> This is surprising becase other studies, such as of oil companies during the BP oil spill, or car manufacturers during the VW emissions scandal, did find negative effects. Similarly, sexual abuse allegations hurt both the Bostonian Catholic church and the Michael Jackson estate.
This doesn’t seem too surprising? In the first two cases, the scandal is about the main product of the companies, so consumers would feel that the actual goods are tainted. With the Catholic church and the Jackson estate, the scandals are central to the entity themselves, and neither entity has fully recanted. In all of those cases, the core issue is still there. But with Subway, Jared was ultimately and obviously an advertising gimmick. A well-used advertising gimmick, but one that Subway quickly cut ties with. No one going to Subway afterward thought that their sub was funding pedophilia or made by pedophiles.
Agreed, it would be different if Subway kept him on as a spokesperson or there was evidence that Subway knew he was a pedophile, but otherwise, I don’t see why consumers would hold a grudge.
How a company reacts really makes an impact. I despise Jared, but Subway's quick cutting of ties with him made me not see them any differently. They didn't know. Compare that with how I reacted to Spotify after they enriched Joe Rogan, or Twitter with its new owner. Even Facebook after the 2016 election, Rohyinga genocide & Zuckerberg's infamous Holocaust deniers, "there are things different people get wrong". I cancelled my FB account.
As gmt says, how a company or organization reacts to repugnant acts is what really determines if they are punished in the marketplace.
> This is surprising becase other studies, such as of oil companies during the BP oil spill, or car manufacturers during the VW emissions scandal, did find negative effects. Similarly, sexual abuse allegations hurt both the Bostonian Catholic church and the Michael Jackson estate.
This doesn’t seem too surprising? In the first two cases, the scandal is about the main product of the companies, so consumers would feel that the actual goods are tainted. With the Catholic church and the Jackson estate, the scandals are central to the entity themselves, and neither entity has fully recanted. In all of those cases, the core issue is still there. But with Subway, Jared was ultimately and obviously an advertising gimmick. A well-used advertising gimmick, but one that Subway quickly cut ties with. No one going to Subway afterward thought that their sub was funding pedophilia or made by pedophiles.
Agreed, it would be different if Subway kept him on as a spokesperson or there was evidence that Subway knew he was a pedophile, but otherwise, I don’t see why consumers would hold a grudge.
How a company reacts really makes an impact. I despise Jared, but Subway's quick cutting of ties with him made me not see them any differently. They didn't know. Compare that with how I reacted to Spotify after they enriched Joe Rogan, or Twitter with its new owner. Even Facebook after the 2016 election, Rohyinga genocide & Zuckerberg's infamous Holocaust deniers, "there are things different people get wrong". I cancelled my FB account.
As gmt says, how a company or organization reacts to repugnant acts is what really determines if they are punished in the marketplace.