> There’s a tendency to view companies’ involvement in causes as greedy ploys. This author feels that way, especially given the cynicism-inducing conclusions of previous Priceonomics investigations. Looking into the history of engagement rings led us to marketers who made up the tradition to sell more diamonds. Searching out the origins of the phrase “Breakfast is the most important meal of the day” revealed that it’s a 1944 ad campaign designed to sell more breakfast cereal.
> In this case, it’s heartening that the origins of lesbians’ stereotypical affinity for Subarus is not a cynical marketing campaign, but a progressive one. In a sense, all Subaru did was notice a group of customers and create ads for them. But that was a big deal. Subaru's ad campaign acknowledged a group that often felt unwelcome and invisible.
I don't think that the two views are contradictory. In a capitalist society, political power comes with integration into consumerism, marketing, and all the rest; and vice versa. Market power is a potent way to push a political agenda.
Maybe a company believes in your cause more than its bottom line. Maybe a politician cares more about you than about winning their next election. If you're campaigning to change society, the difference isn't really material. It can change your tactics a bit, but allies are allies no matter their motivation.
I always assumed the breakfast phrase had its origin in Kafka's Metamorphosis:
> The washing up from breakfast lay on the table; there was so much of it because, for Gregor's father, breakfast was the most important meal of the day and he would stretch it out for several hours as he sat reading a number of different newspapers.
But then again, I guess it would have never become such a common phrase through Kafka alone. Funny would be if the above formulation only appeared in post 1944 translations.
> I don't think that the two views are contradictory.
I agree, with freedom of choice and competition, the burden falls on the consumers to choose what they support. In other words, voters vote with their ballots. Consumers vote with their dollars, both are very important in a democratic society.
> In this case, it’s heartening that the origins of lesbians’ stereotypical affinity for Subarus is not a cynical marketing campaign, but a progressive one. In a sense, all Subaru did was notice a group of customers and create ads for them. But that was a big deal. Subaru's ad campaign acknowledged a group that often felt unwelcome and invisible.
I don't think that the two views are contradictory. In a capitalist society, political power comes with integration into consumerism, marketing, and all the rest; and vice versa. Market power is a potent way to push a political agenda.
Maybe a company believes in your cause more than its bottom line. Maybe a politician cares more about you than about winning their next election. If you're campaigning to change society, the difference isn't really material. It can change your tactics a bit, but allies are allies no matter their motivation.