Entertainment celebrities and
businesses alike risk losing customers and thus revenue by taking positions
publicly on political issues. Fearing a surge from political parties on the
far-right, some large businesses in the E.U. took the unusual step of coming
out against those parties, labeling them as “extremist,” prior to the E.U.
election in June, 2024. Typically, businesses there limit their political
stances to particular issues that bear on core functions. This is a prudent
policy, for human beings, being of bounded rationality, can easily translate ideological
disagreement into switching brands. Even universities can get bruised by becoming
embroiled in a domestic or international matter that is controversial. Hence
after the contentious spring semester of pro-Palestine protests at Harvard (and
other many other universities), the university’s administration enacted a
policy not to take positions on issues in which the core functions of the
university are only indirectly touched or are not affected at all. In creating
a “marketplace” for academic freedom, universities themselves are best positioned
by staying neutral. Although it is tempting for anyone (for oneself or one’s institution)
who has access to media to sway public opinion on a political issue, I contend
that the immediate self-gratification is usually outweighed by lost revenue and
the reputation of being partisan. Applying strict scrutiny to one’s foray into controversial
issues is harder to do if some vocal customers are demanding that a position be
publicly taken. The silence of other customers, who would “vote with their purse
or wallet” were an opposing position to be taken, should not be overlooked. The singer Taylor Swift and the actor Robert
De Niro provide us with two illustrations. Stepping out of their respective
domains comes at a cost in those domains, and thus should, I submit, be done
prudently and seldom.
As Israel was bombing Rafah in
Gaza in 2024, contravening two rulings of the International Court of Justice
(i.e., the UN’s court), a significant number of “Swifties,” that is, fans of
the singer Taylor Swift, pleaded on social media for the international
celebrity to take a position against Israel’s aggression. One fan wrote, “Taylor,
please say something. Your silence is hurting us. We need you to stand with
Palestine and condemn the Israeli occupation and aggression.”[1]
I submit that the alleged hurt was exaggerated by the teenager. I sincerely
doubt that Taylor’s silence kept many Swifties from buying Swift’s recently
released album. Had the singer taken a stand, on the other hand, her fans on
the other side might do more than block Swift on social media. That is to say,
Swift’s financial bottom-line would be more impacted, and negatively so. It
seems very improbably that increased purchases by Swifties in favor of
Palestine would surpass the loss of revenue from Swifties on the other side of
the issue “voting with their purses and wallets.” The lack of symmetry here is
behind my advice to celebrities not to take a position on a controversial
political issue, or to do so knowing that a financial cost will come with
the exercise of political influence.
To be sure, exercising political
influence on a societal and even world stage is tempting. As one Swiftie wrote
on social media of Swift’s latent power, “if she can rally all of us to vote,
she had the power to speak up about injustice.”[2]
More bluntly stated, Taylor Swift had the power to significantly
influence elections. The ideological benefit to her in doing so is not trivial;
my point is that in accruing such a benefit, she should know that it comes with
a financial cost in terms of her core function. By 2024, she had made so
much money that not earning as much as she otherwise could by taking a position
on Israel and Palestine could have made rational sense to her. Yet possible
hits to her reputational capital could go beyond merely losing some customers
of her music.
As Israel was bombing Gaza,
former U.S. president Don Trump was on trial for criminal fraud in order to
commit a political crime. Robert De Niro, a movie star, went to the courthouse
and castigated Trump, calling him a monster.[3]
As a result, the National Association of Broadcasters rescinded its Service to
America Award, which the actor was to accept in just days. A spokesperson for
the organization explained that it “is proudly bipartisan, uniting those from
across the political spectrum to celebrate the impactful work of local
broadcasters and our partners.”[4]
De Niro would be a “distraction.”[5]
Hence he was disinvited from even attending the event. De Niro took the high
road and wished the organization well. For him, the loss of the award and even
any loss at the box office if Trump supporters would then “vote with their
purses and wallets” was worth it. Like Swift, De Niro had plenty of money, no
doubt, and great star-power; he could take some of it out for a spin—like taking
a new car out for a fast drive—without fear that he would end up in the poor
house. Even so, the question of whether the hit to his personal “brand” was
worth the financial and reputational cost is worth asking. Perhaps the answer
is yes only if his public condemnation of Trump would end up making a
difference in the election that was still half a year away. To De Niro, the
answer could have been yes even if not because of the psychological reward that
he felt from standing up for something important to him. Even so, rationally it
would still be wise to keep an eye on the brand.
In short, it is human, all too human, to want to have political influence on a societal or even a global scale, and to enjoy the psychological pleasure that goes with the expenditure even though it could mean fewer sales than would otherwise be the case and a hit to one’s reputational capital, or brand. Generally speaking, though, such immediate gratification may not usually be worth the long-term costs, both tangible and intangible. Balancing the immediate with the long-term is not something that we humans are particularly good at, and natural selection in the process of evolution is to blame. The time-value of money, an economic concept, stems from the human preference for instant gratification. It is for this reason that I contend that celebrities should as a rule stick to their core functions—stick to the knitting in the words of the business book, In Search of Excellence—and only branch out to “cash in” to influence a political matter only rarely if at all. Taylor’s silence wasn’t actually hurting anyone; she was being an astute businesswoman and thus acting in her best interest.
2. Ibid.
3. Dylan Donnelly, “Robert De Niro Has Award Withdrawn after Calling Donald Trump ‘Monster’ Outside Trial,” Sky News, June 2, 2024 (accessed June 3, 2024).
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
