Apple has given $100,000 to defeat the marriage amendment -- Proposition 8 -- and endorsed efforts to defeat the ban. It might seem like this is sound politics for the Left, but it will certainly hurt shareholders of Apple, says Peter Sealey in The Los Angeles Times.
At a time when the stock market is particularly rough,
...Apple’s decision could drive away customers who disapprove of same-sex marriage, said Peter Sealey, adjunct professor of marketing at the Peter Drucker Graduate School of Management at the Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, Calif. Sealey said he personally opposes Proposition 8 but thinks Apple’s decision was “wrong-headed.”The business of business is business, after all -- not social engineering. Businesses have only one responsibility -- to return money to their shareholders.“It will hurt shareholders of Apple,” he said. “People will not buy a Mac because of this decision.”
22 comments:
Charles, what's your stance on Prop. 8?
Please read Wind Up Bird Chronicles by Haruki Murakami. It's got some great commentary on economics-minded people such as yourself. It might blow your mind!
Brand-watchers believe Apple's public opposition to Prop 8 will actually increase business, not hurt it, particularly over the long term. The company would not have come out like this on Prop 8 were it not for a shrewd assessment of its marketing position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JixbzFjv_cU
Charles, you've been such a critic of moral relativism in the past. Isn't it possible that what's right is right?
I'll put my name to it and say I bet there are many many more people who will be more inclined to buy a mac because of this. Conservatives tend to be PCs anyways, no pun.
The CGU prof's perspective is horseshit.
Apple is not the only company to openly oppose Prop 8. Google has done the same. The reason is simple: both companies have tons of gay employees and they don't want to lose them. The risk of a "gay brain drain" if Prop 8 passes is significant.
$100k is nothing in the grand scheme, and is an important signal to employees.
The first order of business for any business is to take care of your employees. And that means defending their rights, and defending the Constitution from being enshrined with discrimination.
It might be something far more insidious.
In Massachusetts where they legalized gay marriage, they quickly kicked all the gays off of the work provided insurance plan as they were technically single.
It could be a cost saving mechanism.
Also, it's not just the $100,000. It's the loss that occurs from a backlash which will definitely occur if gay marriage passes.
Definitely? Citation please, Charles. And I don't think you spend 100k on Apple, so your own views won't suffice.
If a Macbook costs 1000 dollars, then if only one hundred people don't buy one because of their endorsement, they've lost lots of money. I think it will be more than one hundred.
As for shareholders, it's not the job of business to be charities.
thats 100k in lost revenue, and doesnt take in to account the people who will choose to buy the macbook because apple supported prop 8. again, lets get more than "i think," Charles.
It's not a question of what I believe. I don't see any evidence that gays (or their friends) will decide to buy more macs. On the contrary, I think it's fairly clear that you don't want to offend either side of this market.
As an openly gay mac user, I can honestly tell you... the gays LOVE the macs. The gay population also has considerable economic clout and buying power. Besides, who actually cites CGU professors. There is a reason they are at CGU, and not - say - CMC.
Word, Ben Casnocha.
This is not mere charity. Charity is giving money to a homeless shelter.
Giving money to a political cause is...political. It's strategic.
And in my view it's a damn smart move.
Most mass market consumers (such as those who oppose gay marriage) will never hear about this, or will soon forget.
Your employees, however, will not, and a financially insignificant but symbolically important move such as this is an excellent way to build goodwill with California employees.
"It's not a question of what I believe. I don't see any evidence that gays (or their friends) will decide to buy more macs. On the contrary, I think it's fairly clear that you don't want to offend either side of this market."
Who isn't a gay or a friend of a gay at this point? I have to imagine the percentage is minuscule.
I'm not sure it's the clear-cut. Considering that Macs are by far the computer of choice for the design-oriented, which tend to be congregated in large cities, I think it might be savvy.
In any event, it's certainly marketing. It gets Apple into the public consciousness. I don't even think it needed to donate 100,000 dollars - the very act of taking a stance on a controversial issue is buzz-generating.
I would imagine that's more worthwhile than customers they'll lose.
THE BLOGOSPHERE IS ABUZZ CHARLES.
ABUZZ.
Ben, don't agree.
It's non-essential for the business and likely to be little more than symbolic for the employees and to contribute to lawsuits which will certainly be the fallout of the plan if it passes. As for the mass market, you'd be surprised. The fastest growing demographics in our country oppose gay marriage. It's an unwise gamble when viewed strategic.
I see little evidence to suggest that Apple has that many gay employees. (I would recommend that if gay marriage becomes available, the straight people in committed, unmarried relatinoships sue if Apple continues to offer same-sex benefits to unmarried gay couples. That's what happened in Mass.)
Although it does make me wonder what the policy is on extending benefits to partners of unmarried couples, regardless of orientation. CUC currently covers my fiance, because he's registered in California as my domestic partner. I wonder if we'll lose that if Prop 8 fails. Hadn't thought of that before...
Here's your citation for what happened in Massachusetts. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2004/nf20040514_1508_db035.htm
"Now that gays have the right to marry in Massachusetts, however, some employers -- with the support of gay activists -- are getting rid of domestic-partner plans. Take Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, one of the renowned Harvard teaching hospitals, which provides such benefits to same-sex couples among its over-6,000 employees. Starting Jan. 1, 2005, it plans to begin treating gay couples just like heterosexual ones, which means gay couples living in Massachusetts must get married to qualify for benefits like health insurance. Living together in a "committed" relationship will no longer be good enough.
SIGN HERE. Staples (SPLS), which has some 40,000 employees scattered across the U.S., is going even further. Starting July 1, its gay employees living in Massachusetts must get married to get health- and life-insurance benefits for their partners. Similarly, gay employees living in Vermont must enter into a civil union. But gay employees in the other 48 states will have to provide only a written statement stating they're in a committed relationship.
Scrapping or limiting domestic-partner benefits in an effort to encourage gay couples to marry might seem like an invitation to more controversy. But it may be the only legally defensible course for corporations. "In my opinion, as of May 17, it will be unlawful to limit partner benefits in Massachusetts to same-sex couples," argues Webb. His reasoning: Providing domestic-partner benefits only to gays might be construed as discrimination against heterosexual couples living together outside marriage."
Ben, can you explain a bit more of why there is a significant risk of a "gay brain drain"? It seems like if they've been around since voters passed the law in 2000 defining marriage as between one man and one woman, they'd stick around if it passes again. What will be different?
Charles,
I think you're vastly underestimating the utility of marketing of ANY kind. Even if people personally won't buy Apple computers because of their perceived support of homosexuality, the fact that Apple is even entering their conciousness is a victory.
(my last comment)
"I see little evidence to suggest that Apple has that many gay employees." - Based on...what? Your visit to their Cupertino headquarters?
I find the Mass situation totally rational. Once gays can marry, marriage-like benefits should be offered only to married couples -- straight or gay.
I don't see how this is a bad thing and I'd welcome it in California.
The comments which focus on how customers in the market will react are missing the point. This is about employee loyalty and corporate culture over the long term.
Post a Comment