After President Trump began to ban immigrants from seven terrorist countries, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced the company would hire 10,000 refugees. It backfired!
In an open letter back in January, Schultz stated he would make a “concerted effort to welcome and seek opportunities for those fleeing war, violence, persecution and discrimination. There are more than 65 million citizens of the world recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and we are developing plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business.”
The YouGov BrandIndex’s Buzz score for the company dropped by two-thirds and the boycott began! American veterans were furious! The stock price plunged 10 percent.
After creating all the chaos Schultz has announced he’ll leave the company on April 2 and is hinting he might run for president! What?
“CNBC reported that Credit Suisse reiterated its hold rating on the brand’s stock because of Schultz’s letter, saying both sales and the brand itself had suffered,” Conservative Tribune writes.
The Daily Wire expands:
“Our work shows a sudden drop in brand sentiment following announcement of the refugee hiring initiative on Jan. 29, to flattish from a run-rate of ~+80 (on an index of -100 to +100). Net sentiment has since recovered, but has seen significant volatility in recent weeks,” Credit Suisse equity analyst Jason West wrote.
It’s easy to see why. Schultz isn’t the only person who has condescended to those who want stricter vetting by painting them as simply opposing “those fleeing war, violence, persecution and discrimination.” After all, our former president went as far as to describe them as “widows and orphans,” mocking those who had concerns about Islamic State group infiltration.
We’ve seen more than enough evidence that there are significant security concerns that need to be addressed. Consider the fact that the FBI confirmed that nearly one out of every three domestic terrorism cases it was investigating involved refugees.
When are these companies going to decide to stay out of the political discussion? It never works out well. It does not matter what side you chose, you are going to alienate a significant portion of your customers. Schultz decided he was going to poke a finger in the eye of the President. That was all that this was about. It was an immature move and not only is he paying the price, his stockholders did as well. The employees also felt repercussions.