In an announcement to company associates yesterday, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said the company will stop selling ammunition for handguns and military-style rifles after recent shootings in the U.S. The retailer also asked its customers to stop openly carrying firearms in its stores. The reactions followed usual expectations, with the NRA blasting the company for selling out to “anti-gun elites”, a variety of conservatives calling for a boycott of Walmart, the Democratic presidential candidates applauding Walmart’s decision and a lot of average Americans applauding the company’s decision to “do something” about gun violence. (As McMillon’s announcement notes, these are just the latest steps in Walmart’s tightening of gun sales.)
In the midst of the swirling politics, three points need to be made:
First, this is just the latest example of businesses being pulled into political issues. Like the rest of American society, business is becoming increasingly politicized, and the consequences of taking or not taking a stand are becoming more fraught with peril. Dick’s Sporting Goods was an early 2018 leader in changing its policy on gun sales. As another footnote, see my Fall 2017 Playoff Tech blog post on The Slippery Slope of Sporting Event Protests for Sports Sponsors.
Second, for most businesses, public political positions are essentially marketing decisions. As one of the characters in my novel, Intentional Consequences, explains, “For most companies, it’s just Marketing 101. Companies take positions they think will help their business, which means attracting the customers they want to attract. They avoid positions they think will harm their business. Target demographics matter here. For most companies, younger customers are more valuable than older ones because the younger ones spend more, both now and over their longer lives. These younger customers often have more progressive values, which can skew how a company thinks about its political persona. Some companies with aggressive marketing strategies, like Nike, may be willing to risk offending a less valuable customer segment if they can fire up their most important customers. It’s like a political party firing up its base. Risk avoidance works the same way in reverse. It’s not like an election where you win if you get 51%. Most businesses can’t risk losing the other 49% of their customers. Employee pressure in some companies can also keep them from supporting political and social programs. Google’s employee contributions were 95% Democratic in the 2018 mid-terms.”
Third, when businesses take public stands on socio-political issues, they usually gravitate toward supporting diversity or racial or gender equality—issues that go to the heart of who we are, or at least want to be, as a nation. Those are relatively safe marketing bets in today’s world. But gun control? Whether some of us want to acknowledge the reality or not, the percentage of Americans supporting at least some additional controls on guns is growing. From a corporate marketing standpoint, supporting doing something on gun control is an increasingly good call. Sure, the stats are not as solid as supporting basic American values like diversity and equality. But the river of public opinion is flowing in that direction. A May 2019 Quinnipiac University National Poll logged the following results (the margin of error for the poll was +/- 3.7 percentage points):
“American voters support 94 - 4 percent requiring background checks for all gun buyers. Gun owners support universal background checks 90 - 9 percent.”
“Voters support 61 - 34 percent stricter gun laws in the U.S. Republicans, gun owners and voters in households where there is a gun are the only listed groups opposed.”
“Voters also support 77 - 19 percent requiring individuals to obtain a license before being able to purchase a gun.”
“Voters also support 63 - 33 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. Again, Republicans and gun owners are the only listed groups opposed, while voters in gun households are divided.”
While different polls show somewhat different statistical results, the trend is there and it’s toward more restrictions. For some statistical graphics on the Quinnipiac Poll, check out this NPR article. Despite the warnings from the NRA, the trending support toward “more restrictions” doesn’t necessarily mean repealing the Second Amendment or doing mandatory gun “buybacks”. But the increasing support for more restrictions does mean that Americans are tiring of doing nothing on the ground that any change, any restriction, is a slippery slope that will end up with the police seizing our guns.
From a business perspective, one thing seems clear: This growing popular support for additional gun control will make businesses more willing to take a stand to show they are trying to do something.
As Walmart’s McMillon said in his message to employees: “In a complex situation lacking a simple solution, we are trying to take constructive steps to reduce the risk that events like these will happen again. The status quo is unacceptable.” The press focused on Walmart’s decision not to sell certain types of ammunition. The more important part of McMillon’s announcement is what he said about our country’s need to do something:
“We encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger. We do not sell military-style rifles, and we believe the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban should be debated to determine its effectiveness. We must also do more, as a country, to understand the root causes that lead to this type of violent behavior. Today, I’m sending letters to the White House and the Congressional leadership that call for action on these common sense measures. As we’ve seen before, these horrific events occur and then the spotlight fades. We should not allow that to happen. Congress and the administration should act.”
There is some irony that the message of doing something is being carried by a leading American business—and one that is often ridiculed for its lower-middle-class clientele. In the context of today’s bitterly divided, revenge-focused national politics, doing something in Washington has largely become a thing of the past, a vestige of political compromise and working together that is no longer fashionable or even permissible, at least among the major political parties.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if businesses, following their Marketing 101 instincts about what the public (their customer base) wants, could help Washington see renewed value in doing something on this and other difficult social issues that have been weaponized for partisan political gain? (If gun control is on the corporate marketing table, will immigration be next?) At a time when Congress demands winner-take-all solutions and leading media outlets are being criticized as biased echo chambers for the right or the left, could businesses become a more accurate and effective source of which way our socio-political winds are blowing? Would businesses be willing to take on this responsibility? Can they afford to take the risk? Can they afford not to?
The above post was initially published by the author as an article on LinkedIn on September 4, 2019.
Commenti