A majority of Americans across nearly all demographic groups said DEI initiatives have made no impact on their personal careers, according to a newly released Harris Poll/Axios Vibes survey.
Why it matters: Republican lawmakers and activists have vilified DEI, a term for diversity, equity and inclusion policies used by employers. Companies have responded by rolling back programs.
- Yet Americans — and businesses — have a generally positive to at least indifferent view on the subject.
- On balance, most demographic groups were more likely to say DEI benefited their career than hindered it.
Budweiser also experienced a backlash-based boycott over issues like this, it’s not just the entertainment industry.
My point is just that “DEI generates more revenue because it broadens customer bases” is not necessarily true. It’s an overly broad statement, there are cases where that’s not the case and so companies should take that into account and perhaps be cautious about advertising their DEI initiatives. It’s become political, which means taking one side necessarily puts you at odds with the other side. That’s potential customers.
What are you even talking about? DEI has nothing to do with either the entertainment industry having more diverse characters in movies or about Budweiser contracting a transgender spokesperson for what should have been an insignificant media campaign.
But your objection to people who are not white and heteronormative in the media is noted.
And here’s why this is such a dangerous topic to touch on, it instantly becomes “us vs them” and you see a fight to be fought even when it’s not actually there.
I made no such objection.
This is what you said:
So you’re saying [what you think is] DEI causes poor performances but you don’t object to it?
Yes.
It’s a true fact that a hospital could cut its costs tremendously if they were to secretly euthanize people with terminal illnesses. Stating this fact does not mean that I am in favor of secretly euthanizing people with terminal illnesses. It happens to be quite the opposite.
In one of my other comments in this thread I said what I’d like to see:
Okay? What does that have to do with diversity in movies resulting in movies with untalented actors?
It doesn’t have anything to do with that. You’ve brought things into the discussion that I have not said anything about.
This is the statement that I was responding to:
And I pointed out that it doesn’t always broaden the customer base, it sometimes narrows it. There are customers who will avoid a product that is associated with DEI initiatives.
I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t. I’m not even saying why they would avoid it, or why they would claim to avoid it. Just that in some situations DEI initiatives don’t broaden the customer base.
You literally said that:
So again, what does this have to do with the talent of actors in movies?
Oh, I think I may have figured out where the misunderstanding lies. You think that when I said “poor performances” I was talking about acting performances. I was talking about performance at the box office.
Studios don’t really care about the quality of the performance, they just care about the profit.
That seems consistent. Why would they care if companies lose money on DEI? It’s about what’s right, not what’s economically viable.
What does losing money have to do with performances in a movie unless the performances are bad ones?
I believe they meant performance as in box office performance, like, how much money the movie makes.
I guess it’s up to them to clear that up.
I’m sure they will. I’m pretty sure I’m right though-- how could backlash to the movie affect the actors’ performances in that movie? That makes no sense. Backlash affects the reception to the movie, which affects the profit. If you reread the thread with that definition in mind, the replies to your comments might seem more reasonable/coherent.