• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Go woke, go broke

Hmm, well, ok, when you throw lawsuits and whatever in, I can see the issue. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
psionl0 said:
It's a legal thing. A corporation is a separate legal entity that can own property, sue and be sued all independently of its owners or managers.

A union is not a separate legal entity. Members can be held individually liable for the actions of the union as a whole.
Click to expand...

Of course it can, you honestly think unions can't own their headquarters? This is not a distinction. A union is less likely to be sued because of the nature of its activities but it certainly can be.

The main difference I see is that unions are unlikely to be for profit corporations and instead be organized as something like a not for profit corporation.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Of course it can, you honestly think unions can't own their headquarters? This is not a distinction. A union is less likely to be sued because of the nature of its activities but it certainly can be.

The main difference I see is that unions are unlikely to be for profit corporations and instead be organized as something like a not for profit corporation.
Click to expand...
It depends on the laws of the land but a union is more likely to be akin to a business partnership. There is no separate legal entity. The partners jointly and severally own the assets of the business and the partners are jointly and severally liable for the debts of the business (this is why incorporation is usually considered).
 
psionl0 said:
It depends on the laws of the land but a union is more likely to be akin to a business partnership. There is no separate legal entity. The partners jointly and severally own the assets of the business and the partners are jointly and severally liable for the debts of the business (this is why incorporation is usually considered).
Click to expand...

It would seem pretty obvious as otherwise who would the dues go to? Having it as the property of the union would seem to make sense. The endowments and so forth really don't make sense in a informal agreement.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It would seem pretty obvious as otherwise who would the dues go to? Having it as the property of the union would seem to make sense. The endowments and so forth really don't make sense in a informal agreement.
Click to expand...
Well that's how it works in a business partnership (and like a union, the agreement is pretty formal) so it must make sense.

The same principle also operates with trusts. A trust is not a separate legal entity. The beneficiaries joinly own the assets of the trust and the trustee manages them (and might be held liable if the trust loses money).

But like I say, it depends on the laws of the land. In some countries, unions might be able to incorporate (set up a separate legal entity) and in others, not.

I understand that up to the 1980s, where I lived, legal firms could not incorporate. They could only set up partnerships which meant that there was no limited liability for the partners. Now legal firms can incorporate.
 
Ron Obvious said:
Corporations don't have values or morals; human beings do. Corporations are legal abstractions designed to maximise profits and that's all they are. We shouldn't anthropomorphise them.
Click to expand...


You can say that about every business that has existed since the first business way back in Sumeria.
I am not blind worshipper of business, but I definently not an 'Anticapitalist" either.
 
Last edited:
You're not a blind worshipper, you just like to sound like one.

Corporations aren't like other types of busioenss. they exist specifically to avoid liability.

And they are people!
 
‘Go woke, go broke’ not true for brands, says global advertising study
Based on analysis of 392 brands across 58 countries, the research, which claims to be the first of its kind, indicates the positive impact of inclusive advertising on outcomes, with an almost 3.5% boost to shorter-term sales and a more than 16% increase in the longer term.

It seems to persuade 62% of buyers to choose a product and make 15% of shoppers more loyal.

The study covered different product categories such as confectionery, snacks, personal care, beauty, pet food, pet care, alcohol, consumer healthcare and household products, across a variety of geographies.

“The idea that inclusive advertising content can commercially *damage a business has limited progress for too long,” said Sara Denby... "This irrefutable data should reassure any business and encourage brands to renew their commitment to inclusivity in all forms, to not only benefit the communities they serve but also to drive growth and financially prosper."
Click to expand...
So there you have it, irrefutable data that proves the 'Go woke, go broke' crowd got it all wrong. ;)
 
There's a difference between inclusivity in advertising and harping on systemic racism and injustice, even if they have to invent it. "Woke" is more like the latter.

And including some black guys or women in advertising is nothing new, really. The first TV ad to feature black men and women in a completely non-racist way is from 1948, for Pete's sake.


So yeah, all that's changed now is that some posers are trying to pretend they're the first fighting a fight that's already been done for decades. It's on par with some 6 year old claiming that he's NOW defeating the VietCong. And doing more harm than good by stirring the pot, at that.
 
Last edited:
doesn't seem like there's much of a difference from the people barking woke at everything imo
 
HansMustermann said:
There's a difference between inclusivity in advertising and harping on systemic racism and injustice, even if they have to invent it. "Woke" is more like the latter.
And including some black guys or women in advertising is nothing new, really. The first TV ad to feature black men and women in a completely non-racist way is from 1948, for Pete's sake.


So yeah, all that's changed now is that some posers are trying to pretend they're the first fighting a fight that's already been done for decades. It's on par with some 6 year old claiming that he's NOW defeating the VietCong. And doing more harm than good by stirring the pot, at that.
Click to expand...

It hasn't gone unnoticed that an anti-"woke"r wants to redefine the term "woke" now that they've lost the argument.
 
Hard to discuss study, when it is not named, no link and it was apparently ran by Unstereotype Alliance/UN Women and maybe Saïd Business School at Oxford University (article is not exactly clear who did what). Article is very light on details including what countries were in dataset or any other useful information that could at least hint at validity of study.
 
HansMustermann said:
There's a difference between inclusivity in advertising and harping on systemic racism and injustice, even if they have to invent it. "Woke" is more like the latter.

And including some black guys or women in advertising is nothing new, really. The first TV ad to feature black men and women in a completely non-racist way is from 1948, for Pete's sake.


So yeah, all that's changed now is that some posers are trying to pretend they're the first fighting a fight that's already been done for decades. It's on par with some 6 year old claiming that he's NOW defeating the VietCong. And doing more harm than good by stirring the pot, at that.
Click to expand...

I missed all those gay couples in adverts decades back, along with the Asian couples etc.
 
I'd like to see the study too, at the very least to see what it's even about. Like even what exactly is compared to what. Because the article

1) says it's about merely including more people without using negative stereotypes.

2) comparing it with cringe stuff like Burger King depicting Asians eating a burger with chopsticks.

3) first tries to connect the whole thing with stuff that was actually balked at as "woke", such as that Gillette ad.

One of those is not like the others. #1 was not what was called "woke". #2 is by now common sense for most people. People weren't threatening to boycott Burger King for NOT stereotyping Asians.

Meanwhile #3 doesn't seem to even be connected to even the rest of the article. The author seems to just have wanted to hear herself pretend to deliver a blow to the "go woke, go broke" gang, even if she has to invent the connection herself.

ETA: yep, as I suspected. If you go to the university's press release ( https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/news/new-research-proves-inclusive-advertising-boosts-sales-and-brand-value ), it really says it's about "inclusive advertising - content which authentically and positively portrays a full range of people and is devoid of stereotypes". The whole connection to "woke" stuff like the Gillette add is just that journalist's added angle.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I found and read the actual study: https://www.unstereotypealliance.or...INCLUSIVE ADVERTISING (Business case) WEB.pdf

It's about less than people seem to think. That inclusivity is about women. Their calculated index is the "GENDER UNSTEREOTYPE METRIC (GUM)." (And it's only in caps because I copy and pasted that from a title.) They don't even calculate their index for any other categories than men and women. I guess the UN Women part should have been a clue.

It's stuff like Mars discovering that they're selling more chocolate if they include more women in the ads. Yeah, big surprise there, given that it's usually the mom buying it for the kid and women also buy chocolate for themselves. Or that Bayer and Dorival sold more tampons after a campaign targeting teenage girls.

Or that LUX sold more beauty products by encouraging more women in China to buy them. That's pretty much what they call challenging gender stereotypes in that study. Traditionally women in China are supposed to look plain and modest. LUX ads tell them to break that gender stereotype by buying more cosmetics. More cosmetics are sold. (Big surprise, I know:p)

But yeah, it's mostly just empirically confirming what was already common sense: marketing to women works, and having women in ads works. It has been decades since that was news even to car manufacturers.

It's good to have empirical confirmation, mind you. But it's not the blow to the "woke" that that dumb article makes it sound like. In fact, it has NOTHING to do with anything "woke". In fact, all that I can say about the article is that it's really the same old story: Journalist doesn't read even most of the press release (which already was making it sound as more than was actually in the study,) makes the rest up ex rectum, to have a sensationalist story instead of what would have been a nothingburger.

But as I was saying, even the press release was misrepresenting the study. It had nothing to do with "a full range of people". In fact, it didn't even study, say, how included or represented men vs women are in those ads, just how "unstereotypical". They'll even tell you that they averaged the GUM for both men and women for a company before correlating it to anything. And even their case studies contradict any notion anyone might have about it being about representation or "full range". E.g., in their Mars case study, what Mars had found is that it works better when you have MORE women than men. Or Bayer and Dorival ONLY had females in their ads, which is unsurprising, since they were trying to sell tampons to menstruating girls. Or the LUX campaign was specifically targeting Chinese women for their cosmetics, so yeah, they were showing them women.


Oh, and it's also suspiciously not showing the raw data. All the graphs are what they calculated. Mind you, I'm not sure even how you'd show any objective raw data, when it's all based on someone looking at an ad and judging how "gender unstereotype" it is. That's literally what they correlate to anything else in that study. There is no way to exclude the possibility of just making up the index to fit how successful a company was. Especially since we don't even have a list of the ads and the score they gave each.
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
It hasn't gone unnoticed that an anti-"woke"r wants to redefine the term "woke" now that they've lost the argument.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't go unnoticed when someone just unilaterally declares victory and pats themselves on the back, without actually even trying to have a sound argument. Because see above, the actual study supported none of those claims.
 
Last edited:
Mind you even the table of contents of the study itself gives a more grandiose idea than what you find if you actually read it.

E.g., "Challenging stereotypes through reimagined fairytales". Ooh, reimagining fairy tales to push an agenda? Now that sounds like it would trigger the anti-woke, right? Nah, it's just about Bayer using fairy tale princesses having their periods to sell tampons to teenage girls having periods. It's literally that much of a nothing burger.

Plus, what even is the stereotype being challenged? Did anyone actually stereotype those princesses as never having periods? Does anyone have their mind blown if they're told that Rapunzel may have also had a period at some point? Seems to me more like just stuff we don't think about, because it's not relevant to anything. And it can't be a stereotype if nobody thinks about it.

E.g., "Challenging gender stereotypes in China". Oooh, challenging gender stereotypes you say? In China? How progressive! Nah, it's just about a cosmetics brand marketing cosmetics to Chinese women. I'm not even sure what can even be less "unstereotypical" than telling women to buy cosmetics. They're just trying to convince them to go with the western stereotype instead of the Chinese one.

Frankly, you could even show this stuff to whatever goose-stepping alt right, and they wouldn't even blink.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom