Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Or "Should CEOs be mindless money droids?"
Published on January 30, 2005 By Draginol In Business
I wrote in this article about my fear that the Democrats were going to drive themselves to extinction due to its inability to encourage its extremists to find a different party to belong to.

A new user called JTurnas responded:

Now for some advice to you Draginol. Anyone running a business shouldn't post public political opinions. Its only going to cost you big in sales. Those liberals have credit cards, just like the moderates, its only logical they will take their money elsewhere. You don't see political signs on a McDonalds, or a CompUSA, or a any other business do you? You don't see Bill Gates out on blog sites telling people that liberals are morons, do you? The average consumer can't tell you the political leanings of most all companies, and their CEOs. Theres a reason for this, and the reason is, its bad business. Think about that next time you post patronizing and insulting blogs about people you disagree with politcally. Remember, this is coming from a Moderate Conservative, before you even think about labeling me a bleeding heart liberal. You'd figure someone that proclaims themself to be "All Knowing" would have figured this out by now.

A pretty ballsy comment coming from someone who was obviously new to the site (and arrogant enough to "give advice" despite not having looked around the site very long).

Ignoring the fact that I've been writing politically-oriented articles here for the past 3 years. Ignoring that our company's revenue has steadily increased for those same past years. Ignoring that actually many CEOs are quite outspoken on their politics. Ignoring that the company I work for has people of all kinds of different political views. Ignoring that our company doesn't contribute to any political parties or groups. Ignoring that me having a blog is not analogous to having a political sign on the front of our building or company's website, let's assume his argument is true.

Let's assume that some number of people greater than 0 read my articles, find out where I work and decide not to purchase products or services from our company because of those opinions. 

The first problem I have with that attitude is that it assumes that because I've chosen to start my own business to create products and services and employ people that I somehow must limit my extra-work activities because it may hurt said company.
This assumes that "the company" is the be all end all reason for that person to exist. It assumes that CEOs have no life outside their work and all must be secondary to the needs of "the company".

The second problem is that it assumes that there are a lot of people who make purchasing decisions based on the political ideologies of CEOs. This is something quite different from celebrities who seem quite willing to shove their whacked out views on people. It's different because celebrities get media coverage for their ideologies because they're celebrities. The celebrity IS the product/service. By contrast, people read what I write mostly because of the content of what I write.

Most people reading this have no idea what my day job is. Nor do they care.  Lots of people do know where I work but most of them don't care either.

That I'm pro-choice on the abortion issue doesn't affect the quality of the artificial intelligence in our games. That I favor US foreign policy in Iraq doesn't affect the quality of visual styles I work on. That I favor personal accounts for Social Security doesn't impact the quality of our desktop enhancement software. In other words, my political opinions are totally disconnected with what I do. Moreover, anyone playing the one game that my political views might affect, The Political Machine, can tell you the game didn't favor either candidate.

It's not a freedom of speech thing. I'm not going to complain that my rights are being infringed simply because someone thinks I shouldn't write political blogs because someone will choose not to buy products or services from my employer. But it's a damn presumptuous assertion though.

So let me be clear: Anyone who makes purchasing decisions based on the political beliefs of an executive or founder of a company when the product or service is totally unrelated to those political beliefs is a moron. Only a moron would choose not to buy the best quality/priced car because their CEO maintains a blog where he write liberal or conservative essays. And frankly, I don't want a moron as a customer anyway.

Moreover, my job is a means to an end. It is not the ends unto itself. I work so that I can provide for my family. So even if my blogs caused a measurable amount of lost business, I wouldn't stop writing because I write for myself. I enjoy writing and I'll be damned if I'd stop writing about what I want to simply because it affects the bottom line at my job. I write on my own time. And as the principle stock holder at said job, I'm going to do what I want to do in my free time. Period.

I'd rather make less money and do what I want to do in my spare time than be a slave of the corporation.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 30, 2005
(Darn, crossposted.)

It takes a certain level of arrogance


To say the least.

I also can't help but wonder why such an "introverted loner" would go to so much effort and trouble and invest so much money in creating multiple communities.

(For what it's worth --NOTHING-- I took the test and answered as I IMAGINED Brad would. It came out eSTj. But I would never be so presumptuous to think that was actually what Brad was like. That only reflects my imagining of what Brad is like.)

on Jan 30, 2005

That is indeed the part that strikes me as oddest.

It is true that there are few (if any) successful introvert CEOs.  But that's because introverts rarely start companies.  Being a CEO is inherently a social activity.  Moreover, introverts aren't likely to put so much effort into creating on-line communities.  One can quibble over the nuances of other guesses at someone but introvert/extrovert is a pretty basic thing.

on Jan 30, 2005

BTW, which description do you think fits me better? The one JTurnas put up or this one:

eNTj:

decisive, fearless, planner, thrill seeker, engaged, social, comfortable around others, image conscious, likes to be center of attention, adventurous, outgoing, emotionally stable, leader, ambitious, hard working, dominant, prepared, hates to be bored, confident, opinionated, analytical, prepares for worst case scenarios, organized, orderly, clean, driven, resourceful, finishes most things they start, achieving, risk taker, desires fame/acclaim, image focused, perfectionist, driven

favored careers:

marketing specialist, government employee, lawyer, developer, political scientist, bounty hunter, international relations specialist, software designer, systems analyst, business manager, entertainment lawyer, foreign service officer, strategist, project manager, advertising executive, cia agent, marketing manager, geneticist, private investigator, administrator, business analyst, politician, management consultant, producer, financial advisor, entrepreneur, genetics researcher, cardiologist, professor, fbi agent

disfavored careers:

singer, bookstore owner, job in the performing arts, poet, photographer, english professor, chef, health care worker, child psychologist, massage therapist, video editor

 

I don't think it takes a psychologist to pick out which profile more closely matches me.  Like Gene said, i think JTunas came up with a stereotype and then ascribed the various elements of that stereotype to me instead of the other way around.

on Jan 31, 2005

JTurnas - being that I have known Brad for eight plus years I can honestly tell you that you are wrong on what you imagine Brad to be. 

Brad and his wife are generous people who have big hearts and respect the views of others. If you want to have a good debate with Brad you just need to substantiate your facts as to why you believe he's wrong with real evidence.

As for Brad having a political opinion as a CEO well that's his right.  After all we live in the US which means that everyone no matter what their view point gets a right to speak.  I.e. Brad is a US citizen and has that right too regardless of whether you think it's a good business decision for him.       

Otherwise, you should learn to value opposing view points for what they are an oppurtuntiy to get to understand why someone would think about something different than you and a reason to look at how you think of things.  Do not be afraid to call Brad out on a political view if you have substantial backing to your side of the arguement.  Although you seem to have lumped him into this catagory where you think he does not look at others views points your wrong. 

Being the opposite of Brad on several debates, Brad always gives me the oppurtunity to speak my mind and substantiate my beliefs then either agrees, disagrees with reason, or states that he doesn't know enough to debate the topic and he would have to look into it.  You could even take some pointers from him. 

I don't know you and I don't have a sufficient amount of information to form an opinion of you but I would say only that you choose more carefully to give a pych profile to someone before you know them.  Too many people blindly judge people on limited statements and don't look at the whole picture.    We are all guilty at sometime or another. 

 

on Jan 31, 2005
Hmm..
- this discussion is irrelevant in terms of Brad and Stardock because most ppl do not know of Brad's blogging, more likely it would be that guy who does windowblinds, or that guy who does that thing that is like steam but sorta not, or even that guy who did the OS/2 game. So regardless of wether it is a good or a bad thing, it just doesn't matter.
- as for other CEOs when they speak out in public it affects the public image of the company, perhaps not in a very large way, but there is some form of effect. If the effect is negative and they continue to speak out, then while what they are doing is completely within their right to do, they are also harming the image of their company. And that is harming the workers who work for the company, which is just not erm, nice.
- which boils the question down to how political speech affects the companies image, erm, and well I haven't seen a PR department advise putting politics into the corps image. So I'd reckon that they are pretty well decided as to it being a bad thing.
on Jan 31, 2005

If Stardock were a publicly traded company, then the shareholders through their board of directors could instruct its CEO to agree to certain types of behavior inside and outside the company.  This is common.

But Stardock is privately owned and as Factory points out, 99.9% of people reading my articles are not going to make the connection between me and my employer. Moreover, even if they do, only a tiny fraction of them would care.

Like most things, it's a cost/benefit relationship.  I enjoy writing. Therefore I write. That makes it a benefit.  The cost, thus far, appears to be insignificant given our steady growth over the past several years. If it were to become a cost, then I would have to re-evaluate the cost/benefit ratio.  But the cost would have to be substantially high in order for me to remotely consider not writing my articles in the style I choose.  Because ultimately, the company is not the ends. It's the means to an end which is financial and social independence which I've already achieved.

on Feb 02, 2005

Brad,

As a potential consumer (once finances permit), I have always considered your outspokenness one of your strongest assets. It shows your ability to lead, your drive, and your decisiveness, traits that are essential to a good leader. While I do find myself agreeing with you more often than not, you fall across the political spectrum, and I have seen you cede a few arguments in the presence of well presented evidence. But even as you have ceded, you have done so in a way that does not compromise your original position, and retains what valid points you made in your original arguments. Again, qualities that I consider synonymous with leadership.

Add to that the effect that your employees who do blog here are HARDLY "Brad-puppets" as one would expect, given that they KNOW their boss reads the page, but rather they express their own opinions with the same respectability and candor. This shows that your entire organization is filled with people who possess the same potential for leadership, showing the longtime viability of your organization.

In summary, I am inclined to believe that your blog, as it stands, is the BEST advertisement for your business rather than being a detriment.

So...blog on.

on Feb 03, 2005
between me and my employer


Sorry if I sound ignorant, but CEO has boss(es)? I thought CEO is basically owner?

Anyway, I believe that everyone, including CEOs, have right to be not robotic with no feelings, opinions, etc.
on Feb 03, 2005
If it means anything to you, Brad, my sister's boyfriend purchased a copy of The Political Machine because of the politics of your blog.
on Feb 03, 2005
a) I buy your games because they rock and are quality, although I disagree with you on political issues most of the time.

I prefer CEOs who speak open about their opinion regarding politics to those who secretly use their influence/money to influence politics.
on Feb 03, 2005
Just curious, can anyone point to an example of a corporation that has lost significent marketshare because of the political views of it's CEO? I hate to interject facts (sorry, sarcasm) but I don't think that there is any basis here.

Clear Channel radio network was an outspoken supporter of President Bush last election. Their CEO was a public supporter. Have they suffered monetarily? No. Their stock (CCU on the exchange) actually rose sharply in November. Viacom Communications executives donated publicly to John Kerry. I am not aware of any backlash. Viacom's stock (VIA) ALSO rose sharply in November. No real surprise, elections are good for ratings. Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds, was a Republican. McDonalds seemed to do okay (understatement, of course) during his tenure. His widow, Joan, was the largest donor to NPR in history. Again, you would have a hard time proving that hurt McDonalds.

The entire hypothesis (CEO speaks publicly, offends some people, they boycott his company's products) is specious. It seems to make sense, but has little or no basis in fact.
2 Pages1 2