Messi Mess prompts a consideration

Just can’t resist to wade into the earlier Messi Inter Miami mess in HK.

But only tangentially.

That one is in the book as a lousy PR campaign.
Someone should lose his job.

It would have been a slam dunk to just invite a certain old Bull basketball God to don his numbered 23 jersey.
Case closed.

The PR saga calls to mind the classroom case study of Tylenol to manage a corporate crisis.

If that’s too old for some readers, try Bud Light.

About a year ago Bud Light lost close to a third of its sale after it pushed the trans wave by tying itself in an advertising campaign with a trans figure.

It dragged down also the share price of parent Anheuser-Busch.

Bud Light is now trying to climb out of the hole it dug for itself by distancing the trans movement and shifting back to traditional healthy and patriotic themes which Anhuser Busch have long been associated with.

Commercials featuring traditional family favourite sports personalities like Peyton Manning and Emmitt Smith have been showing a lot and recently peaked at Super Bowl.

Whether that strategy works is yet to be proven.

But that prompts a rather important consideration.

That’s, should a beer maker stick to brewing the best beer rather than pushing for a political cause?

Should at least Bud Light have chosen commercials that highlight the quality or price of the beer rather than the philosophy of political views of the time?

That’s quite a tough marketing question to consider.
Just when a product or a service should stop being mixed up with issues foreign to the taste or price of a product?
What about corporate citizenry or corporate responsibility?

This is like asking:
o    Should Messi stick to playing the best soccer, leaving the shaking hands with sanctioned personalities to others?
o    Should entertainers stick to what they do best—Chow Yun Fat and Jackie Chan just act, and not comment on if CCP or Capitalism is better for people?
o    Should a wonton shop, or a cafe, stick to providing the best foods and experience for their clients, and leave their identity with or support of government or otherwise out?
o    Should the HK Anglican Church stick to the ecclesiastical mission, and not broadcast her patriotism with a CCP flag in the sanctuary?

And finally, it may lead to asking a question the answer to which has revolved around the main arguments of many blogs such as ‘乾淨教授’:
o    Should preachers stick to preaching the Word of God, leaving untouched societal ills and political injustice?

At this juncture and to help clear thinking, return to the Messi saga.

That was a soccer game, soccer star, haphazardly married to money and politics.
Soccer player plays soccer.
Period.
Moving beyond that will risk inheriting the fate of Bud Light.
That was what drove the Messi Mess.

It’s alright to stray beyond one’s central core of business if the risk is understood and absorbed.
Better still managed and financially ringfenced.

In the case of Bud Light, it dons the trans garment over the beer.
In the case of Messi, political rehabilitation over soccer.
No idea if Messi knew or cordoned off the risk.

So similarly,
It would be ok for Jackie Chan to let support of CCP China overlay on acting, if he’s calculated the risks.

Likewise, John Lennon promoted anti war politics with Imagine.
A huge success.

Many brands associated with environmental protection.
Many others with Climate Change.
Yet others abortion rights, homosexuality, freedom of speech.
Various degrees of success and failure.

But if soccer stars, movie stars, wonton shops, cafes, etc. can choose to just stick to their own profession, or for profit to take on the risk of associating with issues foreign to their core business, why then this blog has been so negative on preachers, pastors, and professors simply sticking to preaching the Bible and holding a 10 foot pole from the rights or wrongs of HK government?

What is it that says a preacher can’t be muted on issues of Caesar’s?

Difficult it seems at first, but the core business of a preacher, pastor, or professor isn’t preaching amorally a cold blooded analysis of the Word of God.

Its core content and thus core business is to preach about the One who is powerful, faithful, merciful, and just.
The same One who is on the side of widows and orphans!

Preachers, pastors and professors who stay strictly and merely on the half labelled “of God”, and stay mum on matters “of Caesar” is bound to be derelict of duties!

Their job is intrinsically intertwined with societal justice.
No shunning.

Theirs is so unlike a wonton shop which can stick to making the best wontons.
Or Jackie Chan, the best movie.
Or Messi, best soccer.

For a preacher, pastor, professor to stay on the sideline and hide behind “Caesar’s to Caesars”, but never comment on the injustice of thousands of young men imprisoned and dozens held without bail nor trial over 1000 days?

Go figure.