Marxist

Nivea CEO – “we don’t do gay”

LGBTQ Nation has reported that Nivea CEO rejected a campaign from its ad agency – FCB Global – which involved two men holding hands with the words, “we don’t do gay at Nivea.” This has led to a social media backlash showing offended users binning their products in protest. The laugh is that the advertising agency wants to dictate to the client how it runs its business. Nivea just doesn’t wish to promote “woke.” A choice that it should be entitled to make, just as Nike or Gillette are.

Nobody asked in what context “we don’t do gay” were said? Was it in reaction to the disastrous Gillette (note P&G reports Q4 results on July 30th) campaign on toxic masculinity? Did Nivea merely not want to reference specific minorities where it didn’t feel sufficient market gaps or opportunities would be found or was it a venom filled homophobic tirade? CM is willing to bet it was the former. Some corporations don’t wish to mix politics with product.

Nivea got in hot water in 2017 when it promoted a skin lightening cream in Africa. After much success with such products in Asia (where lighter skin is deemed more beautiful and brands make a fortune selling cosmetics based on this) it tested the African market. Unfortunately it got into hot water despite demand. The skin whitening industry was $10bn in 2009 and expected to grow to over $23bn by 2020.

Should Nivea be bashed for supplying products to a market demand that clearly exists? If Africans wish to lighten their skin, shouldn’t that just be a question for that individual? No one is forcing Africans to use their products. Nicole Amartefio is rightly proud of her skin hue so she can choose, like many others, not to buy into the ‘insecurity.’ If Nivea sales tank, they can blame the marketing department for inadequate due diligence.

Maybe CM should protest the sunscreen market for heightening insecurities over skin cancer because whites have less melanin? Do people realise that sunglasses lower the risk of tanning because the eyes regulate melanin production based off the glare the eyes receive? Why doesn’t Nivea promote the use of sunglasses instead of selling expensive sunscreen?

However this is where the Nivea story gets stupid.

FCB Global has been Nivea’s as agency for over 100 years yet its CEO Carter Murray said it intends to end the relationship with Nivea at the end of the contract.

FCB is within its rights to bin a century of business development but if the client wants to follow a mainstream campaign rather than get woke, surely isn’t it Nivea’s prerogative to do so? Does it require Nivea to meticulously follow the social diktat of its service providers? Who does FCB Global think it is? Why does it seek to throw its client under the bus? So much for respecting a century old client relationship.

LGBTQ Nation argues that one of the agency staff who proposed the campaign was indeed gay himself. Presumably he was offended.

Sadly Nivea felt the need to make an irrelevant statement to defend something completely unnecessary,

We are an international company with more than 20,000 employees with very different genders, ethnicities, orientations, backgrounds and personalities worldwide…Through our products, we touch millions of consumers around the globe every day. We know and cherish  that individuality and diversity in all regards brings inspiration and creativity to our society and to us as a company.”

Do consumers honestly ask themselves how “woke” every brand they buy? It is not dissimilar to ANZ preaching about Maria Folau. Is that in the forefront of the 5 million customers it serves? That is not even taking into account the hypocrisy of a bank which was admonished by the Hayne Royal Commission for unethical behaviour.

If Nivea believe that advertising to the LGBT community is a winner, let it decide because it has far better information than FCB Global about markets, products and segmentation. It shouldn’t feel guilty. Subaru America ran a campaign that targeted the lesbian community. Clearly the brand felt its market position had to differentiate away from the monsters of Toyota and Honda.

Talk about FCB Global cutting off its nose to spite its face. Expect its business to be affected more than Nivea. #GetWokeGoBroke . Interested to see how Gillette’s Q4 trend has been since the disastrous Q3 when P&G reports.

The moral of the story is to let the free market weigh Nivea’s decisions. It hasn’t called for anything other than defending how it serves its client base. Nivea parent company, Beiersdorf AG, has not experienced a share price backlash.

USWNT score predictable own-goal

It was no surprise but the USWNT decided to avoid the invitation to the White House. Yet if these superstars truly can’t stand the democratically elected leader of the country they represent, why not use the opportunity to prosecute their convictions face-to-face instead of acting to the level they criticize him for?

If these people want to oust him in 2020, showing their love of self over love of country will only backfire when people mark their ballot papers. For world champions they really know how to kick the ball in the back of their own net.

Forbes addresses the equal pay argument in soccer

Forbes has thrown light on the gender pay gap in women’s soccer. The numbers are rather telling. As CM has always stated, if the earn more than then men they should Ben paid more, not equally. Journalist Michael Ozanian notes,

France earned $38 million from FIFA for winning soccer’s World Cup in Russia, while the women’s champion in France this summer will earn just $4 million, has prompted outrage…

…The total prize money for the Women’s World Cup in France this July will be $30 million compared with total prize money of $440 million for the men’s teams at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar…

…The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women’s World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.”

Thanks to JL for the flag.

High Priest of Rugby Australia hits the nail on the head

If Rugby Australia (RA) Chairman Cameron Clyne had a decent product he wouldn’t need to worry about sponsors. Sponsors want brand exposure. That requires packed crowds following the Wallabies.

Some quick facts since 2014 vs 2018.

-Wallabies team costs (coach, support etc) +70% ($9.97m)

-Match day revenue -42.1% ($20.17m)

-Sponsorships -11.5% ($28.23m)

-Player contracts +3.2% ($16.79m)

– Licensing revenue -12.9% ($1.67m)

– RA has $18m in cash and equivalents as at 2019.

– RA made $5.87m net profit in 2018 on $119m of revenue but is expected to post a loss in 2019.

The SMH points to the very problems that RA has created for itself. To take the notion that “no” sponsors would want to be associated had they done nothing is absolute garbage. The Australian Christian Lobby might fill the Qantas void…

Does Clyne honestly believe that LGBT staff within RA may have sued it for not creating a safe and respectful environment had Folau not been shot? What a joke. If it is that easy to get a payout, CM would identify as such to ride that gravy train. How weak is the board to fold to this dross?

Did RA do anything when Pocock was arrested for chaining himself to an excavator for 10 hours at the Maules Creek mine? He was charged with “trespass, remaining on enclosed land without lawful excuse and hindering the working of mining equipment.” Raelene Castle wasn’t CEO at the time but Cameron Clyne, Paul McLean and Ann Sherry were and still are board members. Where is the balance in sanctions handed out? Wasn’t there a risk the climate skeptics inside RA might sue for the lack of a respectful environment?

Clyne also mentioned there was a risk of state and federal funding cuts if this wasn’t dealt with. In 2018, these grants totaled $3.5m out of total revenues of $119m. Less than 3%.

Once again if RA was run for the fans it would stand a far higher chance of not needing to fear its own shadow.

Alinta Energy sponsors Cricket Australia post the cheating scandal with the cheats still representing their country. Is cheating any better or worse than tweeting passages paraphrasing the Bible? The point is sponsors took advantage.

Here’s a suggestion. Put Folau back, sack Cheika based solely on (lack of) performance, drop Hooper, Foley and all the other publicly woke players to the bench, replace the board, CEO and chairman, call Qantas’ bluff and watch the fans flood back. A sponsor that is presented with an opportunity to back the team at its nadir will reap the benefits like Alinta.

How dare you stand by your man

If CM had a dime every time another person or corporate talked about “diversity and inclusion” he’d be a millionaire. That one has to claim the bleeding obvious is nothing more than sanctimonious virtue signaling. It is nauseating. It’s like asserting one stands against Nazis. Really? How woke!

To have people question Israel Folau’s wife supporting her husband beggars belief. What does one expect? That she might publicly shame him on her Twitter account? Is anyone surprised she retweeted his GoFundMe appeal? Perhaps former Aussie netballer Liz Ellis can advise Maria Folau in the art of throwing her beloved under the bus.

She tweeted, “How about this: There is no room for homophobia in our game. Anyone who is seen to support or endorse homophobia is not welcome. As much as I love watching @MariaFolau play netball I do not want my sport endorsing the views of her husband.”

Liz, should Netball NZ launch a witch-hunt on Maria? Shall we make an example of her? Perhaps ask Jacinda Ardern’s judiciary to sink its newly sharpened fangs into Maria for retweeting Izzy’s ‘hatred’ and incarcerate her? Perhaps ask Twitter to terminate his account?

ANZ, sponsor of the domestic netball premiership, unsurprisingly came out with a politically correct response. Does ANZ have to prove to the 0.1% of activists who claim faux outrage that it isn’t homophobic? Why not appeal to the 0.000001% of fornicators, adulterers and drunks who might have been upset by Folau? It is amazing to think these institutions hire so many staff to floss the chrome fixtures in the executive bathroom.

Corporations really need to grow a pair. “Diversity and inclusion” are overused more in corporate virtue signaling than Casanova serenading “I love only you” on Valentine’s Day.

If ANZ had a look at the bank account balances of the activists that they fear so much they would soon learn they could easily afford to lose their business.

Quit the moral preening. You aren’t fooling anyone.

Greta & Obama

A propaganda picture which would have had a place in Soviet times. A socialist leader Obama looking down on a brainwashed teenager, Great Thunberg, who is unbeknownst being exploited by the intelligentsia.

The picture, while excellent as a stand-alone photo, has a patronizing overtone. The disdain held against those wicked climate skeptics. Had NZ PM Jacinda Ardern been in it, the leftist dream team would have been fully assembled. Although her 2050 zero emissions plan has been independently costed and its outrageous.

Obama better not tell Greta Thunberg about the disastrous Solyndra scandal otherwise those crossed arms might end up being for him.

Solyndra was an Obama era solar darling that the Inspector General’s Office, after more than four years of investigation, concluded that company’s senior management used inaccurate information to mislead the Department of Energy (DoE) in its $535 million loan. Soon after the fees landed, Solyndra declared bankruptcy.

Perhaps Greta should be speaking to Bjorn Lomborg to get a proper education on the real price of costing her plans for climate change.

Children in cages and the hypocrisy of the left

Good to see the woke artists of NY protest kids in cages by using 24 mock ups complete with audio being blasted through speakers of crying and wailing kids. pluck at those heart strings.

Where were these same people in 2014 when the Obama administration had a policy of kids in cages? It is far from ideal but let’s explore the facts.

No one wants to see screaming kids locked in cages. Separated? Well there is good reason for that. When even the likes of left-leaning HuffPoadmitted in December 2014 that 80% of women and girls are sexually assaulted while trying to make it across the border there is a good reason to question the proof of identity of the supposed parents. Even if 90% of parent/children pairs are legit, what of the 10% that aren’t? Do ICE risk it?

Australia had an experience of a mother from Nepal (a democracy not at war) who deliberately poured boiling water on her infant to expedite processing on the mainland. Are these the values of people we should provide refuge to? We should not forget that many people make the journey knowing ALL the risks that confront them yet still attempt it despite the warnings.

To emphasize the danger of lax screening, multiple kids were found dead after being abandoned once across the border as their usefulness as a golden ticket on compassionate grounds was expended. If that isn’t some of the worst forms of child abuse then what is? Moreover these people are hardly the type that decent Americans would want to embrace with open arms!

In Jan 2016 WaPo noted, “The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children…several Guatemalan teens were found in a dilapidated trailer park near Marion, Ohio, where they were being held captive in squalid conditions by traffickers and forced to work“. So slave labour to repay human traffickers? Let’s encourage more to attempt the crossing!

Then ICE has the trouble of finding the parents/guardians (sponsors) already living (often) illegally to collect their unaccompanied children at pre-arranged court hearings. The media went into a frenzy saying that ICE had lost the records. The truth came out in Feb 2016 that,

“The head of ICE’s removal operations, Thomas Homan, told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that 7,643 immigrants who arrived as children were sent home between the 2012 and 2015 budget years…More than 171,000 children, mostly from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, were arrested at the border during that same time…The number of children caught crossing the border illegally spiked in 2014 [see impacts in NY Times graphic below] and the Obama administration promised that those who were not eligible for protections in the United States would be swiftly sent home… And with an immigration court backlog of more than 474,000 pending cases some cases can take years to move through the court system…

…about 40% of immigrants are no shows at court…Finding immigrant children with outstanding deportation orders is also complicated by the fact that they often are no longer at the addresses provided to the government.”We are out looking,” Homan said. “But they are hard to find. A lot of these folks who don’t show up in court, we don’t know where they’re at.”

The pictures of kids in concentration camp style cages were from 2014. Yet don’t let that get put in the way of a narrative to show the nationalist tendencies of the current administration.

While we can express outrage at the treatment of illegal immigrants at the border, the tougher laws have started to resonate with Ana Garcia Carias, wife of Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who said, “Stay in the country and let’s look for solutions to support you.” She visited the border and said that she didn’t recommend her citizens go to the US undocumented. If a court system has nearly 500,000 backed up in the system, it seems reasonable to push for a zero tolerance policy to end.

So typical of the left – it’s not the principle but the side that counts. Of course Trump is a single handed villain using Gestapo tactics to jail kids despite Obama starting the practice of caging in the first place.

More stats on ICE can be found in CM’s report here.