The article, "Under Armour tries to recover from Trump compliment" by Ahiza Garcia, looks at the effects that personal politics can have on business. The CEO of Under Armour made a comment about how Trump is good for business because of his focus on creating jobs. This comment caused some customers to want to boycott Under Armour and even two of its sponsees, Steph Curry and Misty Copeland, to denounce the positive comment toward Trump. The company then issued a statement denouncing Trump's travel ban in an effort to appease customers.
This article highlights one of the problems businesses face in today's increasingly polarized political environment: whether or not taking a political stance will harm a company's profits. For companies like Under Armour, who is facing falling revenues, taking a controversial or unpopular political stance could further diminish profits. Remaining silent on political issues is one option for companies afraid of alienating customers. I think companies and their top employees can express political opinions, but need to be prepared for backlash against the company.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/10/news/companies/under-armour-nike-trump-adidas/index.html?iid=SF_River
1 comment:
I believe that businesses like Under Armour should keep their political stance and comments to themselves. Commenting on sensitive subjects will only do harm to a business. Also, I believe that the boycott could have been much worse for Under Armour. They could have potentially lost a vital sponsorship like with Steph Curry
Post a Comment