I wonder if Larry Fink saw this same poll?

A call to boycott Chick-fil-A was met with this response in Oxnard, CA (hint: the people in line waiting to order are not offended wokettes)

‘Just Shut up and Do Business’ – New Poll Shows Most Everyone Says Companies Need to Avoid Politics

A brand new poll conducted by The Trafalgar Group asked respondents about their impressions of a company that took a social position with which they disagreed, and what their reaction would be. The results are more than glaring — they prove that the glib maxim “Get Woke, Go Broke” is not just a catchy t-shirt slogan for the gift shop.

Respondents were asked, “How likely are you to stop using a product or service of a company that openly advocates for a political agenda you disagree with?” Their returns are unmistakable. Those answering with either “Very Likely” or “Somewhat Likely” came in at over 87 percent. That is more than a majority; that is a near consummate rejection of corporate activism. This is not over-weighted by partisans, either. In every political category listed the result exceeds 80 percent. 

More to the point, those who would not be affected by a political stance are well below 15 percent, which translates to a reality every company should absorb: Whatever perceived benefit might be realized by making a social statement is going to be completely overwhelmed by the backlash. Even if you cut the opposition voices in half (based on partisan impressions of a particular issue) the number opposing still represents a massive hit to the customer base. Depending on how independents would side with things, a company risks alienating 40-50 percent of its customer base.

… Ask any bartender and they will be able to recite the long-held aphorism – “You never discuss politics or religion.” The reason for this is quite obvious to someone slinging hooch across the teak, so it should be all the more obvious to CEOs with far more in the balance than just tips from bar patrons. 

Now those executives have the survey data they need to send to their Public Relations offices. This way, when the self-important journalists reach out and demand an answer regarding their probes into the corporate position on such matters, they can present them with the metrics explaining why they will not be making any statements. 

And for good measure, maybe let the reporters see some other data – the journalism approval numbersshould explain plenty on why a company needs to not be so worried about the threat of a scathing editorial.

Related? Blackrock Backs Off

John Hinderaker, Powerline:

“We haven’t written much about Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investing, which is one of the evils of our time. Basically, it seeks to force publicly-traded companies to take left-wing policy positions. Perhaps the number one force behind ESG has been BlackRock, Inc., the world’s largest asset manager with $10 trillion under management.

“Given BlackRock’s prominence in the ESG movement, this headline couldn’t be more welcome: BlackRock ditches green activism over Russia energy fears.”

BlackRock has warned it will vote against most shareholder green activism this year for being too extreme, in a significant u-turn by the world’s biggest money manager.

The company said it was concerned about proposals to stop financing fossil fuel companies, including forcing them to decommission assets and setting absolute targets for reducing emissions in their supply chains.
***
In a stewardship report, the asset manager said: “We do not consider [the proposals] to be consistent with our clients’ long-term financial interests.”

No kidding!

Its update represents a significant volte face for the asset manager which has been at the forefront of Wall Street’s push to encourage companies to shun fossil fuels and transition to greener alternatives.

Others who are not blinded by ideology will offer better results for their clients:

The decision to distance itself from “prescriptive” climate change policies comes as institutional investors face criticism for allegedly pushing political agendas.

On Thursday, Vivek Ramaswamy, a US health and technology entrepreneur, launched an “anti-woke” investment fund that will urge companies to focus on making money rather than championing political causes.

Mr Ramaswamy said the new venture, Strive Asset Management, has already received a host of job applications from employees at BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – what he dubbed an “ideological cartel”.

A personal anecdote: Professors at the University of Kansas called for a Chick-fil-A boycott in 2019. How’d it go? Well, last summer, two years later, when I pulled off the Interstate in Lawrence to grab a quick meal, the line of KU students was out the door, and the wait was 30 minutes. I stuck around because I was hungry, and I thought I’d support a company that is so hated by the Loony Left, but clearly, the Chicken is in no need of my individual effort.

CEOs tempted to go woke might do well to look for a boycott campaign against a company near them, and go visit the place to see what the effect the Angries and their tears have had. And then relax, return to headquarters, and ignore the morons.