General Mills comes out of the closet

[ccgr]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/frosted-luck ... aylicious/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like I'll be voting with my wallet when I go grocery shopping, I wish companies would focus on their products and keep their mouths shut.

[ArchAngel]

Why? They are a public entity with real people who work for them, some of them gay.
If this was 50 years ago, how would you feel about a company speaking out against racism?

Everybody knows the rainbows have always been the primo marshmallow around. So, I really might just be grabbing a box of these new rainbows. It's gonna be fabulous.

[ccgr]

Workforce politics are internal, whatever company policies and (private) events they have are their business. However when they are promoting political agendas or anti-Biblical views that's crossing the line. I don't want my household products telling me how to feel or vote. Sure General Mills is going to gain the support of many but they will also be offending other groups as well. I'm curious how this will boost or hamper their sales.

[ArchAngel]

No doubt it's polarizing their market, but they aren't telling you what to think or vote. They are just coming out in support of something they think is right, or at most cynical, marketting to the LGBT audience and the growing crowd of gay supporters.

I guess I'm just wondering why a company taking a socio-political position (because it is more than just politics, it's social too) is crossing a line?
Conversely, is it crossing a line for a company to take a pro-christian stance?

[ccgr]

it's a double edge sword, especially in the video game industry, many Christian game developers don't want to be associated as such given the crappy Christian games and stigma out there. Conversely, many people won't buy games from known Christian developers even if the game doesn't have religious content in it. So it does work both ways.

[ArcticFox]

Let's be honest. It's fashionable right now to come out in support of the gay agenda and GM is doing it for marketing purposes. Plain and simple. Want to see a company showing courage? Look for one that takes a stand on an issue that isn't a mass media darling.

[brandon1984]

I wish companies would focus on their products and keep their mouths shut.

I don't really care about the LGBT agenda, but on some level I kind of agree with this. What value does a business have in taking a stance? Like Arctic implied, maybe it's a marketing move because of the popularity of the gay agenda ATM.

Why? They are a public entity with real people who work for them, some of them gay.
If this was 50 years ago, how would you feel about a company speaking out against racism?

On the other side of the coin some of their employees might be evangelical or otherwise disagree somehow with the agenda. I actually don't care how important the agenda is (civil rights, environmentalism, gay rights). Why can't the board just raise the salaries of it's employees and let them decide where they give charity or support agendas? Can these elitist board members really decide what the best way to advance a good cause is? And besides, like Arctic implied, this is perceived by many ultimately as a marketing strategy. Making an agenda a marketing strategy devalues the importance of the agenda.

[ArchAngel]

This is true, too. As I said above, it polarizes the market and for this reason, I'm thinking it's more than just a marketing campaign to grab more customers. America is predominantly christian, and gay initiatives are often still being voted down in states (albeit winning in courts), and needless to say, I'm willing to posit their core demographic moves closer to the traditional family than the gay couple.
I somehow don't think the upper middle class gay couple will be getting lucky charms for breakfast.

The thing about agendas is it's only one if it's painted

I, on the other hand, would. I did pick up this rainbowy cereal and look forward to saving all 3 rainbows for last, now. Because that's how I eat lucky charms: with tradition.

[ArcticFox]

But Lucky Charms had had rainbows in it for years, hasn't it? That was the first multicolored marshmallow, as I recall.

[ArchAngel]

Yeah, it has. As long as I remember, at least. I remember when the shooting stars came in, though. I was a little too young to recall the new rainbows.

I must say, though, the kid in me likes having the 2 extra rainbow types.

As a note, the box with the extra rainbow marshmallows doesn't say anything about LGBT pride. As it sits on a supermarket shelf, it's simply marketed as having new limited edition rainbows.

[ArcticFox]

I was eating Lucky Charms when all the marshmallows were of one color (each) and the lineup was

Pink hearts
Yellow Moons
Orangs Stars
Green Clovers

I remember when the blue diamonds were introduced, and I remember when purple horseshoes were the newest in the lineup.

Yes. I'm old.

[ccgr]

You were eating them back when marshmallows were black and white.

[ArcticFox]

That's right, and to get them I had to walk to the grocery store uphill both ways in 6' of snow...

[ccgr]

barefoot?

[Nate DaZombie]

With no coat, only a shirt made of tree bark and leaves.