It seems Ben and Jerry’s may be next in the firing line after they made waves with a provocative 4th of July tweet claiming the US is on stolen Indigenous land. Could we witness a downturn similar to Bud Light?

Or is their irresistibly good ice cream strong enough to keep their ship afloat?

Edit: Side note - in the absence of B&J, what ice cream are you turning to? I’m in AUS. So B&J was a game changer. Not anything else like it that I’m aware of.

  • 1100000011110@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ben & Jerry’s has always projected a Vermonter, hippy, psuedo-leftist image as a company (despite being owned by Unilever since 2000). This tweet is perfectly in line with that image, and the die-hard B&J fans probably won’t bat an eye.

    • sarsaparilyptus@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree, it is in line with their image, their image being “phony progressive platitudes on top of bog-standard corpro shit”. It’s pretty rich for B&J to be sanctimonious about stolen land when they also do a shitload of business in Russia, which is currently attempting to steal even more land and is murdering every Ukrainian civilan they possibly can in the process. They sued their own parent company for allowing a licensee to sell B&J ice cream in the West Bank—not a word now. The fact that Ben has donated over a million dollars to a political action group that sought to stop the U.S. from arming Ukraine is technically a coincidence considering he no longer works there, but their public stance is just as bad. Wouldn’t be surprised if they’re also super into Greenpeace and Tienanmen Square Truthing. Disingenous garbage like what this corporation peddles is why the American left has such a reputation problem.

      • 1100000011110@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Die-hard Bud Light fans tend to be conservative men, and Bud Light did a small promotion with a person that doesn’t fit into their worldview. That vocal minority made a stink, got some press coverage, and maybe put a dent in this quarter’s earnings. But most average consumers didn’t care or maybe didn’t even notice, and they kept buying whatever beer they usually buy.

        In this case, the die-hard fans won’t be up in arms. There won’t be nearly as much noise to make it through to the press and therefore to average consumer. Most people won’t hear about this tweet. If they do come across it, and disagree with the message, they’ll probably just roll their eyes and forget about it before their next trip to the grocery store.

        Another difference, some people make their favorite brand of beer a part of their identity, and treat it the way some people treat their favorite football team. I would expect there are fewer people that do the same for their favorite brand of ice cream.

  • nehzqk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haven’t we always known Ben & Jerry’s political stance? They’ve been pretty upfront about stuff, so I don’t think this is a surprise to anyone. I’d assume if people cared about their politics, they already wouldn’t be buying from them.

    • TechyDad@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Back in 2016, I got to taste a new flavor from Ben & Jerry’s called “Feel the Bern” which showed their support for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. Anyone who gets surprised that Ben & Jerry’s is political hasn’t been paying attention.

      Then again, some people became shocked that Rage Against The Machine was political leading to a commenter asking “what machine did you think they were raging against?”

      • DJDarren@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        “what machine did you think they were raging against?”

        The one that George Soros uses to print all those cheques, obviously.

  • LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, it’s technically the truth. Unless you consider that the land was bought with a bunch of blankets. Anyway so what’s your favorite B&J flavor?

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      And it’s not like it’s a surprise that Ben & Jerry’s are ‘woke’. They were part of Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

    • Stan@lemmywinks.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hasn’t every land been stolen from someone else ten times over since the beginning of recorded history?

      • Methylman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think what you say is fair if not true - one difference (and I’m sure there are more) is these weren’t lands acquired by conquest/military subjugation, but rather by agreement with the landholding populations to live in peace. What actually happened was the indigenous populations were lied to in one way or another such that the European nations never held up their side of the bargains because of ambiguity in the agreements in addition to Europeans plainly lying about what was being agreed to.

        I think this is evident in the ways the Canadian Reconciliation Calls to Action use language such as “call upon the Government of Canada…to jointly develop with Aboriginal peoples a Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation…[which] would build on the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Treaty of Niagara of 1764, and reaffirm the nation-to-nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown

        Essentially these lands were never legally taken which is why the indigenous groups can/should lay claim to them. That makes this scenario different than a group being displaced by military conquest (which is technically recognized as a legal, albeit cruel, mechanism for displacing people).

    • Karlos_Cantana@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many “indigenous” people stole land from other " indigenous" people before Britain, France, and Spain stole the country from the indigenous people. The US took the land from Britain by war. It got the land from Spain and France through war/purchase.

      That’s a very compressed 400 year history, so some facts are more nuanced, but that’s my point about saying the land was stolen. Every country was “stolen” from someone else sometime in history either through war or purchase.

        • cyberic@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not to start a debate, but how many civilizations did the same before? I don’t see many Babylonians around.

          Not to say that doing it makes it ok, but just because we have written history of some civilizations and not others should be taken into account.

  • DuzAwe@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    What down turn? Bud made more profit than average during the “boycott”

    • _errer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      They slipped from #1 best selling beer for a quick minute, to be replaced by another InBev product. Good job, redcaps, you sure showed who’s boss around here.

      It’s capital.

    • LachlanUnchained@lemmyunchained.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where are you getting your numbers?

      The way they treated Mulvaney, was disgusting. Trotted out to try boost profits, it backfired. Then left em in a ditch. Could let even stick to their convictions.

      • TechyDad@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was the worst possible response. Had they stuck to their guns, the right would have remained angry, but the left would have been fine. By ditching Mulvaney over the “outrage,” the left became upset and the right wasn’t mollified.

    • yads@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think their sales did go down and a bunch of execs stepped down iirc

  • TheAndrewBrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ben & Jerry’s has been fairly socially progressive for a while, this is not their first campaign like this and it hasn’t seemed to really affect them yet. There’s also the fact that part of Bud Light’s problem was who their average consumer was. Not every company that does something like that will get the same treatment, but when you advocate for something that most of your customers will disagree with, it’ll cause you problems.

    For example, take the Chicks (formerly the Dixie Chicks). They took a stand against the war in Iraq and made negative comments about George W. Bush. They were nowhere close to the first band/artist to this, but they saw the most backlash. But it’s because they were a country band so the majority of their fanbase supported the things the condemned.

  • mysoulishome@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ben & Jerry’s has always been very vocal about extremely progressive politics. I’m somewhat surprised anyone doesn’t know. They label themselves hippies from Vermont and do crazy things like pay their employees a living wage and advocate for other companies to do it. Big on environmental issues too. Their politics make it taste better.

    As for me, I am proud of my country and salute the flag but the land was stolen and America perpetrated a genocide on the natives…100%.

  • bobthened@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Bud light saw a temporary drop in revenue because a big part of their market is right wing reactionary morons. Ben and Jerries doesn’t market towards those types, they’ve always been a relatively ethical and left(ish) leaning company. Saying something like ”the United States is on stolen indigenous land” will only make B&J’s more popular.

    Also let’s not forget that Bud Light is just one of the several hundred brands that are owned by Anheuser Busch, the actual drop in revenue is basically nothing to them.

      • bobthened@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m talking after the lgbtq+ push back

        I don’t believe you to be honest. I think you’re just saying that now to try to save face.

        And if that was what you were talking about then your post makes even less sense than I thought. Why would an obviously true statement like “The USA exists on stolen indigenous land” made by a company that everyone already knows is sorta left leaning politically (and has been saying things like that for decades) ever piss off their market of the exact type of person who would agree with a statement like that?

        • LachlanUnchained@lemmyunchained.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Check my comment history haha.

          But good job avoiding everything in my comment in an attempt to avoid the subject.

          You claimed it was “right wing reactionary morons”.

          My point is I am talking “after the lgbtq+ push back”

          Are you calling the lgbtq+ reactionary Morons?

          Are you cool with how InBev has treated them?

          The way I see it, this is an opportunity for the right and left to actually come together to some degree.

          • bobthened@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            None of what you’re saying makes any sense. That’s why I’m not acknowledging every single talking point.

            Why would the left ever be annoyed at the kind of statements Ben and Jerries made??

            • LachlanUnchained@lemmyunchained.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s fascinating that you’ve decided to pigeonhole consumers and their reactions into simplistic ‘left’ and ‘right’ categories. As I stated before, Bud Light faced significant backlash. However, contrary to your assertion, it wasn’t just ‘right-wing reactionary morons’ but included a broad spectrum of customers, including those from the LGBTQ+ community. You might want to look into the reactions of Mulvaney herself. Is she too a reactionary moron?

              You’ve conveniently chosen to focus only on left-leaning consumers when talking about Ben and Jerry’s, but customers are not monolithic. Their preferences, beliefs, and reactions to a brand’s actions are diverse and complex. Ignoring this reality is an oversimplification at best, and at worst, an arrogant dismissal of diversity.

              (Also, congratulations on learning how to edit your comments Hahah)

              • CodaChroma@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Pls just stop, the fancy words and walls of text won’t save you. It’s embarrassing, like a wannabe Ben Shapiro “It’s fascinating☝️🤓”

              • bobthened@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The backlash that Bud Light faced from LGBTQ people was not for the same thing that they faced backlash from the right for, it was because they left Dylan in the dust to fend for herself against hoards of angry reactionaries. Or in other words they pretended to be progressive and then immediately dropped their sponsor like she was mouldy apple as soon as it became even slightly inconvenient for them to keep up with that progressive facade.

                They did that because their main market in the United States has always been largely conservatives. Ben and Jerries ice cream has never really been marketed towards conservatives (and also people don’t really identify with brands of ice cream like they with brands of beer), and they’ve always been very public with their political ideology. So they are a) very unlikely to face any kind of backlash for saying something progressive and b) very unlikely to retract any progressive statement/action if they were ever to receive a backlash for it because they have at least a modicum of integrity.

  • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    B&J is already considered a liberal company, so I doubt conservatives could boycott it. To boycott, they would have to admit that they were buying it to begin with.

  • Br0da@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would love Ben & Jerry’s on tap. Wait what was the post about again?

  • moosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tarharka Brother’s Ice Cream out of Baltimore is the shit. And if you’re into gelato, try Gelato Fiasco out of Maine. Both are exquisite.

    • atp2112@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      And Taharka’s also a black-majority worker co-op in a city that’s become something of a hotbed for that type of structure thanks in part to an anarchist bookstore paving the way.

      And their Honey Graham should be classified as a controlled substance, it’s that addictive.

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are trying to sell ideology. Like Starbucks selling “free trade coffee” or companies incorporating the pride flag into their logo. You don’t just buy physical products anymore.

      They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      How does this help sell more ice cream?

      "People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe.” - Simon Sinek

      Marketing has very little to do with the product being marketed. Apple sells the same phones everyone else does. People will pay 5x more for an iPhone because of the marketing and image. Not because they’re actually 5x better.

    • mysoulishome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a privately owned company and they have always bundled promoting progressive issues with their business because that’s their values. It says it right on the ice cream packaged that they are hippies from Vermont.

      • Hal-5700X@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        People will get tired of the ideology pushing. All people want from B&J is ice cream not ideology.

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d actually argue the opposite. Less and less people care about the actual product and the more and more people are buying ideology.

          The next logical step is to abstract away the physical product and simply sell the ideology.

          “I’d like some coffee with no sugar please”

          “I’m sorry sir, we are out of coffee with no sugar. We only have coffee with no milk. May I suggest the diner across the street?”