Dillard’s responding to Heroic Media controversy with boilerplate e-mails denying ‘sponsor’ label

“„

Hello Sara,

“„

Thank you for your thoughts:

“„

Dillard’s is not a sponsor of this event. The publicity incorrectly implied that Dillard’s is a sponsor. We are a fashion retailer providing merchandise for a fashion show which we frequently do for a variety of organizations in the communities that we serve. Dillard’s does not take any position with respect to social or political issues. We deeply respect the diverse points of view held by our customers and associates. We sincerely regret that a store manager, without prior authorization, allowed a contrary impression to be created. To the extent that this has offended anyone, we apologize.

“„

There are some problems with the company’s response. But first, let’s understand that this is a meticulously crafted official statement, blessed at the highest levels, and it is likely being used by everyone at Dillard’s who’s authorized to talk about the issue. How do I know? Well, for one thing, I have seen the e-mail that Sara sent and this is most assuredly not a personal reply. Second, I’ve been a marketing and communications pro for a lot of years. I have been in the trenches when PR fires broke out. I have seen vehement arguments waged over comma placement (literally). I know that when something blows up, a statement or talking points document is developed by subject matter experts and corporate communication leadership, and further that said communications go nowhere without formal sign-off by at least one or two people with words like “vice president” or “chief something officer” in their titles. In the case of something as potentially serious as this, it may even have crossed the CEO’s desk. Hard to say. Also, the lawyers look at it. They don’t give a damn about how well it represents the company’s image – all they care about it how effectively it protects the company from litigation.

“„

[...]

“„

**Then this: “Dillard’s does not take any position with respect to social or political issues.”**Depends on how we define the terms, doesn’t it? They can argue that they have a stated policy to the effect that they take no partisan positions, which is nice. But remember, this is America, where the Supreme Court has decreed that corporations are persons and money is speech. I’m not being even remotely disingenuous when I say that if you support something financially, then you are, by definition, taking a position.

“„

Dillard will not knowingly do business with vendors that undermine our standards, damage our reputation, and/or threaten our commercial success. With full consideration for the practice of individual vendors as well as the political and social issues of note or notoriety in a Vendor’s country, Dillard will select only the vendors who share our values and will endeavor to build our business with such vendors. Dillard reserves the right to break contractual relations, and will not initiate relations with vendors who violate basic human rights.