While we're on the subject:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/combative-consumers-change-the-marketing-strategy-for-target-and-bud-light-97ca0ac2
Mr. Adamson seems to have missed the point. There was never a problem with advertising through a "homegenous" message -- until corporations started pandering to vocal minorities. NOW thosse minorities expect to be praised and to have marketing focused on/at them, and they get upset if companies "back off" and just focus on selling their product.
I just read that article, and boy does it have some problems. Which is to say, it's normal journalism for 2023. Funny how if Target or Bud Light was caught selling confederate flag merch (much less to children), the story would be "they offended their reasonable and very sympathetic customers." But if it's the rainbow flag, the customers are the problem. "They're just so mean! Eeek!" Not even a defense of what Target was doing, pushing perv merch at children. That was just glossed over.
Then, this line here:
But critics this time were focused on transgender issues, which have climbed into the top ranks of conservative social agendas. And they combined their social-media messaging with tense in-person encounters.
[facepalm]
1 - um, who's got the agenda here?
2 - "they" So all the "transphobes" on the Twitters had secret meetings with their followers? "See here, Jim Follower; I'll message this stuff on the socials - you go to the store and rough 'em up."
And, of course, the usual Big Lie misgendering - using Mulvaney's preferred pronouns.