they actually do, but its more covertly than that. at least with things like the eco-protests trying to disrupt traffic, or public spaces this is to undermine the movement to turn people against the protestors and the movement itself. this is all done by the oil industry, they also fund initiatives like"reduicng your Carbon footprint" so they dont have to reduce thier emissions. i remember certain educational videos about animals where they were promoting these initiative they were called out as being “shells” for the oil companies, luckily they removed it after in future videos.
Donating to politicians is more effective.
Leadership of these companies are part of an elite business class. They live in their own luxury, country club world separate from the rabble. They think the common man doesn’t know what’s good for them. They keep an eye out for other high up jobs at big firms so they don’t rock the boat.
Noam Chomsky talks about this a lot. I recommend reading more from him. Also Michael Sandel has makes this point in a more politically anodyne way.
Civil unrest is the one situation where corporations hope everyone forgets they exist.
This would be the most American thing possible.
The success of the protests would be measured by how much profit they created.
Businesses would buy fire insurance, then give Molotov cocktails to rioters in front of branch locations trying to unionize.
Megaphone speeches would include messages from the sponsors.corporate success for companies as huge as McDonald’s or Coca-Cola rely on the broadest appeal. that means being politically agnostic. aligning with anyone would alienate at least some of their customer base and cost them tremendous amounts of money. so they just stay as neutral as possible.
Politically agnostic out in public, politically fascist in the sheets.
See also: the owner of Chipshol (related to Schiphol, the airport), who donated millions to the fascist party, despite donation restrictions being active.
Surely that would have to be changed to “No Burger Kings”. Wouldn’t have the same impact.
“No Kings but the Burger King™” could get traction.
Big business tends to be on the other end of the political spectrum
I’m unsure whether it would be cringe or clever if McDonalds went all in on the No Kings protest, claiming that they misunderstood the concept and thought it was against Burger King.
Would you buy burgers from burger king if they sponsored people yelling outside abortion clinics?
Sponsoing protests would be a great way to lose half your customers. You won’t make up for it by selling more burgers to the protesters sympathisers.
Just like Michael Jordan said: “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”
because then they would be punished by the trump administration. he would have govt agencies cone up with reasons to investigate them, take away their tax breaks, etc.
the point of a company is to make money, that’s it.
Large brands, like MacDonalds, avoid controversy because their business model depends on appealing to the widest possible audience. Their goal is to keep people consuming whether that means buying products, eating, or staying at their establishments.
Supporting movements like “No Kings” or any form of protest risks alienating a significant portion of potential customers.
There is no upside to taking a stance. Only risk to the bottom line.
I question the sincerity but its grassroots and no one is looking for corpo sponsorship. They could anonymously donate if they want and its important to them.
protesting is one of the few “real” things left to us, it would be horrifying it that got commercialised too.
🤦
Perhaps this community should be renamed…