Comment by walterbell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by walterbell | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Yesterday I Was Levi’s Brand President. I Quit So I Could Be Free", https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/yesterday-i-was-levis-brand...

> But the calls kept coming. From legal. From HR. From a board member. And finally, from my boss, the CEO of the company. I explained why I felt so strongly about the issue, citing data on the safety of schools and the harms caused by virtual learning. While they didn’t try to muzzle me outright, I was told repeatedly to “think about what I was saying.” ... In the last month, the CEO told me that it was “untenable” for me to stay. I was offered a $1 million severance package, but I knew I’d have to sign a nondisclosure agreement about why I’d been pushed out. The money would be very nice. But I just can’t do it. Sorry, Levi’s.

> I loved wearing Levi’s; I’d worn them as long as I could remember. But if you had told me back then that I’d one day become the president of the brand, I would’ve never believed you. If you told me that after achieving all that, after spending almost my entire career at one company, that I would resign from it, I’d think you were really crazy. Today, I’m doing just that. Why? Because, after all these years, the company I love has lost sight of the values that made people everywhere—including those gymnasts in the former Soviet Union—want to wear Levi’s.

"Meantime, the Head of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the company asked that I do an “apology tour.” I was told that the main complaint against me was that “I was not a friend of the Black community at Levi’s.” I was told to say that “I am an imperfect ally.” (I refused.) "

Jesus. That's horrendous. That's religious fundamentalism.

Brands like Levis never weigh in on controversial issues until they've hit a certain inflection point of public discourse and it is clear where the majority of society will land on it. Then in hindsight, they will try to present themselves as pioneers of progressive ideals when they really only hopped onto the bandwagon when it was clear which bandwagon was going to win the race.

Today, some of these issues are being litigated faster than they were in the past. But don't be mistaken. Nike almost dropped Colin Kaepernick in the heat of the moment of his controversy. They only embraced him a few years later when it was safe to do so. I suspect Jennifer Sey drank her own koolaid in thinking that she'd be able to come out one way or the other on this still hotly contested issue.

Marketers choose their words carefully and more importantly than that, refrain from taking a stand until they know precisely how it can be dutifully exploited for their brand's needs. You might dislike this. But that's the game that's played in that industry. There's a reason that corporations, and the brands which encapsulate their identities, have been called psychopaths.

You might dislike this. But that's the game that's played in that industry

I’m confused. Why would I dislike that marketers are doing their jobs? Are they not supposed to choose their words and bandwagons carefully? Do you want your dentist pushing his controversial opinions onto you while treating your teeth? If you have a conflict of interests (professional vs personal) you resign. I don’t see a problem here.

It still surprises me how much we care about a company's opinion, as if it were some kind of entity capable of thinking for itself. It's perhaps a kind of parasocial relationship. People often feel connected to brands in a way that, of course, the brand does not think about them. I imagine that's why people get personally hurt if their favourite brands speak out on a topic that put's them at oods.

"The revolution always devours its children"

Thanks for sharing this, awesome. I dropped Levi's a few years ago due to their stance against the second amendment. It's a shame what has happened to a lot of formerly great companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com