you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They have gotten too big to ignore active PR damage control. If they hadn't distanced themselves from Rittenhouse, they would not have contracts with Bass Pro Shops/Cabela's and therefore missed an even larger customer base. It sounds like the "repugnant" comment was about those condemning BRCC for not actively advocating Rittenhouse. If Rittenhouse's legal team hadn't walked him out of jail in that t-shirt or that Blaze reporter hadn't Tweeted implying BRCC was endorsing him, they would not have had to make any statements on the matter.

[–]la_cues 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Kind of seems like the move that makes sense. Aligning a brand with a "political" leaning is one thing, but to get lumped into a politically charged shooting incident is a totally different ballgame.

I think corps even having socially/politically charged brand identifiers is a bad idea overall, and nowadays its unfortunately mandated. I remember social hordes tracking down what companies didn't speak on the "black lives matter" issue. Not taking a stance is a sin now.

Corporations should be soulless.