3 ms·

I think her point is that the company takes many explicitly political stances all of the time. So why not this one? In this case, there's a mob of people willi

I think her point is that the company takes many explicitly political stances all of the time. So why not this one? In this case, there's a mob of people willing to demonize her and the company. Should mobs rule dominate company politics?

casion 5y ago
Alternatively: she was unfit for the role because she was unable to navigate (manipulate) this situation. Should mobs rule? Probably not. Should a "Brand President" be capable of dealing with situations like this: absolutely. Should a CEO be capable of doing so? Yes.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  > she was unfit for the role because she was unable to navigate (manipulate) this situation. It sounds like the obverse of this may be true: the roel was unfit for her because it did not allow her sufficient choice in how to manage the situation. A brand manager for a major brand should be able to influence what policies the brand takes a position on and what policies it does not. It sounds like that has been the case to this point, but in this case one of two things happened: either the latitude that she was given in the position was curtailed, or it was the first time where her personal beliefs diverged from the positions of the rest of the company. In the interest of exposing my own biases, I stopped financially supporting Levi’s in 2018 after their CEO publicly came out in support of additional, stricter gun laws: https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-parkland/ https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-par...
itsdrewmiller 5y ago
Companies generally take uncontroversial-for-business stances, or possibly controversial stances on issues directly related to their bottom line. It should be self-evident why they wouldn't be interested in this one.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  Ah, but this isn’t the first time Levi’s has taken a stance on something unrelated to their bottom line: https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-parkland/ https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-par...

casion 5y ago

Alternatively: she was unfit for the role because she was unable to navigate (manipulate) this situation. Should mobs rule? Probably not. Should a "Brand President" be capable of dealing with situations like this: absolutely. Should a CEO be capable of doing so? Yes.

Ancapistani 5y ago
> she was unfit for the role because she was unable to navigate (manipulate) this situation. It sounds like the obverse of this may be true: the roel was unfit for her because it did not allow her sufficient choice in how to manage the situation. A brand manager for a major brand should be able to influence what policies the brand takes a position on and what policies it does not. It sounds like that has been the case to this point, but in this case one of two things happened: either the latitude that she was given in the position was curtailed, or it was the first time where her personal beliefs diverged from the positions of the rest of the company. In the interest of exposing my own biases, I stopped financially supporting Levi’s in 2018 after their CEO publicly came out in support of additional, stricter gun laws: https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-parkland/ https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-par...

itsdrewmiller 5y ago

Companies generally take uncontroversial-for-business stances, or possibly controversial stances on issues directly related to their bottom line. It should be self-evident why they wouldn't be interested in this one.

Ancapistani 5y ago
Ah, but this isn’t the first time Levi’s has taken a stance on something unrelated to their bottom line: https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-parkland/ https://fortune.com/2018/09/04/levi-strauss-gun-violence-par...