Ban Corporations on Social Media Instead of Humanizing Them
Minnie Mouse wears a pantsuit. Imaginary talking pieces of candy are officially inclusive. Every company believes in equality on International Women’s Day. These gestures and the many other “inclusiveness” and “ally” initiatives corporations spew on social media are nothing more than a thin candy shell.
Disney sells rainbow Mouse ears during Gay Pride Month, but donates hundreds of thousand of dollars for a bill many consider anti-gay. That, and Disney refuses to have gay characters in their biggest movies. Don’t give me that Marvel’s Eternals had gay characters in it crap, either. No one saw that movie. And why not have the main characters of a major blockbuster film be gay?
Anti-gay consumers and China.
China and it’s billions of consumers tend to reject movies with gay characters, so movie studios bend the knee to a country that violates human rights every single day by not producing mainstream movies with gay main characters. For clarity, human rights violations is a nice way of saying “mass arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearances, mass surveillance, cultural and religious persecution, separation of families, forced returns to China, forced labor, and sexual violence and violations of reproductive rights.” Those acts are committed every single day in China. But hey, China pays in American dollars. We’ll let that slide. Disney and Hollywood are not only anti-gay, they’re anti-humanity, too. And they’re not alone.
The National Basketball Association, where Black Lives Matter, but the oppression and violation of Chinese people is brushed aside because it would “damage the NBA’s worldwide brand.” That’s corporate speak to curb saying anything against the Chinese government and the disgusting abuses against human beings the government facilitates. Speaking out against China would cost NBA executives and superstar players millions and millions in revenue. I guess, murderers buy sneakers, too.
Disney and nearly every other organization in America only cares about one thing … profits. And these billion-dollar companies are terrified of actually sticking up for and/or providing meaningful support to marginalized communities. What if support towards gay people leds to a boycott of Disney’s overpriced bullshit? Plus, marginalized communities only make a small portion of our population, so fuck ’em. Businesses can do a little fake caring with a new rainbow product or social media posts to appease those groups and their supporters.
The NBA, Disney, and Hollywood are unfortunately just a few examples. There’s hundreds of organizations with the same blood money on their hands. Apple, Amazon, and practically every brand you recognize could be added to this list. The list I call:
Doing the right thing. Only when it’s profitable. The American way.
Yet, every “National Whatever Day,” corporations fire off pictures, posts, and specialized products to support whatever is in vogue for that day, week, or month. Not because these corporations want to actually make a difference, but because they want to seem like they care, strictly for monetary purposes, because men in suits don’t care about anything other than profits.
I’m sick of it.
And I have an idea to fight back against it.
Ban all businesses from social media.
Hear me out.
Isn’t it odd that I know a certain burger chain is funny, while another one is quirky? Then there’s a fast-food joint that sticks to its storied history and traditional roots — considered timeless by consumers and the executives who thought of the branding. Why do I know that? How do I know that? Why does an inanimate object have personality? Why are corporations making jokes to each other on Twitter? What kind of capitalist, dystopian hell is this?!
Imagine this. You walk into work. You go to your first meeting. The objective? Developing a social media brand for a fast-food burger chain.
“We need to create a brand for Dilly Donovan’s,” your boss says. “What would Dilly Donovan be like? Is he funny? Is he sarcastic? Maybe he’s stoic and no nonsense.”
“I don’t know, Bob,” you say. “I think that I always get a hell of a cheeseburger whenever I go. I never really thought about a fast-food chain as a person.”
“But what emotions can we invoke in people? How should he interact with customers, potential customers and rival brands online? Does he comment and troll others?” Bob smiled when he emphasized ‘troll.’ I guess he impressed himself by understanding and correctly using the word.
“Dilly Donovan has to have a personality that connects with customers,” the branding expert says. “What would Dilly Donovan be like if he was real? What color scheme makes people feel happy when they see Dilly Donovan?”
Company mascots being brought to life in the name of preventing the world from a lack of delicious cheeseburger options.
I’ve had meetings like this in my career. I couldn’t hide my disgust trying to humanize businesses for profits. Why can’t Dilly Donovan just serve food and leave me alone? If the food and customer service is good, I’ll come back. I’ll probably come back if it’s only mildly okay, but affordable. I don’t need to think of Dilly Donovan as the zany pirate with the best personality out of all the fast food burger chains.
The worst, but best example of the need to ban businesses from social media was during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Every business had to post an official “COVID Statement” that went something like this:
“Our thoughts and prayers are with you during this uncertain time. Here at (Business Name), our operations are still open. Here’s a 10% coupon to buy some stuff to purchase away your terror of living during a pandemic. Then they’d do some uncatchy play on words of their slogan or say whatever COVID hashtag was trending that day.”
We’re all about to die.
Buy some of our shit before you do.
Because we care about you during this uncertain time.
I must have had over a thousand emails from corporations in my inbox who used a fucking pandemic as a customer touchpoint.
Then there’s the whole businesses communicating with one another on social media. It’s weird. Wendy’s says something mean to McDonalds. It goes viral and turned into a meme. Everyone is talking about the sick burn online asking for Wendy’s to “roast them next.” Free advertising for billion dollar companies.
Isn’t it strange that businesses become humanized on social media, but humans become vilified? A human tweets something stupid from a place of ignorance? Cancel them. Kick them out of society. Bully them. Make life for them and their family hell. Never let them participate in humanity again.
Businesses get caught using profits to buy political influence while allowing deaths, unsafe working conditions, poor pay and violating basic human rights? We buy more of their products. We just LOVE the brand. I’m talking about Apple and Steve Jobs here. Apple makes working conditions so bad in China, a factory where iPhones are made installed suicide nets to prevent workers from killing themselves. What do we do as American consumers? We wait hours in line to be the first person to get the brand new iPhone with the better camera and bigger screen. A screen people literally committed suicide while working on. It’s called a sweatshop, and they still exist. Apple is still considered a great brand. Apple makes superior products. Fuck other people. I need iMovie.
Now, the downside of banning businesses on social media is the loss of jobs for many brand consultants, social media managers, and marketing gurus. I must admit, some of the things that social media workers post as brands are absolutely hilarious. These folks are amazing at their jobs, but still … there’s just something inherently evil about giving a corporation a personality. Maybe instead of being social media managers for brands, they can be hired by the executives at these companies. The social media managers can give us a peek inside the lives of those who are American successes. The American Dream LIVE … from the office of corprate executives 24/7. Let, we the people, understand which causes and political campaigns each executive supports. I figure if we know more about the people running organizations, that’ll show the true “brand personality” of the company. Unless you’d rather pick which companies you do business with based on imaginary characters’ outfits, false support, and Twitter beefs.
One last thing about the gender pay gap and organizations posting bullshit support of women’s quality:
“One British couple created a Twitter bot, @PayGapApp, that retweets posts from companies, schools and nonprofits with International Women’s Day-specific keywords or hashtags alongside a note revealing how women’s pay compared to men’s within the organization.
Unlike U.S. companies, those in Britain with 250 or more employees have been required to release information on salary differences between men and women each year since 2018. The vast amount of data, available to the public on a searchable government website, reveals that men working full-time in the country earned 7.9% more than women as of April 2021.” — Entrepreneur
Unfortunately, the Gender Pay Gap Bot only tracks United Kingdom companies with over 250 employees. What a law! Forcing companies to report salary differences between men and women? That’s a sure fire way to hold corporate executives accountable for their sexism and fakeness. Because that’s what posting about women’s equality while underpaying female employees is. That’s a law that should be here in America, but of course it isn’t. I wonder why that is?
Happy Women’s History Month!