A few months ago I had a really frustrating email exchange that went something like this:
Me: Please #stopfundinghate as it's contrary to your company's ethos and generally a rubbish thing to do.
John Lewis: We fully appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue but we never make an editorial judgement on a particular newspaper.
Me: Why not?
John Lewis: Um... we just don't.
Me: Yes - But why?
John Lewis: If you want to discuss further, please contact head office.
Me: OK - I will. (To head office) Can you #stopfundinghate as it's contrary to your company's ethos and generally a rubbish thing to do?
John Lewis Head Office: We fully appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue but we never make an editorial judgement on a particular newspaper.
Me: Yes - but why is that?
Head Office: We just don't. Thank you and goodbye.
Me: Head Office? Hello....?
A similar scenario happened a few weeks ago with another large corporation but in reverse. A certain high street chemist refused to reduce the price of its morning after pill, triggering a massive PR disaster that went kind of like this:
British Pregnancy Advisory Service: The morning after pill is extortionately expensive compared to prices in Europe. Can you reduce the cost of it?
Superdrug & Tesco: OK, we'll half it from now on. Sorry.
Boots: In our experience the subject of emergency hormonal contraception polarises public opinion and we receive frequent contact from individuals who voice their disapproval of the fact that the company chooses to provide this service. We would not want to be accused of incentivising inappropriate use, and by provoking complaints by significantly reducing the price of this product.
Lloyds Pharmacy (Shhhh! Give it a week and no one will notice or care that we've ignored this): .....
This didn't play out very well for Boots.
The public: Boots’ justification infantalises women and places a moral judgment on them! Women go to Boots for products, not moral guidance! Sign this petition! Rah Rah Rah.
Tesco: And come to us for your unplanned emergencies - we now charge only £13.50 to not get knocked up.
Superdrug: Or come to us for only £13.49 - Boo yah Tesco!
Boots (Crap. Crap. Crap...): We didn't mean it!
Lloyds Pharmacy: ........
The public: Boycott Boots! #justsaynon They're breeching our human rights!
Boots: Pharmacy and care for customers are at the heart of everything we do, and as such we are truly sorry that our poor choice of words in describing our position on emergency hormonal contraception has caused offence and misunderstanding, and we sincerely apologise. We are exploring cheaper options right now. Sorry. So sorry...
The public: Too right! Rah Rah Rah.
Which is all rather weird and unnerving.
For starters, the drug is free in the UK at Brook centres, NHS walk in clinics and GP surgeries (provided of course that you can get an appointment, but that's an entirely different blog post).
And now everyone's focus has moved from the fact that less than a week ago, every high street chemist was fleecing potentially pregnant women and it took the country's largest abortion provider to shout about it to get any attention. On the surface, their motivation is somewhat confusing: BPAS is apparently trying to reduce demand on its services. If more women having unprotected sex can access cheaper morning after provision, then surely this means less medically induced and surgical abortions later on as they've been prevented at implantation? It's like Terminator2 all over again with pharmacology rather than time travel.
Except for so called risk compensation, which suggests that human beings will alter their behaviour according the perceived level of danger, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and more reckless if they feel more protected. This phenomenon has been used to explain why laws aimed at increasing road safety can be less effective than predicted and why sky diving fatalities have remained fairly static over the years despite the improvements in equipment design. It also may explain why the BPAS took on the argument - perhaps they know all about risk homeostasis.
But returning to the retailers - these are businesses that exist to make money. Some of them have halved their prices in the last few days and are STILL making a profit on the product. Good old capitalism. Let the one who refuses to cave in to public pressure be swallowed up by the competitor. Who cares?
Except they didn't respond with a fiscal reason.
They responded with a moral one: 'We would not want to be accused of incentivising inappropriate use.'
Uh- oh.... If we're using words like appropriate and inappropriate, someone is making a moral judgement and that's kind of frowned upon round here.
Just say the whole conversation was happening between individuals rather than organisations - what would the scenario look like on the playground? Is there bullying going on? If so, by whom? Do we need to go get a teacher? Who is the teacher? Who decided what the rules were and what everyone is allowed to do and say and think? Because in the age of moral relativism, opinions about the behaviours of others are forbidden. You have been outed Boots. Repent and conform. Learn to think as we do!
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. (Noam Chowsky)
No wonder John Lewis refused to get involved. They understand the rules in this brave, new playground. Everybody likes them (maybe it's the Xmas ads?) And they probably share a table with Lloyds Pharmacy.
