NOM BLOG

The National Organization for Marriage Announces Success of Starbucks Protest

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 20, 2012
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"Starbucks supported same-sex marriage, saw their support from Republicans dwindle, missed sales projections, and watched the company lose $4.4 billion overnight and over $10 billion from their 2012 high." —Brian Brown, NOM president—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C.—Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced that their protest of Starbucks is achieving results. "Starbucks supported same-sex marriage, saw their support from Republicans dwindle, missed sales projections, and watched the company lose $4.4 billion overnight and over $10 billion from their 2012 high," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "While executives of publicly traded companies have had a wonderful time claiming that not supporting same-sex marriage hurts their employee recruitment and retention efforts, we now have a case study in how alienating millions of customers can directly affect the bottom line of a public company and damage shareholder value."

On Wednesday, March, 21, 2012, Starbucks Chairman and CEO told shareholder Thomas Strobhar, in response to Strobhar's question of whether or not the corporate decision to endorse a controversial social matter was prudent, that Starbucks was going to measure this situation by whether it was in any way dilutive to shareholder value, and that to date it had not damaged their business and that the decision was in the best interest of the entire company. Over $10 billion dollars in shareholder value later it is no wonder that Starbucks turned down same-sex marriage advocates who initially sponsored a Starbucks Appreciation Day and responds to customer inquiries about their corporate position on same-sex marriage with a statement that Starbucks has never donated any actual money to same-sex marriage advocates in Washington State where they endorsed same-sex marriage.

"True success in this protest effort will not be achieved until Starbucks steps back from the debate over the meaning of marriage. The fact is that Starbucks has alienated millions of customers worldwide, has seen their sales fall behind even their own conservative estimates, and has watched their stock value drop as investors and shareholders have gotten cold feet. This should give pause to any publicly traded company that is looking to advocate against the traditional definition of marriage," continued Brown. "Stock prices and sales are subject to a myriad of factors, but business leaders and voters would do well to consider the experience of Starbucks, and the millions of people who voted in support of traditional marriage at Chick-Fil-A on August 1st with their pocketbooks, when they are being told by gay marriage proponents that support of same-sex marriage will be good for their bottom line and the business community in general."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

To learn more about DumpStarbucks, visit www.dumpstarbucks.com.

39 Comments

  1. dave gant
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    ADULTERY, WHOREMONGERING, BREAKING OF COMMANDMENTS APPARENTLY OK, SINCE YOU DON'T SPEAK OUT AGAINST THEM,

    but equality for gay taxpayers, well that won't do for you?

    The subject is integrity, and pubs don't have any, as akin proved again this weekend, as ryan proved when catholic priests took him to task over cutting benefits for poor, as mittens proves by hiding something in his tax returns, nothing to hide, he'd have them out there like his daddy, j. mccain knows, that's why palin got the nod, ------------but the worst?

    the adulterers, whoremongers among sitting/former pub senators, and GOP CAUCUS IN HOUSE AND SENATE SAY NOTHING??? is adultery that ordinary amongst the pubs:

    FOX’S GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: GOP NEEDS TO EXPLAIN

    ‘WHY THEY GIVE VITTER A PASS’ | ?????????

    Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren criticizes the GOP’s

    embrace of Sen. David Vitter after he admitted to frequenting prostitutes.

    Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly stated flatly that Vitter should not be in the Senate.

    Ask your pastor/priest, either you're condemning adultery and breaking commandments

    OR YOU'RE CONDONING!

    A GOP siiting senator, known adulterer and mitch says nothing.
    pub caucus in senate says

    NOTHING

    Instead of measuring for drapes, how about character, truth, is mitch a good christian or not?

    Supporting commandments or not? A SITTING SENATOR!!!

    Pious, hypocritical pubs: SAY NOTHING

    -----------------MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, THIS CLEARLY ILLUSTRATES

    THE CHARACTER OF MC CONNELL, MINORITY LEADER AND THE ENTIRE PUB CAUCUS

    AND ITS SUPPORTERS IN THE COUNTRY.

    DO YOU SUPPORT THE COMMANDMENTS OR NOT? THIS IS YOUR CHANCE

    TEST YOUR CHARACTER.

    w w j d?

    he told you

    <>

    New International Version (©1984)
    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

    New Living Translation (©2007)
    Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    *Now if President Obama had, say a cabinet secretary who consorted with
    hookers, pubs would be on it nonstop.*

    *Proof of the low character and values of pubs is Here:*

    *In 2007, Sen. David Vitter (R) of Louisiana was ensnared in the “D.C.
    Madam” scandal when he was identified as a client of Deborah Palfrey, who
    ran a Washington prostitution ring.

    He remains in office today.*

    *How did he get past his troubles? A few days later he appeared before microphones with his wife
    by his side, and both made public pleas for forgiveness, without taking
    questions.

    Thus the state GOP did not abandon him. He did face voters again
    until 2010, when he easily won reelection.*

    *pubs have no values, go to church, then to the whores, do not practice
    what they preach, dishonest===and not just vitter*---at least that's is my suspicion
    about many politicians of the pub stripe-----------they preach so much, you know they
    don't practice

    Ephesians 5 >>
    King James Version
    --- 5---For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God

    --

  2. Good News
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Soothing.
    Soooooooooooooooooooooooothing news.

    Congratulations NOM.

  3. Randy E King
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Amen brother.

    Let's keep up the heat until someone in that ivory tower of theirs takes a moment out of their decadent lives to release a public apology. Those idiots up there in Mahogany Row forgot how long it took to build up their customer base; they thought it was all due to the power and glory that was them.

    If I were a franchisee I would be looking for a way to recoup losses brought about by out-of-touch Executives too preoccupied with pimping an agenda to concern themselves with matters as trivial as protecting shareholder value.

  4. Gavin
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    So, I have a question. You say that 'alienating customers' is a bad thing....isn't it alienating human beings to claim only heterosexuals are privileged, in their genetically programed sexuality, to be married? Thats a bit hypocritical.

    Unless you do not see homosexuals (and probably trans* people as well) as human beings worthy of respect. Or even as being human at all. I'll bet on that.

    Or maybe it is ok for homosexuals to marry, as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex/gender.

    Which would only eventually produce yet another divorce....

    Which is the real destroyer of marriage. Logically. So why don't you folks protest divorce? Is it because it would mean you would have to take responsibility for your own indiscretions?

    But then again, I'm gay. I probably don't count as being a person to you, so by default my thoughts, logic, and concerns have no value to you. And that is something which is at the core of all of this--you do not value others. For that, I feel sorry for you.

  5. Little Man
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    In Hawaii - legislature urged to pass same-sex civil marriage with a Democrat controlled House, though the majority of the people are against it. Ask Ex-Gov. Linda Lingle.

    http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7525/August-19-2012-News-Read.aspx?utm_source=August+19%2C+2012+News+From+Hawaii+Free+Press&utm_campaign=August+19+2012+Email&utm_medium=email

  6. BillTheCat
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    LOL liars. Whatever you say Slaggie.

  7. Michelle Roberts
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    For the quarter ended July 1, Starbucks said net income totaled $333.1 million, or 43 cents per share, compared with $279.1 million, or 36 cents per share, in the same quarter a year ago. Total revenue rose 13 percent to $3.3 billion, and same-store sales rose 6 percent worldwide, with U.S. stores posting a 7-percent same-store sales increase.

  8. Randy E King
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Starbucks misses estimates, stock falls:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/business/chi-starbucks-misses-estimates-stock-falls-20120726_1_biggest-coffee-chain-starbucks-financial-officer-troy-alstead

    Spin it anyway you want, but there are no coincidences in this world.

  9. Paul Mc
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    Just spent 10mins searching financial sites for reference to boycott on SBUX stock. Nada.

    Stock price was clearly over priced looking at P/L ration. Even now it may settle a little lower to typical trend P/E around 20.

    I'm afraid this makes NOM/Brian Brown look like increasingly desperate to justify the investment in futile campaign.

    Please look for yourselves and try to think for yourselves. There is no analyst linking Starbucks share performance with Dump Starbucks campaign. The campaign failed and this just looks NOM silly.

  10. thaiea
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    For the record here is a short list of companies that stand with Starbucks for marriage equality.
    • Adobe Systems
    • Allstate Insurance]
    • Amazon.com
    • American Apparel
    • American Airlines
    • Apple
    • Applebee's
    • Ben & Jerry's
    • Best Buy
    • Boeing
    • Clorox
    • The Coca-Cola Company
    • Concur Technologies
    • Costco
    • Delta Airlines
    • eBay
    • Electronic Arts
    • Ford
    • Gap
    o Banana Republic, Old Navy, Piperlime
    • General Mills
    • Goldman Sachs
    • Google
    o Motorola Mobility, Youtube, Zagat
    • Hilton Worldwide
    • The Home Depot
    • IBM
    • Intuit
    • J.C. Penney
    • Kraft Foods
    • Levi's
    • Marriott Hotels
    • McDonald's
    • Microsoft
    • Nationwide Insurance]
    • Nike
    • Olive Garden
    • Office Depot
    • PepsiCo
    • PG&E
    • Procter and Gamble
    • Qualcomm
    • RealNetworks, Inc.
    • Red Lobster
    • REI
    • Rite Aid
    • Sears
    o Land's End
    • Southwest Airlines
    • Starbucks
    • State Farm Insurance
    • Target
    • T-Mobile
    • United Airlines
    • UPS
    • Vulcan Inc.[273]
    • Walgreens
    • The Walt Disney Company
    o ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Marvel, Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, The Muppets, more
    • Wells Fargo
    And the list of companies that support do not::
    Chick-Fil-A

  11. Jacy Topps
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    WOW!!!! You guys will just anything to support your conclusion. You probably don't care because your supporters just take your word for it instead of researching for themselves!!

    For the first quarter ended July 1, Starbucks net income totaled $333.1 million, or 43 cents per share, compared with $279.1 million, or 36 cents per share, in the same quarter a year ago. Total revenue rose 13 percent to $3.3 billion, and same-store sales rose 6 percent worldwide, with U.S. stores posting a 7-percent same-store sales increase. For the Americas, which includes 12,653 locations in the U.S., Canada and Latin America, the 7-percent increase reflected a 5-percent increase in transactions and a 2-percent increase in average check. Revenue for the region grew 9 percent to $2.5 billion

  12. ian will
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    This whole issue is just plain stupid. Let me marry who I want and I will leave you alone. Starbucks sells coffee, not bigotry so why in the world would they support efforts to limit whom people love.

  13. David in Houston
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    So, 47,644 people caused Starbucks to lose $10 billion. Whatever you say, Brian. Meanwhile, the other 320,000,000 Americans are laughing in your face.

  14. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    Good job, Brian. It looks like you pushed a few buttons.

    The public purpose of marriage is to unite children with their mother and father.

    To paraphrase DoE, the government supports married couples procreating. It doesn't mandate it.

  15. Fitz
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    thaiea - should know that most of those companies simply offer partner benefits and don't formally support same-sex "marriage".

    dave gant - Should know that the adulterers, prostitute johns, fornicators, and the like don't seem to caucus together for open marriage, legalized prostitution, or easy sex in our constitution.

  16. albert
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    There is no such thing as same sex marriage, end of story.

  17. Fitz
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    Roll-Back..

    http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/08/20/branstad-gop-control-of-iowa-legislature-could-mean-gay-marriage-referendum-abortion-restrictions/

    Link talks about how the Iowa Democrats are likley to loose control of the Senate & this will lead to the long awaited repeal of same-sex "marriage" & a marriage amendment in the Iowa constitution.

  18. John
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    @ Gavin...it has nothing to do with hating gays. It's about defendng marriage. Why can't you guys understand this? I don't believe a blind person should receive a driver's license. Does that mean I hate blind people? Of course not. It's the same with marriage. Homosexual marragae, no matter how you look at it, cannot provide or do what traditional marriage can do and has done. IT CAN'T. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HATING GAYS. Live your life as you want, that's fine. But leave marriage alone. Heck, heterosexual people are limited too..they can't marry more than one person at a time and they can't marry someone they are related too. Doesn't mean hate.

  19. Preserve Marriage
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

    Re: Post #10,

    I see Target on your list.

    "the company's public stance on the Minnesota marriage amendment hasn't changed
    [...]
    the eskimo kisses here don't mean that Target's coming out against the MN marriage amendment"
    [...]
    Since Target's $150,000 donation to anti-gay, pro-Tom Emmer organization MN Forward in summer 2010, and the ensuing uproar (including revelations about company funding for similar politicians), the retailer has been doing damage control.
    http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/07/targets_same-sex_wedding_registry_ad_doesnt_signal_change_in_stance_on_mn_marriage_amendment.php

  20. Paul Mc
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    Barb, BB pushed a few buttons, yes. The ones marked 'Mistaken', 'I'm Not Afraid of Hyperbole', 'I Am Not A Financial Analyst'.

    It is not true that NOM has affected the SBUX price. Dosen't anyone care that this kind of talk undermines NOM credibility?

  21. Lefty
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    @SSM advocates

    Starbucks... responds to customer inquiries about their corporate position on same-sex marriage with a statement that Starbucks has never donated any actual money to same-sex marriage advocates in Washington State where they endorsed same-sex marriage.

    Enjoy a piping hot empty gesture, from $tarbucks.

  22. TC Matthews
    Posted August 20, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

    ooo.

  23. Andy King
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    I'm a little confused. The headline reads: "The National Organization for Marriage Announces Success of Starbucks Protest".

    In the same post, Brian continues "True success in this protest effort will not be achieved until Starbucks steps back from the debate over the meaning of marriage." Which... they haven't done.

    By your own standards, then, your protest is not a success.

  24. Posted August 21, 2012 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    Success leads to success, Andy.

    We do grassroots, you guys do Astroturf.

    This is why you always seems to be winning in the polls, and then you wake up wondering what happened when the votes are counted.

    That won;t change this November, and after this November, things are going to be very different for the pseudo-marriage movement.

    They will have to learn to play defense.

  25. Posted August 21, 2012 at 1:34 am | Permalink

    How come pseudo-marriage advocates understand logic, except when asked to affirm the question:

    Are all mothers female?

    Is it in the nature of a mother to be female?

    Are all fathers male?

    Is it in the nature of a father to be male?

    Selective illogic has always been the strong suit of the marriage corruption advocate.

  26. Preserve Marriage
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    ian will,
    >
    > Let me marry who I want and I will leave you alone.

    Marry who you want. I'm not stopping you. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Know that they won't let you marry who you want if you're already married, want to marry a sibling, or want to marry a minor without the minor's permission. Marriage law's discriminatory, you know.

    > why in the world would they support efforts to limit whom people love.<

    Nobody's trying to limit who you love.

    Nice spin.

    Funny place to post it, though. Everybody here knows it's BS.

  27. Preserve Marriage
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 2:28 am | Permalink

    The boycott's been a success since Day 1.

    Let me use myself as an example. I was a Starbucks customer. Now I'm not. I represent a loss of sales for Starbucks.

    Now along comes Johnny, a new Starbucks customer. Does Johnny replace me? No, because Johnny would have been a new customer even I hadn't stopped being one. No one replaces Starbucks' lost customers, many of whom never signed NOM's pledge. We simply represent lost sales, sales they would otherwise be making, if they hadn't supported "gay marriage."

    Starbucks has simply lost a revenue stream.

    In truth, I started boycotting Starbucks before NOM announced the Dump Starbucks campaign. Others undoubtedly boycott Starbucks that haven't signed the pledge.

  28. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 3:54 am | Permalink

    Probably good to remember that fornication, adultery, whoredomes, etc. only have context because of marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage between a man and a woman is the only both common sense and moral institution in which sexual behavior ought to occur.

  29. Johan de Vries
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 3:55 am | Permalink

    Why is everything so supportive of the boycott? Any (perceived) drop in sales is hailed as a victory. Once could even argue people are gloating with such news. But who do you think will be first ones to be affected by a successful boycott when contract renewals are discusses? Hint: it's not the CEO's or the managers.

  30. Fedele Ratio
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    Good job, NOM.

    One by one, honest people should make clear to big corporations that family values is the only route to sustainable and enduring financial success.

    With respect to big corporations like Apple and Microsoft, we should start looking at practical ways to bring families' money into the equation.

    It's practical for companies like Walt Disney and Starbucks, where practical alternatives exist, much less easy with corporations like Apple and Microsoft.

    Probably with such corporations the right way is the judicial one, as well as promoting open technologuy when possible.

  31. Fedele Ratio
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    By the way, in all my purchases, whenever feasible, I take into consideration the position and the policies of the companies I buy from. If they promote anti-family positions, I simply avoid such companies, and look for decent and honest alternatives. It'a consumer right, and I exercise my rights. Corporations should be out of the politics.

  32. Randy E King
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    @DOE,

    "Probably good to remember that fornication, adultery, whoredomes, etc. only have context because of marriage between a man and a woman."

    The perfect counter-point; thank you!

    Marriage corruption supporters are obviously looking to legislate vice into a virtue. Has anyone else noticed that the vast majority of those that support changing the meaning of the word marriage are fornicators, adulterers, whores, and same-sex sexual addicts?

  33. Little Man
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    dave gant: Nice comment, but i didn't read it. Full of capitalization.

  34. Little Man
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Gavin: We can respect all people, but that doesn't mean they always get what they want. Marriage has a reasonable basis - it is not about love or inclusion. If it were about love and inclusion, the governments would not be 'in the business' of marriage. They are 'in the business' because to not regulate marriage between opposite-sex couples, or to not do it properly and effectively causes each State to pay so much for social services, it can bankrupt the State. Look at California's budget and the financial situation of that State.

    If the State compensates for irresponsible partnerships, with social services, they encourage couples NOT to marry and still have children.

    It's no time to be considering extending marriage benefits to whoever wants them.

  35. bman
    Posted August 21, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    Ian Will->This whole issue is just plain stupid. Let me marry who I want and I will leave you alone.

  36. bman
    Posted August 22, 2012 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    Ian Will->This whole issue is just plain stupid. Let me marry who I want and I will leave you alone.

    First, that is hardly an argument worth making since any one can say it for any kind of marriage.

    If a bisexual foursome wants to marry, for example, they can say, "let us marry who we want and we will leave you alone."

    There is no appeal to reason or right principle in that.

    Second, letting you marry a same sex partner means letting you pervert the moral compass of society.

    Thus, you are effectively saying "let me pervert the moral compass of society by marrying who I want, and I will leave you alone."

  37. Posted August 23, 2012 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    @ bman #36:

    Bravo.

  38. Chris Schwarz
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    One of the main reasons I support marriage equality is so that stupid, ignorant, people like you are proven wrong. I love to see stupid people fail.

  39. TC Matthews
    Posted August 23, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    Wow Chris. Hostile much?