精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

不難發(fā)現(xiàn)，最近吉列推出的廣告不是典型的剃須刀廣告。廣告里沒有類似刀片滑過肥皂泡或者清水，然后露出一張剛剃完胡須面孔的鏡頭，實(shí)際上是一些反對(duì)霸凌和性騷擾滋事者的男性，廣告畫面明確傳遞了信息：抵制“有毒的大男子主義”。

與其說是宣傳片，看起來更像是面向社會(huì)的請(qǐng)?jiān)福冶绕鹗昵埃F(xiàn)在更為常見。去年秋天，耐克請(qǐng)美國(guó)職業(yè)橄欖球四分衛(wèi)轉(zhuǎn)型的社會(huì)活動(dòng)人士柯林·卡普尼克拍廣告，還是去年，體育用品零售商迪克體育用品決定限制旗下門店出售槍支，不少企業(yè)面臨存在政治分歧問題時(shí)更愿意選邊站隊(duì)。而且相關(guān)姿態(tài)可能不僅是依據(jù)原則采取行動(dòng)，也可以提振銷售業(yè)績(jī)，幫助一些品牌從無數(shù)同類產(chǎn)品中脫穎而出，吸引持有相同觀點(diǎn)的客戶，不過此舉也意味著拋棄意見不一致的顧客。

至于股東會(huì)不會(huì)高興，目前尚不清楚。從短期來看，犀利的言論往往會(huì)嚇跑一些不夠堅(jiān)定的投資者。在采取上述行動(dòng)后，迪克體育用品、耐克和吉列母公司寶潔的股票都迅速下挫。但耐克隨后公布了增長(zhǎng)強(qiáng)勁的財(cái)報(bào)，三只股票又集體反彈，截至2月中，三家公司表現(xiàn)都優(yōu)于標(biāo)普500股指（寶潔的股價(jià)還創(chuàng)造了歷史新高）。當(dāng)然了，三家公司的樣本規(guī)模太小，但也傳遞了一個(gè)信號(hào)：適當(dāng)情況下，勇于發(fā)聲可以提升銷售和客戶忠誠(chéng)度，而且不會(huì)打壓股價(jià)。

You don’t have to watch Gillette’s recent commercial for long to realize it’s no typical shaving ad. There are no shots of blades gliding through lather or water splashing on a freshly trimmed face. Instead, the ad shows men standing up to bullies and sexual harassers, all part of a message about resisting “toxic masculinity.”

It’s more social plea than sales pitch—and it’s the kind of gesture that’s far more common now than it was a decade ago. Whether it’s Nike’s ads last fall supporting quarterback turned activist Colin Kaepernick, or Dick’s Sporting Goods’ decision last year to restrict its own gun sales, companies are more willing to take sides on politically divisive issues. And such stances can be more than acts of principle: They can boost sales, luring customers who share the same views—albeit while alienating those who don’t—and helping brands stand out in crowded product categories.

Whether shareholders can cheer the returns is less clear-cut. Edgy statements often chase skittish investors away in the short term: The stocks of Dick’s, Nike, and Gillette parent Procter & Gamble fell sharply immediately after they made the moves described above. But Nike subsequently reported blockbuster growth, and all three stocks rebounded to outperform the S&P 500 through mid-February. (P&G hit an all-time high.) That’s a small sample size, to be sure, but it sends a message: Under the right conditions, speaking up can boost sales and customer loyalty, without weighing down share prices.

評(píng)估表明立場(chǎng)的公司股價(jià)走勢(shì)

以下三家公司對(duì)分歧明顯的政治和社會(huì)問題表明了態(tài)度，都因此上了頭條。以下是對(duì)各家核心業(yè)務(wù)的介紹。

耐克

去年9月，耐克請(qǐng)柯林·卡普尼克拍攝了經(jīng)典廣告語“Just Do It”三十周年的廣告。一些客戶看過卡普尼克過去在美國(guó)職業(yè)橄欖球大聯(lián)盟（NFL）打比賽時(shí)的抗議，認(rèn)為他不愛國(guó)，隨后將矛頭指向耐克。但就在卡普尼克拍廣告當(dāng)季，耐克的營(yíng)業(yè)收入飆漲10%，旗下電子商務(wù)網(wǎng)站的銷售業(yè)績(jī)占總銷量的15%。資產(chǎn)管理公司Bernstein的分析師杰米·莫里曼指出，由于網(wǎng)絡(luò)購(gòu)物者增加，提升了耐克的利潤(rùn)。

星巴克

這些年來，因?yàn)樵谕詰倩橐觥⒎N族關(guān)系等方面不斷發(fā)聲，咖啡連鎖巨頭星巴克的股價(jià)大起大落。盡管如此，過去五年里星巴克股價(jià)仍然累計(jì)上漲94%，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過標(biāo)普500。星巴克在中國(guó)以及美國(guó)郊區(qū)拓展業(yè)務(wù)應(yīng)該會(huì)推動(dòng)銷售業(yè)績(jī)保持增長(zhǎng)。但有一點(diǎn)有待觀察：卸任的董事長(zhǎng)霍華德·舒爾茨要競(jìng)選美國(guó)總統(tǒng)，對(duì)星巴克的財(cái)務(wù)沖擊不知會(huì)怎樣。

迪克體育用品

去年美國(guó)佛羅里達(dá)州帕克蘭市發(fā)生校園槍擊案后，迪克體育用品決定不再出售步槍，并且將客戶的最低購(gòu)槍年齡上調(diào)到21歲。一些槍械制造商隨后停止與迪克體育用品合作。由于狩獵設(shè)備銷售疲軟，迪克體育用品的股價(jià)大跌。另外運(yùn)動(dòng)服裝也銷售不振，因?yàn)楹芏嗯c之合作的公司也開始在網(wǎng)上銷售。但如果迪克體育用品能加強(qiáng)其電商領(lǐng)域，按照目前較低的估值還是可能為投資者帶來回報(bào)。

Assessing The Chances Of Those Who Take Stances

These three companies have made headlines for their messaging on divisive political and social issues. Here’s how their core businesses are faring.

NIKE

Last September, when Nike featured Colin Kaepernick in ads marking the 30th anniversary of its “Just Do It” campaign, customers who had viewed Kaepernick’s pre-NFL-game protests as anti-patriotic decried the company. But revenue jumped 10% in that quarter. Nike’s e-commerce site now accounts for 15% of sales, and Jamie Merriman, a Bernstein analyst, notes that its profit margins improve as the number of online buyers grows.

STARBUCKS

The coffee giant’s stock has seesawed for years in response to the company’s outspokenness on same-sex marriage, racial relations, and much more. Still, shares are up 94% over the past five years, far outpacing the S&P 500. Expansion in China and in U.S. suburbs should sustain Starbucks’ sales growth. Yet to be determined: the financial impact of retired chairman Howard Schultz’s presidential ambitions.

DICK’S SPORTING GOODS

After the Parkland shootings, Dick’s stopped selling assault rifles and increased its minimum age for gun purchases to 21. Some gunmakers severed ties, and Dick’s stock slumped, owing in part to weak hunting-equipment sales. Dick’s has struggled as well in athletic apparel, where many brands it offers also sell direct online. But if it can boost its own e-commerce, Dick’s could reward investors who buy in at today’s low valuations.

消費(fèi)者態(tài)度的變化也是企業(yè)如此行事的原因之一。愛德曼公關(guān)最近一項(xiàng)調(diào)查顯示，約半數(shù)消費(fèi)者選擇是否購(gòu)買某品牌商品時(shí)，都會(huì)先看看商家對(duì)有爭(zhēng)議的問題態(tài)度如何。中佛羅里達(dá)大學(xué)的公共關(guān)系學(xué)教授梅麗莎·多德指出，現(xiàn)在人們普遍認(rèn)為，政府缺乏解決對(duì)消費(fèi)者最重要問題的能力，希望企業(yè)能填補(bǔ)上空缺。

哪些企業(yè)會(huì)因?yàn)楣_發(fā)聲獲益？沒有固定的規(guī)律，不過已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)了一些模式。如果某家公司建立了熱心社會(huì)公益的聲譽(yù)，或者采取明顯與品牌理念一致的立場(chǎng)，銷售業(yè)績(jī)和股價(jià)就更有可能因表態(tài)而上升。假如某公司言論不符合大眾心目中的既有印象，股東就不太可能受益。同理，如果企業(yè)并未主動(dòng)亮出態(tài)度，只是回應(yīng)新形勢(shì)，也能獲利。比如，在去年佛羅里達(dá)州帕克蘭校園槍擊案發(fā)生后，美國(guó)達(dá)美航空公司取消了給予全美步槍協(xié)會(huì)會(huì)員的折扣，贏得了某些人士稱道。但該公司稱這只是一次性舉動(dòng)，并且向公眾保證，不會(huì)對(duì)機(jī)票銷售和股價(jià)產(chǎn)生重大影響。

吉列傳遞“有毒的大男子主義”信息的廣告才播放大概一個(gè)月，現(xiàn)在斷言對(duì)寶潔公司股價(jià)的長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)影響為時(shí)尚早。在寶潔2018財(cái)年的營(yíng)業(yè)收入之中，吉列之類剃須品牌產(chǎn)品只貢獻(xiàn)了10%。但是，寶潔旗下有一些主要瞄準(zhǔn)女性買家的消費(fèi)類大品牌，其中也包括吉列Venus系列女士剃刀，還有Always女性護(hù)理產(chǎn)品，之前的廣告就一直聲稱寶潔支持男女平等。德雷塞爾大學(xué)教授丹尼爾·科爾遜認(rèn)為，吉列的最新廣告可能被視為寶潔在強(qiáng)化立場(chǎng)，女性顧客的積極回應(yīng)可能也惠及寶潔的其他品牌。

科爾遜預(yù)計(jì)，若果真的形成良性影響，公眾看待寶潔在社會(huì)問題方面的立場(chǎng)時(shí)會(huì)“更加高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)嚴(yán)要求”，未來寶潔一旦改變立場(chǎng)，可能遭受輿論反彈打擊。換言之，一旦公司涉足政治就不能輕易改路線，否則管理層和股東可能代價(jià)巨大。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

本文另一版本發(fā)表于2019年3月出版的《財(cái)富》雜志，文章標(biāo)題為《企業(yè)涉足政治的利與弊》。

譯者：Pessy

審校：夏林

Evolving consumer attitudes help explain the pattern. According to a recent poll by public relations firm Edelman, roughly 50% of consumers have chosen to buy a brand (or not) because of the business’s position on a controversial issue. Melissa Dodd, a public relations professor at the University of Central Florida, says there’s a widespread perception that government lacks the ability to address the issues most important to consumers—so consumers are looking to businesses to fill that role.

Which companies benefit from speaking out? No two situations are alike, but some patterns are emerging. If a company has a reputation for social engagement or takes a stand that’s clearly in line with its brand’s philosophy, sales and shares are more likely to get a lift. If a company makes a statement that doesn’t match the way people already feel about it, shareholders are less likely to benefit. Likewise, if a stance is more reactive than proactive: Delta Air Lines won praise from some corners when it ended a discount for National Rifle Association members after a school shooting in Parkland, Fla., last year. But the airline framed it as a one-time move, and the ensuing publicity didn’t have a big impact on either ticket sales or the share price.

Roughly a month after Gillette’s toxic-masculinity message went live, it’s too early to discern its long-term impact on P&G’s stock. Shaving products such as Gillette’s accounted for only 10% of P&G revenue in fiscal 2018. But the company owns big consumer brands that are targeted predominantly at female buyers, including Venus razors and Always feminine-care products, and has previously run ads conveying its commitment to gender equity. The Gillette ad could be seen as doubling down on that stance—and a positive reaction among women could spill over to benefit other brands, according to Daniel Korschun, a Drexel University professor.

If that happens, Korschun says, P&G will likely henceforth be “held to a higher standard” on social issues, risking a backlash if it changes course. Once a company gets political, in other words, backtracking can be costly—for management and shareholders alike.

A version of this article appears in the March 2019 issue of Fortune with the headline “The Pros And Cons of Politics.”