Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
So what proportion of the document wasn't biased nonsense? Eg "Team uncovered adverse press." and goes on to list some of them. How many of their high-profile clients wouldn't have "adverse press"?
Link |
In terms of adverse press:
- Most of Coutts' clients would try and avoid the press so would have no adverse press.
- High-profile clients would probably have some adverse press
- But shock jocks like Farage who make a living from courting controversial opinions are going to have more adverse press about them.
---------- Post added at 12:46 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I think we’re way beyond the optics of this now though. Yesterday I was leaning towards old-fashioned upper class snobbery as the reason for wanting to get rid of Farage, the sort of person a snooty-nosed upper class twit might snort at and call an ‘odious little oik’ or somesuch. It now looks very much as if the fault line lies between the socially conservative and socially liberal views that divide this country (those on one side shout ‘woke’ at the other, the others shout back ‘gammon’).
‘Inclusivity and purpose’ isn’t about Farage’s connection with Trump, Putin or Brexit per se, but the social views Coutts believe are driving him. Alarm bells should be ringing here for all of us, because there is now an entirely plausible claim that the bank tried to bin him for his association with certain social/political causes. If that’s the case we need to be thinking long and hard about the extent to which we allow major corporations to police the socio-political views of the population
|
I think jonbxx nails it here
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx
I was thinking about this today in the shower where I have my best thoughts…
For us plebs, we decide to go with a certain supplier at least partially due to that suppliers brand. The key question is does that suppliers brand match my values and aspirations? Companies like Apple and Waitrose carefully maintain their brands as the high end option for example even if objective analysis might show other options to be better.
If the brand is strong enough, we can do little to influence it apart from walking away. Of course, if enough customers walk away, a change in the brand might be needed but on an individual level, we either accept what is offered or not. If we don’t walk away, we have endorsed that brand implicitly.
What is different here is Nigel Farages brand is incredibly strong. Like him or not, he has very carefully cultivated his position to appeal to a lot of people. The strength of his brand is such that the customer-supplier relationship has flipped round with Nigel Farage being the senior partner. If Coutts continued their relationship then they implicitly endorse Nigel Farages brand and that’s a direction that they clearly didn’t want to take
|