"Parents do not want children targeted with sexual messaging. This is a red line. Don't cross it."
A letter from the silent majority of shareholders about June Pride corporate branding.
At the beginning of the month, we sent the following letter to a list of companies our clients own for which we have Investor Relations contact information:
A Letter from the Silent Majority of Your Shareholders about June Pride Corporate Branding
We know that you are under constant pressure from outside activist groups and well-organized subsectors of your employees to go full-in this June on Pride Month. We urge you to remember that they do not represent the voices of everyone. Many of your shareholders, including the ones we represent, are concerned that June messaging goes beyond the commonsense acknowledgement that all customers and employees should be treated equally and with dignity and tips into taking sides in a deeply polarizing culture war. We think you want to avoid this, and we want you to know that we will back you when you do.
We see Disney, Target, and Bud Light as cautionary tales of ways in which companies have been cajoled into brand destructive messaging (" Corporate Political Activism and Shareholder Value"). We note that even Target is pulling back this year ("Target Is Treating Pride Month Very Differently This Year "). That should speak volumes to those who have ears to hear.
We especially want the company to be aware of the extreme sensitivity that the majority of your customers have regarding the mixing of highly sexualized content and minors. Parents are naturally highly protective of their children and do not want them targeted with sexual messaging. This is a red line, morally and reputationally. Don't cross it. Customers have long memories where kids are concerned.
We also urge you not to force sexual identity flair and paraphernalia onto the uniforms of service employees, nor onto their business-related websites. Coerced speech is morally unjustifiable and legally actionable. If an employee doesn't want to be forced to fly the rainbow flag, they should not be forced to. If "love wins," it shouldn't be via coercion. We think love "bears all things," including the rights of employees who dissent from the company line.
The same is true for humiliating "unconscious bias training" sessions in which employees are forced to confess to various privileges inherent in having a sexual identity that is not among the current ideologically protected classes. We have seen over and over again that the people who write or impose unconscious bias training have unconscious biases themselves. You should let every employee bring their whole selves to work. And employees who are not "allies" should have their viewpoints protected against discrimination.
Of course, employees should be evaluated based solely on merit. LGBTQ employees should not be discriminated against, but neither should employees who dissent from the political or culture views of that interest group. One IR executive we spoke to recently said to us "Inclusion isn't political." Our answer: "It is if it is selective." Inclusion is for everybody, otherwise it isn't inclusion at all, it's just taking sides. And it is not in your or your shareholders' interests for the company to be taking sides.
We think you know all this already. We think you know that groups such as the Human Rights Campaign move the goalposts every year. We also want you to know that our clients are invested in you, not because they like your participation in culture wars, but because they consider you to be a promising source of return. They think you are good at your business. You serve your customers, employees, and ultimately shareholders by staying focused on it. We think you want to do that, and we will support you in that. A majority of Americans do not want companies speaking publicly on political and social issues ("Consumers Are Less Interested in Brands Taking Stances on Sociopolitical Issues, Survey Finds ").
The shareholders we represent typically possess sufficient shares of company to easily qualify to propose resolutions for the proxy statement of the next annual meeting, but we believe the proposal system is a fallback for companies that are not responsive to shareholder concerns, not a first resort.
We hope this is something you are willing to genuinely discuss. But we respectfully request that you not respond by copying and pasting boilerplate DEI language from your page which does not speak to the issues we are raising.