companies
more than they used to be.
Speaker 5 (03:44):
Absolutely, and there are several reasons for that. One would
be changed that has happened in people's social or political morality,
what they call an issue that is not forgivable in
their opinion. We have the issue of political power of firms,
(04:05):
which increases daily by large firms that are now having
global reach. And third, I think is information accessibility. People
now can have those political debates that used to just
happen once day you're on Thanksgiving tables are now happening
on social media and with a large group of people.
(04:25):
And also they can have easily more information at hand
of what firms are doing, where they're donating, what is
their actual internal practice.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Mickey Maynard, You've spent a career reporting on and writing
about the auto industry, How have politics factored into people's
decisions about the cars they buy historically and today?
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Well, historically, I have to say, I have a number
of Jewish friends who've told me that their parents and
grandparents will never buy German cars.
Speaker 6 (04:53):
Right.
Speaker 4 (04:54):
We certainly heard in Michigan many many people saying we
will never buy Japanese cars. And it wasn't even as
much the war the World War Two. It was that
Japanese vehicles were taking market share away from the Detroit
auto companies in the sixties, seventies and eighties, and so
that fueled some anti Japanese sentiment. More recently, people have
(05:18):
got very upset when there was an Audi sudden acceleration issue.
I think in the early nineteen eighties it really hurt
their sales. And then more recently there was the whole
hidden diesel thing with Volkswagen. And then Toyota had its
own little trip down the Boycott Lane when it was
having trouble with stuck accelerator pedals. So you can go
(05:39):
back and back and back in auto industry history and
kind of the moment that imported cars came to the
United States, somebody was upset about.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Them, nu should Warren.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
How does the auto industry stack up in terms of
the industries that have been affected by people's loyalty or
disloyalty to certain brands.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
It is absolutely affected. Not just auto industry, but any
industries that are especially consumer markets, are always affected by
people's approaches towards this worm. Nothing actually in that discussion
has changed from long ago till now other than what
now counts for me as that behavior that I think
(06:20):
it's inethical. It's something that is crossing my boundaries of
morals and will I then shop from them or not?
When we think about the Jewish family that Maky knowns
that won't buy from German companies, that is a line
that is crossed for them. But these days what is
happening is that there are lines and values that can
(06:40):
get crossed that are related to politics, or there are
social justice issues that can be regulated through politics. Very
recently we had the overturn of viweight. That is something
that the issue itself pro life or pro choice is
not necessarily political, but when it gets regulated and can
(07:01):
create what a group of people might a large group
of people count as injustice towards women, right, then that
becomes that line that when it's crossed, consumers can decide
not to buy from a front.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
And before we get to the phones, let's listen to
something from this year when brand identity and social issues
really collide. You remember that Aneser Busch brought in a
trans TikTok influencer named Dylan mulvaney who did an online
ad for bud Light, and the company got a ton
of pushback and lost a lot of business. Here is
the CEO of aneser Bush, Brendan Whitworth, on CBS Mornings.
(07:37):
Following widespread boycotts of bud Light.
Speaker 7 (07:40):
It's been a challenging few weeks and I think the
conversation surrounding bud Light has moved away from beer and
a conversation has become divisive and bud Light really doesn't
belong there. Bud Light should be all about bringing people together.
And there's been impact on the business and I think
that's publicly covered on bud Light specifically.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Now I looked at the numbers and after that whole
bud Light kerfuffle, the brand remains down around thirty percent
in volume compared to last year. Nushen Warren that was
a big one.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Yes, it was, and that's a very interesting case. Butt
Light is not the first that people have been surprised
by their efforts. And butt Light's consumer base seemed to
be more older generations which were very upset and offended.
So there was a big boycott through older generation more
(08:39):
loyal to this brand, which was predictable. The second thing
that butt Light did that was in my opinion, very
bad a strategy was not a standing by that action.
So this happens. You already have lost a group of
your customers on the more conservative side, and now you
back out out and put your CMO and basically leaders
(09:04):
that were in charge of this action on leaves, which
makes that look very inauthentic to the other group of people.
That to me seemed from the beginning with this action
that butt Light was trying to recruit as consumers, because
if you look at the newer generation, there are more
for craft beer local brands. They're not bot Light buyer
(09:28):
per se. So it was a good strategy to kind
of change the courses and values and bring in these
new generations while inevitably we will lose our older generation
through time. But they did not do it well.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Let's go to a call This is Rob who's in Invergrove, Minnesota.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Hi.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Rob, Hi, how are you doing well? So tell us
tell us how this works out in your mind. Do
you care about a company's politics?
Speaker 8 (09:55):
You know, it kind of depends on how much visibility
they've had. And you know, as far as the bud
Light case goes, I still drink bud Light. That has
an effect to that choice. But if I if I have,
you know, say, two companies side by side and and uh,
(10:16):
I've gleaned information from what's been out on the news,
for example, like Home Goods and Hobby Lobby standing next
to each other, I would probably pick Home Goods over
hobby Lobby just because of uh, the owner of Hobby
Lobby Green's you know, notorieties gotten in the in print.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Because you're you're you're more on the left. Yeah, hobby
Lobby is more on the right, correct, right?
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Interesting? Thank you Rob for that call.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
I want to go to Mickey Maynard on this because
I have to think, you know, as as as Rob
is explaining how he thinks about this and how he
doesn't think about this, I have to think that a
lot of people in this country and listening to the
show are saying, well, I don't really care.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
About a brand spot. I just buy what I need.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
Now, I think people care, and the reason why people
care is that it's been churned up. If you think
about the world, say, you know, ten or fifteen years ago,
we didn't have the impact of the conservative media, right
wing media that we have now. I mean, we have
a whole massive number of people that watch Fox News,
(11:23):
that go on the websites from the right wing that
honestly don't listen to anything else or watch anything else.
And so if you're in that silo and somebody takes
off against a trans person, or somebody takes off against
a gay person or a woman, there's a bunch of
followers that will go with them. Now, I was actually
(11:44):
very surprised at the impact on bud Light, But bud
Light has a very specific market, and their very specific
market was offended by using a trans person as a spokesperson.
I would not think anything of it. But I'm not
a I'm not the bud Light target customer.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
And let me just take a quick side note break
here to ask you what is your beer of choice?
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Mickey.
Speaker 4 (12:07):
I am a zero alcohol since twenty nineteen, and I've
tried Guinness. I've tried Sam Adams. I've tried the Bats
from Canada, which is actually my favorite.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Okay, Nushen Warren, do you have a favorite beer?
Speaker 5 (12:22):
I do not judge me. I do not like beer.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
I don't judge.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
I'm not This is a non judgmental show.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
Tolliver, do you have a favorite beer.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Yeah, let's give a shout out to Surly Brewing Company
in Minnesota. I love their IPAs super z I.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Love a good IPA.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
And before we go to break, I want to tell
you that The Middle with Jeremy Hobson is also available
as a podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts on the
iHeart app or wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome back
to the Middle, where we are bringing voices from the middle, geographically, politically,
(13:03):
whatever the middle means to you. I'm a middle child
by the way, we're bringing them into the national conversation.
I'm Jeremy Hobson. My guests are Nution Warren, professor of
marketing at the University of Arizona and renowned expert on
brand politics, and Mickey Maynard, author and journalist who has
covered business news for decades. She's in ann Arbor, Michigan.
We are asking you how important is a company's politics
to you? Do you care if the companies you buy from,
(13:26):
the athletes you root for, or the musicians you listen
to align with your political or social beliefs. Let's go
actually to another caller here. Katherine is with us from Urbana, Illinois,
my hometown. Catherine, Welcome to.
Speaker 9 (13:41):
The middle, Kathy.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Kathy.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Okay, we're on a first name basis now, So Kathy,
tell us about your feeling about brands and politics.
Speaker 10 (13:50):
Ever since I worked at Planned Parent, who have been
very aware of certain companies that have either donated or
given money to candidates that I did not like care
for because of their politics. And I had boy quite
a few.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
Companies down you do like what?
Speaker 11 (14:07):
Well?
Speaker 10 (14:08):
First of all, Domino's Pizza was one of the very
first ones that I became aware of that their money.
That company was founded by a couple of young men
who wanted to put their money to work against women's
real productive rights. So the profit from Domino's Pizza has
fund aids ecommas Moore University in Michigan, and their primary
(14:29):
job is to train attorneys to fight against women's right.
Speaker 11 (14:33):
And that's when I very.
Speaker 10 (14:34):
First became aware of money making a difference in what
we hear, what we see, and in politics. And so
I haven't had a Domino's pizza in twenty years.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
And you say that's when you first became aware. Did
you then go looking into other companies politics?
Speaker 10 (14:50):
Not necessarily deliberately, but when at the primaries, two of
the big telecommunications company, we're getting money to very right
wing candidates, and I didn't care for their stance on
birth control, on women's rights, on LGBT issues, and so
I switched the T mobile.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Interesting, Well, Kathy, thank you for your call. U shuld Warren,
What do you make of that?
Speaker 5 (15:14):
I think that two things we've been talking about both
when it came to hobbylobby and now when we ask people,
would you go and actively find what firms are doing
and then switch to a firm to shop from because
of their policies? There is, as we call it, negativity bias.
(15:34):
There is this difference that when a firm gets attention
that they are doing activities that you do not like,
it is more likely that you have an action reaction
towards it than going and actively looking for one that
you do like this comes very important when these are
(15:55):
consumer goods that are easy to switch. Applaud people who
can change their cars or their mobile line, which is
very difficult to do as big purchases or contracted purchases.
But it's very easy for people to change their brand
of shoes. It is easy for them to change packaged goods.
(16:17):
So that I think that will happen more. And also
I think that the effects of media and social media,
the effect of polarization of news media, all of that
now is a lot more than before. It's more likely
to happen after we have social media, and it will
make these effects even bigger.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
You know, it's interesting the calls that we've gotten so
far have been it sounds like mostly from people on
the left who are angry at companies being more conservative.
But that's not necessarily against the trend. Here's a survey
from Bentley Gallop Force for Good fifty seven hundred interviews
with US adults in June of twenty twenty two found
(16:57):
that Democrats are more likely than republic and independence to
feel businesses should publicly share their beliefs about social and
cultural issues. Seventy five percent of Democrats say they should
compared with forty percent of independence and eighteen percent of Republicans, Niswarren.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Does that line up with what you've found?
Speaker 5 (17:15):
It does? And the reason is the definition of being
on the liberal side. Liberal is usually changing its reflects change.
Conservative is generally being more conservative towards change. Therefore, the
side that has to push for a change of a
status go happening should be louder.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Mickey, do you think that brands can change people's minds
about social and political issues with their advocacy.
Speaker 4 (17:43):
Well, you might look at Nike as an example. You know,
Colin Kaepernick was a very controversial figure when he took
a knee. He's kind of hung out to drive by
the NFL, no one would hire him. Nike made him
a representative, and I think it probably changed I mean
people at the time, there's a lot of rhetoric and
(18:04):
discussion about the whole thing, but I think the fact
that Nike brought him on board probably changed some attitudes
towards Nike because it was a situation of who do
you feel more strongly about Nike or Colin Kaepernick? And
if you were a fan of Nike, then them bringing
in Colin Kaepernick was probably something that made you reconsider
your feelings about him.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Yeah, Tolliver, you mentioned Nike did did Did that that
whole thing with Colin Kaepernick affect your view of Nike
even more? Did you are we're already against Nike?
Speaker 9 (18:35):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (18:36):
I was sort of like staunchly against Nike. It sort
of felt like something they just sort of threw out
there as like a mea culp almost for their past
in action.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
You know, Nusha Warren, you I heard you nodding there audibly.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
I think that I actually was what you heard was
me thinking about Nike's Colin Kaepernick at being the first
step of my research towards this topic. Because when that happened,
this whole consumers debate and Nike shoes on fire on
social media. I would see that so frequently that I
(19:10):
thought about when firms, why firms do this, and when
they do that, what happens in the long term. Nike
actually or a while lost their sales, but in the
long run got it back. And the reason is if
you are a runner and you are very comfortable running
with Nike shoes, now a year has passed from that
(19:30):
ad and you need new shoes, you probably will brush
it off. And go buy the shoes you were more
comfortable with. A lot of times boycotts will die down.
Not all the generations of boomers and X will stop
buying butt light forever. They will miss it again because
(19:51):
they've been having it. If you're seven years old and
we want to assume that you are a very good child,
fifty years of butt light drinking is at least in
your resume. And it's very difficult to boycott forever because
anger does not last unless the issue becomes so close
to your heart that is unforgivable to a point that
(20:12):
your anger will not die down for that firm.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Mickey Maynard, a minute ago we were talking about Domino's.
I know you had something good to say about that.
Dominoes is based in Michigan, is it not.
Speaker 4 (20:22):
It's based right here in Ann Arbor.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
There you go.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
And so Tom Monahan, who was the CEO, the owner
of founder of Domino's Pizza, is a very conservative Catholic.
He actually actually went to the same church for a
little while, and then I think he thought it was
not conservative enough and he founded his own church, which
is on the grounds of Domino's headquarters. He also wanted
(20:48):
to start a college called ave Maria College, and he
needed a whole bunch of zoning changes in the Ann
Arbor area and people said no. And it really had
nothing to do with the conservative philosophy, but he was
really pushing the envelope in terms of what he wanted
to develop. And he said, Okay, I will take my
college elsewhere, and he took it to Florida. Now, the
(21:11):
interesting thing is, you know he's the church is still there,
there's a convent, and there's actually ave Maria Radio, which
is the largest network of Catholic radio stations in the country.
You know, if you've ever been on a road trip
and only could get AM radio, you might have heard
some of ave Maria's programming or on FM. They're on
FM too. But you know, there's a lot of people
(21:31):
that were upset by that. But I think Domino's during
the pandemic was available to a lot of people and
so if you needed a you know, cheap pizza and
you couldn't go out to eat, they would drop it
off on your porch. So I kind of feel like
maybe some of that has been forgotten, although certainly not
for our caller.
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Well, and you know, you mentioned Florida and Dominoes went
to Florida. We are definitely going to talk about Florida
in our next segment because that has been in the
news a lot with the dize, the Florida fight that
has been going on between Governor Ron De Santis, Republican,
and of course Disney and Disney World. Let's get to
another call that we have right now. We'll go to
(22:13):
Daniel in Philadelphia. Daniel, Welcome to the Middle.
Speaker 8 (22:17):
Thank you, it's great to be here.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Well, it's great to have you. And tell us. Tell
us how this topic hits you.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
How do you do How much do you care about
a brand's politics or company's politics.
Speaker 11 (22:26):
You know, I generally don't care much about it until
I care about it. I guess, for example, I don't
drink light beer. I don't buy light beer, but I
can tell you that if I did, I'm not buying.
Speaker 8 (22:39):
Any bugweisers what.
Speaker 11 (22:40):
So I was almost you know, I consider myself a
little right of center kind of guy, progressive in many ways,
maybe fiscally conservative. So I guess i'd sit the middle
by you know, bio. But generally generally I don't look
for that. But it doesn't hurt as a as a
tailwind or are positive, but it I guess it can
(23:02):
be a factor for me when it's overt and it's
kind of in your face. So yes, I think it does.
I don't consciously look for that, but I think advertising
should be relatively neutral and focus on features, benefits, funny
ways of marketing things. But today it's taken on a
(23:23):
different kind of a different level of energy. I guess
it's a good way to say it.
Speaker 8 (23:29):
I think.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
So you were turned off a butt light because of
Dylan mulvaney.
Speaker 11 (23:34):
I knew nothing about it until I heard about the controversy,
and I thought it was hilarious. I was actually happy
to hear it, and I was somewhat encouraged that. You know,
consumers fought back and pushed back, and then you know,
as you analyze the whole thing, you think you realize
(23:54):
what an incredible blunder on the part of a marketing team,
group of the top professionals on the planet selling beer,
which is all about knowing your consumer, knowing how to
position it for the consumer, and how they could just
blunder so so you know, profoundly to have such horribly
(24:19):
negative impact on the company and the brand.
Speaker 9 (24:22):
I'm shocked.
Speaker 11 (24:23):
I was just shocked by what I was I thought
it was kind of funny, and I thought it was
kind of I was a little encouraged a you know,
the average consumer to sit and sit there and say, oh, yeah,
this is the new way they market things, and they
really pushed back. So I mean that's kind of how
I took it.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Okay, Well, Daniel, thank you for that call. Nisian Warren,
what do you What do you make of what Daniel
just said there?
Speaker 5 (24:45):
I think that thinking about companies staying neutral and stick
to more types of traditional advertising off their product basically
would have been a great idea for some firms. We
have firms that genuinely, just like we talked about dominoes,
they're genuinely their CEOs stands for some value and they
(25:06):
will that kind of a leader will do what they
think it's right no matter what. So they're not thinking
about profit or business at that point. They're thinking about
the value. But a lot of firms, as we talked
about their even political donations, that they do fifty to
fifty mostly to just have a secure position on both
sides for regulations. These firms may like to stay neutral,
(25:29):
but the society and the narrative in the media might
not allow them anymore. The idea of silence is complicity
has been brought up. An example of it is voter
bill in Georgia a couple of years ago, where there
were people that believe that if this bill goes into effect,
a lot of people who will lose their voting right
(25:51):
would be from more minority groups. And Coca Cola did
not say anything about this. Very quickly, this was brought
up to attention from the media because that company in
Georgia where this bill was being voted on, Coca Cola
has an amazing power there, and the idea was if
(26:12):
they don't say anything, this bill will go into effect.
So Coca Cola isn't taking a site. Therefore, it's very
difficult to say, even as a firm that wants to
stay neutral, if you stay neutral, the narrative is written
by the media for you and then defended or opposed
by consumers for you. So strategically speaking, I don't think
(26:36):
that firms, are large firms especially are able to stay
out of politics these days.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Yeah, you know.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
Actually that brings us to a very interesting point because
you had this fight in Florida, which was really pushed
in the beginning between you know, Disney and Ronda Santis.
They passed this law in Florida, the so called Don't
Say Gay Bill, and initially Disney didn't say anything about it,
and then they got a lot of pressure from people
(27:03):
to start to act out.
Speaker 1 (27:05):
Against it, and then they came.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Out and said we're against this law, and that started
this whole fight.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
Listen here to Ron.
Speaker 2 (27:11):
DeSantis and what he had to say, getting very upset.
He's speaking here during his presidential campaign kickoff about the
feud with Disney.
Speaker 12 (27:18):
Listen, and people told me, they said, listen, the media
is coming after you. The laugh. But if Disney weighs in,
they're they're the eight hundred pound gorilla, you better watch out.
They're going to steamroll you. Well, here I stand. I'm
not backing down one inch. We run the state of Florida.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Mickey Maynard.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
That fight started because Disney just basically couldn't stay neutral
in that issue.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
Well, Disney had a big financial situation too, because the
old Disney properties are essentially their own entity in Florida,
and that was going to be taken away from them.
There's some money definitely involved in this whole situation. It
isn't just social, it's also looked for the dollars. And
I think that when Disney realized that they were no
(28:08):
longer going to be able to call their own shots
on their own properties in the middle of Florida, they thought,
you know, we have nothing to lose here. We're going
to lose a great deal if we lose that, so
let's take off the gloves.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
Mickey Maynard, is there a brand that you can think
of that is just beyond politics? I mean I sort
of think about McDonald's maybe, or like some of these
big companies that you just don't think of them politically
that much, even if they have a lot of impact
when it comes to environment and stuff like that.
Speaker 4 (28:38):
So I think I would disagree with you on McDonald's
because McDonald's has been a focus of the labor movement.
The campaign called five for fifteen Five for fifteen. The
whole push for fifteen dollars in our minimum wage got
started before the pandemic. I think this is fascinating because
people are very critical of McDonald's before the pandemic because
(28:59):
they weren't paying very well. And then here came the pandemic,
and here came the shortage of workers, and all of
a sudden you saw McDonald's across the country paying fifteen
eighteen voluntarily looking to hire people. And so I think
that let the air out of the balloon a little
tiny bit when it came to McDonald's. Is there a
company that's above everybody? I think there's a couple of examples.
(29:24):
I mean, regionally, I think there are some companies like
Stay Puffed Marshmallows, I mean the marshmallow fluff people in Massachusetts, Turkeys,
I think it is that's one of those companies that
everybody's got Jurkis on their shelf. Here in the Midwest,
let's see. I think in Chicago it would be Old
Style beer. Although you know that's another another one you had.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Like what's it like a department store?
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Do you think of like you know, Macy's or Sacksmith
Avenue or you know in the Midwest famous bar or
Marshall Fields in the old days.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
You know on this Marshall Field.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (30:04):
Now, I mean above politics absolutely. I think that the
criticism has always been, you know, are people getting paid enough?
And I think that's one of the things with the
whole union movement that's popping up right now is it's
causing a lot of people to think twice about some brands.
For example, Starbucks. I think until the pandemic, Starbucks was
(30:24):
cruising along, you didn't hear too much negativity about Starbucks.
But then the pandemic came and the union organizing drive started,
and now there's a whole feeling in the beverage world
about Starbucks, and you know, are they going to have
to let the baristas organize because there's now so many
places that are trying to organize.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
You know, there's an Axios Harris poll that came out
that looked at for Democrats what were the most trusted
brands and for Republicans at what they were And there
are five companies that showed up in both lists. And
they are Trader Joe's h B, which is a grosser, Patagonia,
(31:07):
which is super interesting because they, you know, have been
pretty active on the left, Hershey, and Apple, Tolliver's favorite brand,
Apple loved by both Republicans and Democrats apparently.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Yeah, I think there's also another element to this, Like
a lot of times I'll think like a brand is
politically neutral, and then I'll find out that, you know,
the CEO of Wendy's is donating to a political cause suddenly,
and I think there's like an element of you sort
of because you don't know, you kind of give up.
Sometimes you go, well, you know what, I'm just going
to spend my money however I can, because I actually
don't know what's going on behind the scenes with a
lot of these companies, because I I've never heard of
(31:40):
open secrets, you know that.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
Kind of.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
Coming up more on brand politics, plus some tips on
how to keep things civil when talking politics with your
family over the holidays.
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Stay with us. This is the Middle.
Speaker 2 (31:59):
I'm Jeremy Hobbs, and we're asking you today about your
brand loyalty. Do your political and social beliefs play a
role in your consumer choices? How about the sports teams
you follow and the entertainers you enjoy. My guests are
Nushen Warren, a professor of marketing at the University of
Arizona and renowned expert on brand politics, and Mickey Maynard,
author and columnist who's covered business needs for decades. Nushen Warren,
(32:21):
what do you think is there a brand or a
company that is beyond politics, that transcends politics and if
so how do they do it?
Speaker 5 (32:28):
Beyond politics is two meanings. Are they actually beyond politics
and not contributing to different lobbies and different regulations? My
answer is no. If there are large companies, are they
beyond politics in the eye of the consumers. That depends
on where they are, what regulation it is, whether media
notices it, whether there's one or two people working for
(32:51):
that company that tweets something and then it goes viral.
For large companies, this is always a possibility that somewhere
somebody says something and then it's in terms of political activities,
I actually while we were talking about McDonald, I looked
it up very quickly, which is another thing. We have
information access open secrets that are Election Commission is open
(33:13):
to everybody. They had twenty eight lobbying last year. Total
lobbying expenditure of them for the second quarter of twenty
twenty three is one four hundred and ninety thousand dollars.
So can we say they are beyond politics? Not necessarily.
Do they always voice their opinion loud for consumers?
Speaker 4 (33:34):
Maybe not.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
Let's get to another call.
Speaker 2 (33:36):
This is data in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, who says that it
is important to express your ideals in consumer choices.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Hi, Dana, how are you doing well? How are you?
Speaker 9 (33:47):
I'm doing right. I personally am interested in the values
of a company, and it's important that companies that I
port with my money match my values that align with
equity and humanism and the environment and access to information
(34:11):
and knowledge. So I wouldn't actually want to even work
for a company that didn't believe in freedom of information
and open dialogue and many other freedoms that we have.
And I also wouldn't spend want to spend my money
in companies like for example, your last collar you were
(34:33):
just you were talking about Florida for example. So I I,
you know, I won't go to Florida. I won't spend
any money. I won't vacation in Florida. I won't do
business in Florida. I won't. Yeah, So it's super important
to me. And even if my child looks at colleges
we were really considering, I mean, can we go to
(34:56):
candice child, who's a free thinker and not of dominant
nationality and identity go to places that are where they
will be diminished? So you know, it makes us You know,
all of our choices right now are centered around people's
values because they determine our path and our future. These
(35:18):
companies are more powerful than we are, so the only
power we have, I believe, is voting with our dollars.
Speaker 1 (35:26):
Have you always felt that way?
Speaker 9 (35:28):
Absolutely?
Speaker 1 (35:29):
No.
Speaker 9 (35:32):
You know, when our governments, I guess, give corporations more
power than people. I think that changed and I started
looking at companies more seriously. And also, you know, to
look to the future. We can't have ass fashion. If
we want a future, we can't be just burning the environment.
(35:53):
If we want a future. You know, we can't be
dumping in the water if we want a future. So
I have children, I want a future. I'm thinking seven
generations ahead, so I need to be discerning in my
commitments financially and socially.
Speaker 1 (36:13):
Well, Dana, thank you so much for that call.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
And I guess, Nushian Warren, that kind of lines up
more with most of what we've been hearing today, which
is people that really do feel like they want companies
to reflect their moral values, their social values, their politics.
They expected of them, and they will reward those that
do and punish.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Those that don't.
Speaker 5 (36:33):
Absolutely true twenty eighteen. When companies like Piro Novali or
Pea center, we're serving people asking them whether you will
shop from companies that match your value. They announced about
sixty three percent of consumer saying yes to that question.
In twenty twenty, that percentage is eighty two percent. So
(36:53):
when you talk to consumers, it seems that we are
getting there. Some of it is because consumers, decision makers
for dollars in any household are now millennial generations. You
talk about Disney aside from a lot of concerns that
Disney had, one important one is decision maker for going
to Disney are parents of children which are now millennials.
(37:18):
Those children are not raised and would be taken to
Disney by Flory does more composition of population which are grandparents.
Therefore Disney will think about that as well. And also,
I don't think that was a bad political campaign for
the centis as well to be able to voice himself
(37:39):
loud and clear.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
That was Nushen Warren, a professor of marketing at the
University of Arizona, and Mickey Maynard, a business journalist and
author from ann Arbor, Michigan. You're listening to the middle. Well,
since it's Thanksgiving, we're going to do something special as
we close out the hour. We're going to give you
some advice on how to handle your family members if
(38:02):
you've been talking politics with them or plan to this weekend.
Catherine Richard is a correspondent for Minnesota Public Radio based
in Rochester, Minnesota, and she's working on an app that's
expected this holiday season that is meant to help people
preserve relationships in spite of their differences. It's called Talking Sense,
and Catherine Richard joins me. Now, Hi, Catherine, Happy Thanksgiving.
Speaker 6 (38:24):
Happy Thanksgiving, Jeremy, happy to be here.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Well, what will this app Talking Sense exactly?
Speaker 4 (38:29):
Do?
Speaker 6 (38:30):
Okay? So, I think the thing to know about Talking
Sense is that it kind of pulls together a lot
of things that I've seen as a journalist in my
almost twenty year career into one place. Right. We have
a ton of great reporting, especially around disinformation and fact checking.
We have all of that, and that's been going on
for a while, and I think in the last few years,
certainly during the pandemic, we've seen more great resources around
(38:54):
how to have difficult conversations with people that you don't
see eye to eye on when it comes to what
you're reading about in the news. So the app kind
of pulls these two things together, and it really is
going to help people practice and think about hard conversations
in advance, you know, the ones that can kind of
upend Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas dinner or whatever holiday you celebrate,
(39:14):
or maybe just a challenging conversation you're having with your
spouse or your best friend around what's going on in
the news. So the app will provide tips and prompts
on how to enter these conversations, how to keep them going,
how to exit them gracefully, and then also allow people
to access, you know, solid quality journalism if they're interested
in knowing more about some of the extremely contentious topics
(39:36):
that surely will come up over the holidays, but also
going into the twenty twenty four election year.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Okay, a lot there, but let me ask you about
a few things. One is you talk about this is
something that people can look at in advance of a
difficult conversation. What about when they're right in the middle
of it, would they pull up their phone and look
at this app.
Speaker 6 (39:53):
To give you a little more detail about what it
will look like. Think of it as kind of a
flip card game, right, So it's going to kind of
of coach people on what type of person are you
talking to you? How does that person approach a conversation?
Are they coming in trying to make you feel bad
about your opinions? How do you approach a conversation? What
sort of role do you play? And it's going to
give you tips on okay, well, you know, if you're
(40:14):
talking to someone who really really wants to change your mind,
here's how you might respond to them saying, well, you're wrong, right,
And you will be able to sort of click on
these flip cards that will give you some ideas on
how you might respond to that without you know, blowing
up that conversation. And really the goal of the app
is not so much to convince people that you're right.
(40:35):
It's not meant to win an argument. It's really meant
to lay the groundwork for future conversations and develop a
deeper understanding of where neighbors and our friends and our
family members are coming from on certain political topics that
you know you don't agree on.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
You know, there's an old book that has been read
like zillions of times called How to Win Friends and
Influence People. I wonder if you've looked at that as
you've worked on this.
Speaker 1 (40:57):
Because it's the same kind of ideas, right, right, But it's.
Speaker 2 (41:00):
Sort of like, how do you tell somebody something when
you disagree with them without making them feel bad about it?
Speaker 6 (41:06):
You know, over the course of my reporting career, which
has you know, started in Washington, d C. Covering Congress,
had a brief stint at a website called PolitiFact where
they rated political claims. I did something really similar for MPR.
I think, you know, in my career, just thought, well,
if we give people better information, they'll all get on
the same page, right, And I just don't think that
that has happened in the way that as journalists we
(41:28):
assume that it will. What I have seen, and especially
as MPR's lead COVID reporter for you know, two and
a half years, occasionally from time to time still take
on that role, is that people have really stopped listening
to each other. They have stopped really trying to better
understand where someone's coming from. And I think that this
really hit home for me as a reporter during the pandemic,
(41:50):
when I was talking to people who maybe saw things
really differently.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
Well, and that you bring up people you know, actually
listening to each other. That is exactly what we're trying
to do with the show. The middle is to say,
let's have a civil conversation. People can disagree, you can
come in with different views. Everybody's welcome. Let's stick to
the facts. So you've brought up facts a lot. How
much does that have to do with the problem of
people not being able to have a civil conversation even
(42:16):
with their own family members. Is you know, people aren't
sticking to things that are actually true. They're getting their
information from places that are not trustworthy.
Speaker 6 (42:23):
Right. I think we do not have a common set
of facts anymore. It feels really cynical to say that
as a reporter, as someone who really tries very hard
in her reporting to produce a story that is factual. Right.
But I think what we're asking our audience to do
in this upcoming election cycle is to set that aside
for a little bit. Right. We might be operating from
(42:45):
a different set of facts as someone that we love
and care about, and I think the real impact that
disinformation has had and political division has had is upending
those relationships, severing those ties. Right. If we want to
defeat the impact of what the is doing to our society,
maybe we just say, okay, look like, let's set aside
the fact that we don't have a common set of facts.
(43:06):
Just tell me more about where you're reading this information,
Show me where you're getting it. How did you come
to believe that these questions that are genuinely curious? And also,
you know, again, just help people really figure out where's
dad coming from on this, because I just don't get it.
And I hope that that means that they have just
a deeper relationship overall.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
And how much do you think that that is social
media and like, not even just social media, but email
chains with one thousand forwards on it that just have
complete nonsense in them, and that people send them around
to their friends and they're trusted as if they're facts.
Speaker 6 (43:39):
I think so much of it has to do with
social media, and part of talking sense too, will really,
you know, provide people some tools on how to identify,
for instance, AI generated content that you know, four years
ago was not really as much of a thing as
it is today. So a ton of it is social media.
Speaker 4 (44:00):
I think.
Speaker 6 (44:00):
The other thing I see a lot on social media
as well is this idea that if someone does not
agree with you, cut them out of your life. You
don't have time for this, you don't need to listen
to them. And I think both of those two things
together sort of this swirl of you know, seeing only
what you want to see, especially on social media, especially
in these bite sized, you know, snippets that often don't
(44:24):
tell the whole story, combined with this empowerment of just
sort of being like, you know, what we're done really
is is a potent combination of factors coming together at
the same time.
Speaker 2 (44:35):
So let's come back to the sort of dinner table
with the family. I feel like when I was growing
up in the Midwest, we didn't talk politics at the
Thanksgiving table. We probably were more likely to talk about
what games we were going to play or what movie
we were going to watch after dinner. Is that a
new thing that people are just talking about these serious
(44:55):
issues with their family members that have completely different beliefs.
Speaker 6 (44:59):
I will s In my personal life, I have seen
it more often. You know, I can't speak for everyone,
but I can think of a Thanksgiving dinner a few
years ago where things felt like they were getting heated
and then they went well, and actually it helped me
and my husband have a better sense of where my
dad and stepmother were coming from on some certain topics,
(45:19):
and I think that I look back on that and
I think, pen I wish I could like bottle that
up sometimes and like, you know, access it whenever I
want to. You know, I think though that what I've
seen work successfully is we need to let go of
any expectations that we are going to win an argument
over you know, twenty minutes to thirty minutes while we're
eating dinner. Maybe everyone's had a little bit to drink, right,
(45:41):
Just that's not going to happen. Let go of that.
The second thing is I think people need to come
into these conversations genuinely curious rather than just interested in
telling everyone what they read on you know, this website
or telling everyone that they know they're right because X,
Y and Z. I think that there's a lot of
(46:02):
that need to win that comes into these conversations that
you need to set aside for these things to go better.
I also think it's okay to say, hey, look, maybe
this isn't the best time to talk about it, but
I would love to come back to this with you
at a different time. Those are all that's okay to
say too.
Speaker 2 (46:16):
What are some of the topics that you find are
the easiest for people on opposite ends of the political
divide to talk about, to find some sort of common
ground or at least have a pleasant conversation.
Speaker 6 (46:25):
Well, you know, I think that when it comes to
our hopes and dreams for the community that we want
to live in, I bet there is a lot of
common ground if you take the time to figure it out,
the getting there might look really different, right, I mean,
I think we all want safe communities. I think we
all want communities where people can thrive and have good lives. Right,
you know, I think it's in the details, in terms
(46:47):
of how you get there and what that maybe looks like.
Speaker 2 (46:50):
What made you want to spend so much time in
the last couple of years on this particular thing. You
saw a problem, you wanted to find a solution for it.
Why was this one the one that you wanted to
spend that time on.
Speaker 6 (47:02):
I think it was the culmination of a few things. So,
first of all, I go back to my stint doing
political fact checking, both for PolitiFact and then for MPR
for five years. Right, you know, I'd pick these claims,
I'd take them apart, I'd rate them true, false, misleading,
whatever it was, and I think what I saw were
people using those ratings to show that they were the
(47:25):
smartest person in the room. And I think that that
reporting is important and I still believe in it. I
think as journalists we are morally obligated to tell people
what is right and what is wrong, what is supported
by facts, and what isn't. I think the thing that
we didn't do well both in that practice and then
during COVID too, was giving people the tools to actually
(47:46):
talk about this stuff in meaningful ways, to have civil
discourse around it. I think the COVID experience as well
for reporting for me, was really kind of the thing
that pushed me over the edge and wanting to do this.
I feel like for every person I talked to you
who lost someone that they loved to COVID, like the virus,
I talked to you, that many more people who had
lost an important relationship right that couldn't talk to grandma
(48:10):
or their sibling or their best friend anymore because they
simply did not see this pandemic the same way. And
I thought, man, like, what if we could just give
people better tools to talk about this stuff?
Speaker 2 (48:19):
So when can people actually use this app? I know
you have a soft launch targeted for the holiday season.
Speaker 6 (48:24):
Yes, so I am not a software developer, but other
people that I work with are, and we are sort
of in phase two of developing the app. We created
a prototype, we did some user testing, got some excellent feedback,
and we are refining it right now and we hope
to have it soft launch around the holidays, and then
in early twenty twenty four, as we're ramping up into
this pivotal election year, we're going to be doing a
(48:46):
hard launch. And we're also going to be doing two
other things that I'm really excited about. The First is
that we're going to take this whole concept on the
road around Minnesota. We're working with a nonprofit called Braver
Angels Right. It was founded by marriage and family therapists
at the University of Minnesota back in twenty sixteen, really
in the weeks after that election, and their whole mandate
is to go around the country and host these workshops
(49:08):
that help communities bridge their political divides. And then we're
also just going to use this as a reporting tool.
What do people want to know about, what are they
confused about, and really gain feedback from our audience on
what it is that we should be doing more reporting.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
On that is Catherine Richard, a correspondent from Minnesota Public
Radio and creator of Talking Sense. Catherine, thank you so
much and good luck with your family this weekend.
Speaker 6 (49:30):
Thank you two.
Speaker 2 (49:31):
Jeremy, Well, next.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
Week we have a great show for you.
Speaker 2 (49:33):
We're going to be talking about mental health challenges and
solutions across the country with Mayor Hillary Shiv of Reno, Nevada,
she's president of the US Conference of Mayor's and Jason
candor in Kansas City, Missouri, who ran for mayor there
but dropped out of the race citing mental health and
PTSD after his tours of Afghanistan.
Speaker 1 (49:51):
So we'll be taking.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
Your calls the question how do you tend to your
mental health and do you have access to care in
your community? You can call us an eight four four Middle,
leave us a voicemail or call in live next week,
or go to listen to the Middle dot Com and
drop us a line there. You can also sign up
for our weekly newsletter there. Every week we've got stories
from the Middle, our Call of the Week, a lot more.
(50:13):
Listen to the Middle dot Com for the newsletter and
don't forget the Middle with Jeremy Hobson is also available
as a podcast in partnership with iHeart Podcasts on the
iHeart app.
Speaker 1 (50:20):
Or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (50:22):
The Middle is brought to you by long Enough Media,
distributed by Illinois Public Media in Urbana, Illinois. Produced by
Joeanne Jennings, John Barth, Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander.
Speaker 1 (50:31):
And Charlie Lyttle.
Speaker 2 (50:32):
Our technical director is Jason Croft. Our theme music was
composed by Andrew Haye. Thanks to Nashville Public Radio, iHeartMedia
and the more than three hundred and seventy public radio
stations that are making it possible for people across the
country to listen to The Middle, I'm Jeremy Hobson.
Speaker 1 (50:47):
Happy Thanksgiving. Talk to you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.