I think you're right that companies which take a stand against sexism probably benefit from a boost in their public profile, even if they were the very ones perpetuating the sexism which they are now standing against in the first place. I think the only strategy we can take as consumers if we want to combat sexism is to buy from companies which reflect our values and not from those which don't (and to say so loudly in both cases on the internet).
Over time, and especially at present when there really do seem to be more and more voices uniting against sexism, I would hope that the economic penalties associated with sexist marketing would become strong enough to mean that companies did not want to incur them just for the sake of the benefits which they could then reap by turning into one of the 'good guys' - i.e. it would be more beneficial just to be one of the good guys in the first place.
But that's an optimistic view, which will only works if there is genuinely an overall economic penalty associated with this kind of marketing. At the moment, the makers of Wing-Co clearly think exactly the opposite.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-06-06 02:43 pm (UTC)Over time, and especially at present when there really do seem to be more and more voices uniting against sexism, I would hope that the economic penalties associated with sexist marketing would become strong enough to mean that companies did not want to incur them just for the sake of the benefits which they could then reap by turning into one of the 'good guys' - i.e. it would be more beneficial just to be one of the good guys in the first place.
But that's an optimistic view, which will only works if there is genuinely an overall economic penalty associated with this kind of marketing. At the moment, the makers of Wing-Co clearly think exactly the opposite.