Mouse Trap

 I’ve spent a fair amount of time over the past couple of years attempting to educate myself about the Woke movement.  I’ve read James Lindsay’s book, Cynical Theories, Gad Saad’s book, The Parasitic Mind, and Counter Wokecraft by Charles Pincourt and James Lindsay, and I have listened to Linday’s podcasts, as well as Bret Weinstein’s and Bari Weiss’s.  I have been taken aback by how quickly Wokeness has swept through the country.

The wildfire of Woke burning through academia and not-for-profits was not so surprising.  The professionals that inhabit these environments are sometimes  insulated and removed from the demands of the marketplace, at least in the short term.  Oberlin College could absorb a $31 million hit for waging a false campaign against the innocent bakery.  Harvard doesn’t give a passing thought to denting its elite status by admitting the supremely unqualified David Hogg.  Columbia University is fine with hiring radical Cathy Boudin, unrepentant murderer and member of the Weather Underground.  I suppose that their endowments are so large that in the cost/benefit analysis, these things actually enhance their brand by adding to their Woke bona fides.

But corporate America is different, or at least I thought so.  While there is some renewed debate over Milton Friedman’s assertion that the social responsibility of a business is to its shareholders, profit maximization mostly carries the day.  And as a practical matter, public companies remain under pressure to produce quarterly profits and please Wall Street.  For most companies, managing brand and image is an important aspect of that function.  They spent millions on trademark and copyright protection, promotion, focus groups, advertising, and on and on.   Even individuals will wage war to protect their brand.  A few years ago, Michael Jordan won a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Dominic’s grocery chain for using his image on a simply flyer without permission.

But this week, we saw companies that were willing to do incredible damage to their brand while chasing the holy grail of Wokeness instead of profits.  As I write this, there are protests in front of Disney headquarters, the park is virtually empty and the Disney plus channel has lost over 350,000 subscribers, and the stock tanked, losing some $2.4 billion in value.  This inexplicable act of brand self-immolation arose because of Disney’s opposition to the Florida bill passed to stop the teaching of matters of sexuality (read: gender ideology) up to 3^rd  grade.  Tarred with the falsely titled “Don’t Say Gay” bill, the act correctly prohibits teachers from introducing these matters with children that are too young to handle them.   Disney has doubled down, vowing to put more gay and trans characters in their films.  Boycotts are being organized and Republicans are even talking about not renewing the copyright on Mickey Mouse.

As someone who has spent a career analyzing, financing and helping to salvage businesses, it has been difficult to comprehend a corporate decision to commit brand suicide.  It flies in the face of management guru Peter Drucker’s famous quote that “the purpose of a business is to create a customer.”  Without even seeing any market research, we know that these actions will drive away a large swath of its core customer base—families with small children.

Sure, there have been other instances of bringing brands into Woke compliance—the removal of Aunt Jemimah, the Land O’ Lakes Indian woman, and the Cream of Wheat Chef.  The Land O’ Lakes action triggered a sarcastic response to the packaging which kept the wooded background, “Do they realize that, in an effort to be Woke, they removed the Indian but kept the land?” 

Of course, there was the NFL and Colin Kaepernick kneeling and Nike’s decision to halt the introduction of the Betsy Ross shoes (I immediately ordered a Betsy Ross flag patch and had it sewn over the “swoosh” emblem of my only Nike golf shirt).   But I assumed that the NFL decided that fans would drift back after some period of outrage.

Disney represents a real departure and aggressive implementation of Woke, going at the heart of its customer base.  Disney management is making a statement.  Its customers and shareholders are subordinate to Wokeness, and the most twisted and dark aspect of it-Milton Friedman and Peter Drucker be damned.

In the same week, GEICO insurance suffered a bloody nose when it used radical antisemite Linda Sarsour to promote its Middle Eastern and North African Heritage Month Celebration.  Sarsour is so vile that the Women’s March disconnected from her.  GEICO reacted quickly to what I assume was a flurry of objections.  It’s one thing for the thoroughly Woke Ben & Jerry’s to use Sarsour to promote its products but GEICO kicked a hornet’s nest with her.  To its credit, GEICO cancelled her and the event and issued a public apology.  But it’s still very troubling that featuring Sarsour made it through GEICO’s marketing department.  It’s department is clever, innovative and has great brand recognition with its silly ads featuring the lizard.  Someone very senior in the GEICO organization thought it was a splendid idea to replace the lizard mascot with a snake.

I was not shocked when academia and other not-for-profits swallowed the Woke poison early.  They tend to be somewhat disconnected from the realities of the marketplace.   I even bought into the rationale of organizations like the NFL and Nike because their brand might have been strong enough to take a short term hit and still bounce back.  But the actions of Disney are quantitatively different.  It is incontrovertible evidence that companies are willing to sacrifice their shareholders and customers on the altar of Wokeness, and that it is not isolated.  It is significant that GEICO initially was prepared to associate with Linda Sarsour.   This tells us how powerful this movement is, and how we can no longer be passive in opposing it.