Current Events > Is there a financial reason for companies to be pushing diversity now?

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's a nice to have, but it's strange that companies are marketting it so hard these days. Are people coming out in droves to see stuff now because a character is black instead of white now?
---

the only reason companies do _anything_ is for financial reasons because the only reason they exist is to make money
---

shrinking white population as % of total, and a portion of it is indeed "coming out in droves to see stuff now because a character is black instead of white"

but also a lot of the rest of the white population is complacent about diversity, because why wouldn't they be, so addition of minority characters motivates minority audiences to attend who otherwise wouldn't, without impacting white audiences (and possibly increasing them)

black people absolutely are more likely to see a film with a black lead. women are absolutely more likely to see a film with a female lead. white men are likely not going to see a rom-com regardless, but they are likely going to see a space opera regardless of the lead's gender or skin color.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

the only reason companies do _anything_ is for financial reasons because the only reason they exist is to make money

The meat of the question is if the diversity take is bringing in money for them. Thanks for being a smartass about it though.
---

They think the SJWs are a huge audience, so they're just "clickbaiting" them. They don't actually give a shit about black lives or gay marriage. They don't hate it either, they just don't care; but if it brings in a few hipster dollars...
---

Black Panther was a huge success, and Hollywood is full of copycats.
---

Yes there are studies that show having diverse employees generates more revenue for the company.

Darkman124 posted...

shrinking white population as % of total, and a portion of it is indeed "coming out in droves to see stuff now because a character is black instead of white"

but also a lot of the rest of the white population is complacent about diversity, because why wouldn't they be, so addition of minority characters motivates minority audiences to attend who otherwise wouldn't, without impacting white audiences (and possibly increasing them)

black people absolutely are more likely to see a film with a black lead. women are absolutely more likely to see a film with a female lead. white men are likely not going to see a rom-com regardless, but they are likely going to see a space opera regardless of the lead's gender or skin color.

yeah that makes sense

Black Panther was a huge success, and Hollywood is full of copycats.

I think a lot of them are missing what made black panther so special though. It felt like a cultural movement when it was coming out. Like my black friends went out of their way to tell people to go watch and support the movie.
---

Squall28 posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

the only reason companies do _anything_ is for financial reasons because the only reason they exist is to make money

The meat of the question is if the diversity take is bringing in money for them. Thanks for being a smartass about it though.

and it must be if they continue to do it, no?
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Squall28 posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

the only reason companies do _anything_ is for financial reasons because the only reason they exist is to make money

The meat of the question is if the diversity take is bringing in money for them. Thanks for being a smartass about it though.

and it must be if they continue to do it, no?

Actually not. Companies make bad financial decisions all the time. Thanks for playing though.
---

Black Panther is one of the most diverse movies of all time, and it broke all of the records
---

Squall28 posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Squall28 posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

the only reason companies do _anything_ is for financial reasons because the only reason they exist is to make money

The meat of the question is if the diversity take is bringing in money for them. Thanks for being a smartass about it though.

and it must be if they continue to do it, no?

Actually not. Companies make bad financial decisions all the time. Thanks for playing though.

but larger industry trends, which you seem to be asking about, generally follow the statistics/numbers/etc. if analysts identified that using minorities in lead roles was hurting their bottom line, the industry will respond accordingly.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Squall28 posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Squall28 posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

the only reason companies do _anything_ is for financial reasons because the only reason they exist is to make money

The meat of the question is if the diversity take is bringing in money for them. Thanks for being a smartass about it though.

and it must be if they continue to do it, no?

Actually not. Companies make bad financial decisions all the time. Thanks for playing though.

but larger industry trends, which you seem to be asking about, generally follow the statistics/numbers/etc. if analysts identified that using minorities in lead roles was hurting their bottom line, the industry will respond accordingly.

How about ghost busters? How about other companies trying to imitate cinematic universes? How about bitcoin? People follow what seems popular for extended amounts of time. We don't really know if it will work out until much later.
---

I just wish that race didn't matter, but it does to so many people. And as long as it does, racism will exist.
---

Squall28 posted...

How about ghost busters?

that movie almost doubled the investment, just from the box office. that doesn't include rentals and home video sales.

Budget: $144 million
Box office: $229.1 million

(taken from wikipedia)

Squall28 posted...

How about bitcoin?

i'm pretty sure that most financial companies avoided dealing with bitcoin, or any cryptocurrency, for that exact reason.

Squall28 posted...

People follow what seems popular for extended amounts of time. We don't really know if it will work out until much later.

yeah, "people" do. but we aren't talking about "people", we're talking about giant corporations with access to a lot of resources.

right now what they are doing seems to be successful at the box office and they'll continue to do it as long as it stays that way.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

Squall28 posted...

How about ghost busters?

that movie almost doubled the investment, just from the box office. that doesn't include rentals and home video sales.

Budget: $144 million
Box office: $229.1 million

(taken from wikipedia)

Squall28 posted...

How about bitcoin?

i'm pretty sure that most financial companies avoided dealing with bitcoin, or any cryptocurrency, for that exact reason.

Squall28 posted...

People follow what seems popular for extended amounts of time. We don't really know if it will work out until much later.

yeah, "people" do. but we aren't talking about "people", we're talking about giant corporations with access to a lot of resources.

right now what they are doing seems to be successful at the box office and they'll continue to do it as long as it stays that way.

Ghostbusters grossed $128.3 million in North America and $100.8 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $229.1 million.[6] With a net production budget of $144 million[78] reduced from $154 million gross budget after rebates and tax incentives, as well as a large amount spent on marketing, the studio stated that the film would need to gross at least $300 million to break even.[79] Before the release, director Paul Feig stated "A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and thats probably low."[80] The Hollywood Reporter estimated the film's financial losses would be over $70 million.[79][81][82] A representative of Sony found this loss estimate to be "way off," saying: "With multiple revenue streams [...] the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not even remotely close to that number."[79][81] According to Variety, sources familiar with the film's financing estimate the total loss to be about $75 million, of which, due to co-financing with Village Roadshow, Sony would lose about $50 million.[83] Sony insiders have projected, along with co-financing, a total loss of about $25 million.[83] Bloomberg News estimated the film lost $58.6 million.[84] By August 2016, sources such as Forbes and The Wall Street Journal had begun calling Ghostbusters a box office bomb.[12][85][86][87] The film's performance contributed to Sony taking a $1 billion writedown in January 2017.[88]

The point is, corporations make poor decisions all the time. It's fact. Acting like they always make rational financial decisions is flat out wrong.
---

i never meant to imply that every single corporation makes flawless financial decisions 100% of the time and i apologize for not communicating clearly. im simply saying that industry trends, on a large scale, are typically representative of what the public wants.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

that movie almost doubled the investment, just from the box office. that doesn't include rentals and home video sales.

Budget: $144 million
Box office: $229.1 million

doubling movie budgets is not nearly enough to be considered profitable, and rentals tend to be a tiny % of returns

theatres keep a portion of ticket sales themselves, and often the full cost of advertising is not included in the listed budget.

ghostbusters almost certainly lost money.

plus, money poured into an investment that paid off 1% is money that COULD have been poured into an investment that paid off 5%. or 10%. or 100%. so a movie with a very low return on investment is a format that won't be used again.
---

Diversity really helps companies strategize better due to team members having different perspectives in the world in order to see problems in different ways to come up with a better solution.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

I just wish that race didn't matter, but it does to so many people. And as long as it does, racism will exist.

Representation in pop culture helps racism though

I hope so. I hope that one day we can see a movie, and not get excited because of racial representation/diversity. That skin color becomes a thing that no one thinks about, and it no longer influences our lives. Everyone is just happy and gets along with each other.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

I just wish that race didn't matter, but it does to so many people. And as long as it does, racism will exist.

Representation in pop culture helps racism though

I hope so. I hope that one day we can see a movie, and not get excited because of racial representation/diversity. That skin color becomes a thing that no one thinks about, and it no longer influences our lives. Everyone is just happy and gets along with each other.

The problem is that representation is needed though. People are used to seeing white so much that they don't understand people from other races and cultures ARE different. They see life from a different lenses. Grow up in different environments. People who say they don't see race really just see everything as white. White is normal. White is the standard.
---

Squall28 posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

I just wish that race didn't matter, but it does to so many people. And as long as it does, racism will exist.

Representation in pop culture helps racism though

I hope so. I hope that one day we can see a movie, and not get excited because of racial representation/diversity. That skin color becomes a thing that no one thinks about, and it no longer influences our lives. Everyone is just happy and gets along with each other.

The problem is that representation is needed though. People are used to seeing white so much that they don't understand people from other races and cultures ARE different. They see life from a different lenses. Grow up in different environments. People who say they don't see race really just see everything as white. White is normal. White is the standard.

Well, I hope that one day it no longer matters. That all is normal, all is standard. That we just accept each other, and not worry about skin color.

I felt that my post was benevolent, but maybe people read something into it that wasn't there, or maybe I worded it poorly.

EDIT: Also, I realize that there may need to be a high saturation of racial diversity in media, before we can reach the point that I am hoping for. There will be growing pains for many people, as we are resistant to change.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

That we just accept each other, and not worry about skin color.

the trouble with this idea is that things done specifically because of skin color in the past have produced ripple effects that set whole families back long-term. while small numbers of people can become wealthy very rapidly, the majority of families develop wealth slowly over many generations.

slaves were going to start with land, per the sherman plan. that was scrapped, so they started behind--but then practices like redlining and school segregation came into play to keep pushing minority families back.

if we remove 100% of things that hold these families back, they'll still be far behind, and know it, and resent it.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

Squall28 posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

I just wish that race didn't matter, but it does to so many people. And as long as it does, racism will exist.

Representation in pop culture helps racism though

I hope so. I hope that one day we can see a movie, and not get excited because of racial representation/diversity. That skin color becomes a thing that no one thinks about, and it no longer influences our lives. Everyone is just happy and gets along with each other.

The problem is that representation is needed though. People are used to seeing white so much that they don't understand people from other races and cultures ARE different. They see life from a different lenses. Grow up in different environments. People who say they don't see race really just see everything as white. White is normal. White is the standard.

Well, I hope that one day it no longer matters. That all is normal, all is standard. That we just accept each other, and not worry about skin color.

I felt that my post was benevolent, but maybe people read something into it that wasn't there, or maybe I worded it poorly.

I think your intent was benevolent, but you are missing a piece of the puzzle. To get to the point where all minorities are "normal" requires representation. People need to be exposed to it. Get used to it.
---

Squall28 posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

Squall28 posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

I just wish that race didn't matter, but it does to so many people. And as long as it does, racism will exist.

Representation in pop culture helps racism though

I hope so. I hope that one day we can see a movie, and not get excited because of racial representation/diversity. That skin color becomes a thing that no one thinks about, and it no longer influences our lives. Everyone is just happy and gets along with each other.

The problem is that representation is needed though. People are used to seeing white so much that they don't understand people from other races and cultures ARE different. They see life from a different lenses. Grow up in different environments. People who say they don't see race really just see everything as white. White is normal. White is the standard.

Well, I hope that one day it no longer matters. That all is normal, all is standard. That we just accept each other, and not worry about skin color.

I felt that my post was benevolent, but maybe people read something into it that wasn't there, or maybe I worded it poorly.

I think your intent was benevolent, but you are missing a piece of the puzzle. To get to the point where all minorities are "normal" requires representation. People need to be exposed to it. Get used to it.

I actually edited in the gist of the bolded paragraph, prior to the time that you posted it. That should show that I actually had that on my mind, but I just figured it went without saying. However, I realized that people may not be mind readers, so I edited in my thoughts.
---

The 2 main reasons are

H-1b Visa- they can steal foreign talent and pay them a fraction of the costs.

Remittances-immagrants sends money back to their own country which strengthens the US dollar and allows a lower cost of imported goods.

Darkman124 posted...

the trouble with this idea is that things done specifically because of skin color in the past have produced ripple effects that set whole families back long-term. while small numbers of people can become wealthy very rapidly, the majority of families develop wealth slowly over many generations.

slaves were going to start with land, per the sherman plan. that was scrapped, so they started behind--but then practices like redlining and school segregation came into play to keep pushing minority families back.

if we remove 100% of things that hold these families back, they'll still be far behind, and know it, and resent it.

http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

"Indeed, 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group wealth consultancy."

And that claim that it still won't be sufficient even if we remove 100% of the things keeping peoppe back is silly. Immigrants come to America with nothing and become middle class or higher within a single generation despite starting with nothing, and that has been America's legacy for hundreds of years.

and per recent data, black enrollment in college exceeds every other race, and incomes in black households are rising faster.

"With almost 30% of the Black population under the age of 18, this population is not only young and influential, but also increasingly educated. High school graduation rates for Black students increased to over 70% in 2013, which outpaced the growth for all students in the
nation, according to new data from the U.S. Department of Educations National Center for Education Statistics. In fact, the percentage of Black high school graduates enrolled in college jumped significantly last year to 70.9% from 59.3% in 2013, exceeding the enrollment rate of Whites (67.3%), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thats the
highest percentage of Black enrollment since the Bureau began tracking this data. Overall, 68.4% of all 2014 high schoolgraduates were enrolled"

"Black households have seen their median income rise by 3.5% over the past three years from 2011-2013, as The Great Recession has waned. Real median household income increased more among African-American households (+$793) than among White households (+$433) and more than the total population, according to the U.S. Census.For the most recent year available (2012-2013), Black median household income increased 2.3%, which outpaced the income growth for any category, including total households, whose median income statistically did not change (+.3%). In fact, the percentage of African-Americans who
earned more than $50,000 per year increased from 30% in 2005 to 36%
in 2013, and those who earned more than $75,000 increased from 15% in 2005 to 20% in 2013. At every income level above $60,000 per household, Black income
growth outpaced that of non-Hispanic Whites. In the years from 2005-2013, the income bracket with the largest increase for Black households occurred in the number of households earning over $200,000, with an increase of 138%, compared to an increase of 74% for the total population. Growth in Black household income is projected to continue, as larger proportions of Blacks join the workforce for the first time or move up from entry-level jobs as they age. The significantly younger median age
of Blacks means that fewer have reached their career pinnacles and have more years of increasing income potential. In 2010, only 8.6% of Blacks were over the age of 65, compared to 13.8% of Whites and 12.7% of the total population."

Taken from the a 2015 Nielsen study which cites government data

krazychao5 posted...

Diversity really helps companies strategize better due to team members having different perspectives in the world in order to see problems in different ways to come up with a better solution.

People say this, but I fail to see the relationship of the typical metrics of diversity, like race, gender and sexuality to huge swaths of industry. What viewpoints unique to those backgrounds have to selling financial products or running an oil company?

KhanJohnny posted...

krazychao5 posted...

Diversity really helps companies strategize better due to team members having different perspectives in the world in order to see problems in different ways to come up with a better solution.

People say this, but I fail to see the relationship of the typical metrics of diversity, like race, gender and sexuality to huge swaths of industry. What viewpoints unique to those backgrounds have to selling financial products or running an oil company?

Every viewpoint matters. There is quite a bit of deliberation behind the scenes in decision making and the different perspectives help with determining consequences of actions and also opportunities. So many short-sighted decisions have been made because it was all rich white men making decisions for companies. They fail due to the lack of perspective and lose market share to the smaller, faster companies.
---

krazychao5 posted...

lose market share to the smaller, faster companies.

over the last 20-30 years the largest corporations have seen the biggest gains and size has increased profit potential, rather than decreased it.
---

KhanJohnny posted...

krazychao5 posted...

Diversity really helps companies strategize better due to team members having different perspectives in the world in order to see problems in different ways to come up with a better solution.

People say this, but I fail to see the relationship of the typical metrics of diversity, like race, gender and sexuality to huge swaths of industry. What viewpoints unique to those backgrounds have to selling financial products or running an oil company?

I agree that most of the time it's bullshit to say things like that, because in every industry there are best-practices that are defined not by race/gender/sexuality but by data, evidence, and experience.

But I do believe that there are times when someone's culture can give them a different type of analytical mind which might prompt them to try approaching a problem in a different way which could then help define the best practice for solving that type of problem.

Pragmatic example: In Eastern Europe, phages have been used for a long time to combat infection, even though most conventional wisdom in the more western countries abandoned phages only for them to start making a comeback as of late.

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fmb-2017-0261

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/05/the-best-viral-news-youll-ever-read-antibiotic-resistance-phage-therapy-bacteriophage-virus/

https://www.asm.org/index.php/general-science-blog/item/7135-return-of-the-phages-a-forgotten-remedy-makes-a-comeback

Most people who are steeped in far-west culture might not have bothered to consider phages. *shrug*

Darkman124 posted...

krazychao5 posted...

lose market share to the smaller, faster companies.

over the last 20-30 years the largest corporations have seen the biggest gains and size has increased profit potential, rather than decreased it.

Yet companies like Twitter, Uber, Facebook AirBnb, Netflix, Google etc have grown faster and are disrupting their industries.
---

krazychao5 posted...

Darkman124 posted...

krazychao5 posted...

lose market share to the smaller, faster companies.

over the last 20-30 years the largest corporations have seen the biggest gains and size has increased profit potential, rather than decreased it.

Yet companies like Twitter, Uber, Facebook AirBnb, Netflix, Google etc have grown faster and are disrupting their industries.

Don't forget the disruption being caused by renewables in sectors that were entirely dominated by big oil. Or Tesla disrupting the automotive space. Etc. Or Amazon disrupting book stores, cloud infrastructure, and retail. Etc.

krazychao5 posted...

Yet companies like Twitter, Uber, Facebook AirBnb, Netflix, Google etc have grown faster and are disrupting their industries.

they are exceptions to the broad trend, in which large firms have consumed their "disruptive" competitors and centralized the market around 1-3 competing companies. and they have taken on similar behavior--facebook has begun consuming other successful social media firms, following the broader trend.

the only reason netflix didn't buy blockbuster at the end was nothing of value was there to buy.
---

Then evaluate whether or not they're violating antitrust laws. Simply acquiring other companies to become more competitive in their own industry doesn't mean there's a problem or that future disruption by new entrants can't happen.

But the point still stands that more diverse groups create more workable solutions than inclusive groups.
---

krazychao5 posted...

But the point still stands that more diverse groups create more workable solutions than inclusive groups.

uh are you sure you know what you're even saying?

silentwing26x posted...

krazychao5 posted...

But the point still stands that more diverse groups create more workable solutions than inclusive groups.

uh are you sure you know what you're even saying?

Sure do!
---

sure i have no disagreement with the original idea that diversity breeds creativity, just the example about companies, as that's one that we learned growing up but 20 years later the influence of large corporations on government behavior has enabled them to design the playing field to their favor, and the whole concept of companies getting "too big and inefficient" has generally been shown to be false as a result.

also i think rather than "inclusive groups" you meant some other synonym for non-diverse groups
---

Darkman124 posted...

sure i have no disagreement with the original idea that diversity breeds creativity, just the example about companies, as that's one that we learned growing up but 20 years later the influence of large corporations on government behavior has enabled them to design the playing field to their favor, and the whole concept of companies getting "too big and inefficient" has generally been shown to be false as a result.

also i think rather than "inclusive groups" you meant some other synonym for non-diverse groups

Well the corporate design really impacts on how effective the company is as it grows. You hear about the companies that get too big and fail because there are examples of just that. There are also examples of companies that failed in its current state and had to adjust its corporate strategy/design/mission in order to align itself better with the markets. The big companies that are still successful have reorganized for the most part to become more flexible in decision making. Some industries require more speed and flexibility in order to thrive, while more traditional markets that require heavy investment like automotive and utility are designed to favor the large companies.
---

Darkman124 posted...

sure i have no disagreement with the original idea that diversity breeds creativity, just the example about companies, as that's one that we learned growing up but 20 years later the influence of large corporations on government behavior has enabled them to design the playing field to their favor, and the whole concept of companies getting "too big and inefficient" has generally been shown to be false as a result.

also i think rather than "inclusive groups" you meant some other synonym for non-diverse groups

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2010/08/19/10-great-companies-that-lost-their-edge

Quick quiz: Name a leading company today that was just as dominant 25 years ago.

There are a few, but many of the world's top companies in 1985 have foundered, shrunk, grown obsolete, or been acquired by rivals that grew stronger. General Motors and Ford, the world's two biggest carmakers in 1985, spent the last decade in a dizzying tailspin, bleeding cash, losing market share, and struggling to turn themselves around. Venerable industrial firms like ITT restructured and drifted down the Fortune 500, while Wal-Mart, Verizon, banks, and technology firms displaced them. Digital Equipment and Wang Laboratories, once leading computer firms, disappeared completely. Even resurgent titans like Apple and IBM stared into the abyss of irrelevance and made painful changes before clawing their way back to the top.

Most companies, of course, never get to the top, and the few that do find it daunting to stay there. Vijay Govindarajan, a professor at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business and co-author of The Other Side of Innovation, says successful companies tend to fall into three traps that make the glory days fleeting. First is the physical trap, in which big investments in old systems or equipment prevent the pursuit of fresher, more relevant investments. There's a psychological trap, in which company leaders fixate on what made them successful and fail to notice when something new is displacing it. Then there's the strategic trap, when a company focuses purely on the marketplace of today and fails to anticipate the future. Some unlucky companies manage a trifecta and fall into all three traps.

With today's rapid technological change, companies rise and fall faster than ever before. The list below represents 10 companies that were once the most innovative in their industry, then lost their edge. It's no Hall of Shamemost of these firms remain able competitors that might innovate their way back to greatness one day. Rather, their stories illustrate the way missed opportunities and tunnel vision can send even a mighty enterprise off-course. The lessons apply to many firms, whether large or small. Here are 10 firms that enjoyed enviable success, followed by unenviable stumbles:

This list is old, but if it was updated today and was longer we'd probably see GE on there too.

Here's more:

https://www.collectivecampus.com.au/blog/10-companies-that-were-too-slow-to-respond-to-change
https://valuer.ai/blog/50-examples-of-corporations-that-failed-to-innovate-and-missed-their-chance/

25 years from now it's likely that the companies you're talking about, like Facebook, won't even be around anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization

For reference.
---

I'm not sure how a snapshot of current company revenues is really relevant to the conversation. I can already see a few companies on that list that have the writing on the wall for the coming decade. A list like that could've been shared 25 years ago and then ended up being woefully misguided if we looked at it now.