Politicking by "pub landlord"?

[Nearholmer]

For the first time ever, we had what amounts to a magazine advertising Wetherspoons pubs plop through our door today, as I guess did everyone else hereabouts.

 

Advertising through the door, no news there.

 

But what is interesting is that a chunk of it is devoted to attacking "the metropolitan elite" and extolling the virtues of Brexit, of which the owner of Wtherspoons is a vocal supporter. In short, its a political pamphlet, wrapped in beer adverts.

 

Leaving aside personal views on Brexit (or we'll get locked in a nanosecond, and it could equally be an anti-Brexit message anyway), what do others think of this? Rich people have always spent money supporting political campaigns that align with their personal beliefs or interests, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before.

 

How would it feel if other 'narrowly owned' businesses started to do it? Would it feel right if Ryanair placed a political pamphlet on every seat, for you to read on the 'plane? Or, there was a political message on the tag of every teabag in a packet of Twnings (Associated British Foods is a family-owned company)? I'm assuming that a company with a wide shareholder base could never get the idea past the shareholders, but maybe even that is possible.

 

If it took place during a declared political campaign, the run-up to the Brexit vote in this case, presumably it would be declarable spending, or would it?

 

Is it the prerogative of wealthy people to spend their money promulgating their personal views via their brands, so not anything to get worked-up about? Or, is it something to be concerned about, a person taking gross advantage of their position to peddle their personal ideology?

 

Kevin

Edited January 15, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Ozexpatriate]

If it took place during a declared political campaign, the run-up to the Brexit vote in this case, presumably it would be declarable spending, or would it?

 

Is it the prerogative of wealthy people to spend their money promulgating their personal views via their brands, so not anything to get worked-up about? Or, is it something to be concerned about, a person taking gross advantage of their position to peddle their personal ideology?

I can't comment on British 'norms' here. This spans the gamut of whether the behaviour is legal, extra-legal, illegal, and proper or improper.

 

Demonstrably, the particular issue of the day has inflamed passionate opinions to the point where people are willing to openly cross what might be cultural norms in Britain.

 

Open politicking by the owners of privately owned corporations through their organizations is widely practiced here in the US and very often in the space of identity politics.

[beast66606]

Read it - if you agree then nod approvingly, if you don't then shake your head disapprovingly - either way recycle and move on.

[Nearholmer]

I'd guessed it would be normal in the US, but it surely isn't here.

 

Some business families and individuals are known to be 'background backers' of different parties, and there has been the odd case of a prominent member of a business-owning family entering politics themselves (all went horribly wrong in the case of Dame Shirley Porter, Tesco heiress), but I think this is new in the UK.

 

Wetherspoons have turned their pubs into sort of Brexit-shrines over the past year, political messages on the beer mats, plans to cease selling European wines (seriously) etc, but that is subtly different; you have to go into one to get the political message. And, the message isn't simply Brexit-favouring, it raises the spectre of the "metropolitan elite", some "shadowy other" that people are invited to despise.

[PMP]

Not sure what you mean by narrowly owned. For example Ryanair is a public company, largest shareholder last year was HSBC with around 8% I think. If a business feels a political issue is worth promoting and supporting I have no problem with that if it’s transparent on its support. I can then decide if I want to use their product/service if the political position they’re promoting is clear.

[Neil]

I suppose my first thought would have been 'oh goody, free firelighters' as glossy magazines are too shiny for the other purpose. Applying more thought and something begins to seem wrong and I think it centres around the ability of individuals to exert undue and unfair influence because they can bring vastly greater resources to bear than the average man in the street. It starts to look more than a bit suspect where campaigns have legally imposed spending limits and the rich and powerful run parallel campaigns with the same message.

 

The privately educated, multi millionaire Tim Martin taking a pop at the 'metropolitan elite' is a bit rich.

[Nearholmer]

PMP - Oh, you're right; I thought Ryanair was family/personally owned, sorry.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Nearholmer

[The Stationmaster]

Clearly you haven't visited some Wetherspoon establishments (I go because an OFs group I'm in happens to meet in one as part of its regular circuit around various hostelries spread over former WR and SR territory, and that's my excuse) because the propaganda can sometimes be seen extending to various literature etc in the premises.  I'm not sure if that's the wisest move as it appears to be a magnet for graffiti.

 

Generally my view with printed propaganda is that it basically exists to help support our local council's recycling policy - in our case it inevitably goes straight into the big green wheelie bin outside our back door.  But there is a plus point of course because somebody is being paid - albeit maybe a pittance - to deliver it.

[Nearholmer]

SM, see my comments in 4 above. K

[Zomboid]

I crossed the threshold of a wetherspoons a few weeks ago, and the beer mats and cardboard triangle things on the tables were full of politics.

 

I was pretty surprised at such things being in a pub. You should expect it in "news"papers, but it's unusual in a pub.

 

Mind you, Pimlico Plumbers and Stannah have billboards on their roofs, next to the approach to Waterloo making their views pretty clear - they are not on Wetherspoons' side.

[Ozexpatriate]

it raises the spectre of the "metropolitan elite", some "shadowy other" that people are invited to despise.

The use of populism in advertising has appeared in a major US advertising campaign. I hasten to add that the campaign is in itself no way expressly political.

 

For AB Inbev's "Bud Light" brand, the current campaign uses the tag line "For the many, not the few". In the campaigns, snobbish elites are foppish, effete, and foolish. Doubtless there have been campaigns targeting the 'working man' before but this is different. It is specifically tapping into an anti-elite narrative.

 

It is a stark contradiction to conventional advertising approaches of the 20th century where the product was advertised as prestigious or special or in some way superior to its competition. This approach does not do this.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Ozexpatriate

[Nearholmer]

Oh no!

 

Next thing through the door will be a stair-lift advert, with a picture of a smiling Donald Tusk being transported up to bed in his pyjamas! (Possibly not. I don't think he does smiling)

 

Ozex - that would cause trouble in the UK, because that very phrase is currently the tag-line of a major political party ....... this all gets potentially very confusing.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Tony Davis]

I refuse to go into Wetherspoons establishments, they have banned dogs, even from beer gardens, and I object to his pushing his political views onto me.

 

We haven't had any mailshots, as yet.

[jjb1970]

I don't particularly like overt politicking by business and any other organised groups but freedom of expression includes the right to make political statements. Customers can then make up their own minds whether or not to support a business which promotes a political message they're uncomfortable with.

[Nearholmer]

What about Neil's point, which expresses neatly what bothered me about it, and I couldn't quite express clearly?

 

"........something begins to seem wrong and I think it centres around the ability of individuals to exert undue and unfair influence because they can bring vastly greater resources to bear than the average man in the street......."

[beast66606]

The use of populism in advertising has appeared in a major US advertising campaign. I hasten to add that the campaign is in itself no way expressly political.

 

For AB Inbev's "Bud Light" brand, the current campaign uses the tag line "For the many, not the few". In the campaigns, snobbish elites are foppish, effete, and foolish. Doubtless there have been campaigns targeting the 'working man' before but this is different. It is specifically tapping into an anti-elite narrative.

 

It is a stark contradiction to conventional advertising approaches of the 20th century where the product was advertised as prestigious or special or in some way superior to its competition. This approach does not do this.

 

Don't watch the Gillette advert.

[jjb1970]

What about Neil's point, which expresses neatly what bothered me about it, and I couldn't quite express clearly?

 

"........something begins to seem wrong and I think it centres around the ability of individuals to exert undue and unfair influence because they can bring vastly greater resources to bear than the average man in the street......."

 

I think that has always been the case in political discourse, it's no different to the influence of political parties, pressure groups, NGOs etc using their influence to promote a message. And media moguls have always used their influence politically. These days social media and the Internet have given individuals a platform to promote their own messages and some on-line messages can go viral and end up exerting real influence.

[fozzy280472]

I suppose it's his money to use as he wishes politically and they are his establishments to push his views in , so really he can can do as he pleases .

If someone doesn't like this or his views , they can leave the premises and/or ignore them , that's our perogative as customers.

 

In my view at least its HIS money and not the government issued , taxpayer funded leaflet that fell through my letterbox a few years back extolling the wonders of the EU.

[Ozexpatriate]

Don't watch the Gillette advert.

Do you mean the "me too" one? I don't think that is actually on television - just online.

[jjb1970]

This is a bit different but not entirely different, I'm thinking of leaving the engineering institute I'm a member (well, a fellow) of and joining another to maintain my CEng registration with ECUK out of protest at some of the positions they're taking on certain policies. I don't seek to limit their right to do that and if they're reflecting the wishes of a majority of members then it is just democracy working but equally I'm at liberty to decide I don't want to pay a membership fee to support such efforts.

[Nearholmer]

Fozzy

 

The magazine came through our letterbox  at home.

 

Its dark and raining outside, so I'm not really up for leaving the premises just now.

 

K

[Reorte]

Anything political shoved through my door will annoy me and I regard it in a very dim light (official election media aside). If it was in the pub, well, his pubs, he can put up whatever he wants in them, although I'd probably get irritated with blatant politics there and go somewhere else even if I was in complete agreement with the message. I'll happily have a discussion on the matters involved, even if it ends up haranguing each other (which political matters usually do), but attempts at lecturing me can shove themselves where the sun doesn't shine.

[Oldddudders]

I do not believe any issue in my lifetime has polarised views and created tensions (and worse), more than Brexit. Some of it is now involving violence including death threats, I read. Politicising by a pub chain seems quite mild by comparison.

[Ozexpatriate]

It's a very risky 'branding' exercise for a business proprietor to blatantly express a political opinion, directly to his/her customers. The self-interest component of not wanting to alienate perhaps 50% of their potential customers is likely the main reason why owners of companies don't do this more frequently.

 

I suspect it's just an unanticipated outcome of the issue of the day more than a trend.

[Fenman]

Don't watch the Gillette advert.

Sorry - I quite liked that.

 

For me there’s a difference between something posted somewhere online, and something posted - literally - through my letterbox. I find the latter far more intrusive.

 

Paul