Connect with us

News

After brands dump Kanye West, many people ask: What took so long? | CNN Business

Published

on

After brands dump Kanye West, many people ask: What took so long? | CNN Business


New York
CNN Enterprise
 — 

Earlier this week Adidas ended its partnership with rapper and dressmaker Ye (who beforehand glided by Kanye West). Its choice got here across the similar time {that a} flurry of different corporations additionally minimize ties with the artist — however weeks after Ye started making offensive remarks.

Many puzzled: What took Adidas and others so lengthy?

In spite of everything, Ye’s habits had been troubling for a while. He even referred to as out Adidas instantly throughout a podcast look during which he made antisemitic feedback, bragging the corporate would by no means minimize ties with him.

The most recent saga started in early October when Ye wore a shirt with the slogan “White Lives Matter,” an announcement that the Anti-Defamation League has linked to the Ku Klux Klan. At the moment Adidas, which first partnered with the artist in 2013 for Yeezy-branded footwear and garments, mentioned it was reviewing the partnership.

Advertisement

Then, throughout an look on a “Drink Champs” podcast episode the weekend of October 16, Ye repeated antisemitic conspiracy theories amongst different offensive claims. He referenced Adidas instantly: “I can say antisemitic issues, and Adidas can’t drop me,” he mentioned. “Now what?”

For a number of days, that gave the impression to be true.

Adidas didn’t announce it was severing ties with Ye till Tuesday, October 25, over every week after the podcast was launched.

In that assertion the corporate mentioned it “doesn’t tolerate antisemitism and every other type of hate speech,” calling Ye’s latest feedback “unacceptable, hateful and harmful” in addition to in violation of the corporate’s “values of variety and inclusion, mutual respect and equity.”

Advertisement

Adidas wasn’t the one firm to take its time: Balenciaga minimize ties with Ye final week, and whereas Hole and Ye parted methods in September, it didn’t pull the Yeezy Hole line from cabinets till this week. Foot Locker additionally mentioned this week that it might take away Yeezy merchandise, and TJ Maxx adopted by saying it might not buy the gadgets on the market in shops.

However Adidas took a lot of the highlight following Ye’s feedback on the “Drink Champs” podcast.

Why the delay? In such a scenario, corporations face a dilemma, mentioned Andrew Gilman, founder and CEO of CommCore, a consulting group with experience in disaster communication. On the one hand, they “need to be actually quick,” he mentioned. “On the similar time, they wish to be deliberate.”

When strolling that tightrope, corporations can slip. And a unsuitable transfer may have penalties for his or her funds and repute.

It appears that evidently the final straw for Adidas was a picture that went viral this weekend. Pictures from a Los Angeles freeway overpass present a small group of demonstrators with their arms raised in what seems to be the Nazi salute behind banners studying, “Honk if you realize” alongside “Kanye is true in regards to the Jews.”

Advertisement

As that picture caught traction on-line, stress mounted for Adidas to take a stance.

The incident “woke these corporations up,” mentioned Amy Shanler, affiliate professor of public relations on the Boston College School of Communication, referring not simply to Adidas however to the opposite corporations that minimize ties with Ye this week. It made them notice “it’s not simply Kanye speaking to Kanye … there are different people who find themselves listening.”

These individuals, who affirmed Ye’s antisemitic message, should not ones corporations wish to be linked with. From their perspective,”we are able to’t be in any respect related — even a second-degree affiliation — with these hate teams,” Shanler mentioned.

As for the earlier incidents, Shanler famous that corporations don’t at all times understand how far is just too far, even when critics have been calling them out. Plus, corporations might concern that by addressing a controversial incident, they’ll find yourself publicizing it.

And so they’re nervous about being the primary to take a stance.

Advertisement

“Once you’re the primary, you turn out to be essentially the most seen, you’re the primary model that everyone’s speaking about,” Shanler mentioned. “Once you’re not the primary, it’s rather a lot simpler to hitch that bandwagon.”

After which, in Adidas’ case particularly, there’s the monetary fallout that outcomes from severing ties.

Adidas will take a €250 million (about $249 million) within the fourth quarter due to the choice, the corporate mentioned this week. Issues may worsen from there, famous Douglas Hand, a vogue lawyer who’s a companion within the agency Hand Baldachin & Associates.

“That’s simply the short-term affect,” he mentioned. “Kanye and Yeezy have been a big aspect of their revenues and profitability,” he famous. “They’re actually, in impact, shuttering a model that has been very, very profitable for them.”

Yeezy merchandise generated practically $2 billion in gross sales final 12 months for Adidas, 8% of the corporate’s whole income, based on Morgan Stanley. The road helped Adidas appeal to new prospects and get extra shelf house in shops. (Adidas mentioned it stays “the only real proprietor of all design rights to present merchandise in addition to earlier and new colorways below the partnership” with Ye.)

Advertisement
Adidas said it will take a big loss in the fourth quarter because its cutting ties with Ye.

Adidas has a monetary obligation to its shareholders. Earlier than it abandons such a profitable deal, it has to make certain that’s the correct transfer.

Most public corporations “are very a lot beholden to monetary choices, above and past choices that could be extra aligned with mission,” mentioned Hand.

However there are prices to dragging your ft.

The corporate might maintain injury to its repute. It’s not but clear whether or not that may occur on this case, famous Gilman. “What they’ll lose will depend on how sturdy the model is to start with,” Gilman mentioned.

And by holding quiet for days after Ye’s podcast apperance, Shanler mentioned, Adidas “missed a possibility to make a forceful and immutable assertion in opposition to antisemitism.”

Advertisement

— CNN Jordan Valinsky, Sonya Hamasaki and Nathaniel Meyersohn contributed to this report.

News

Goldman Sachs’ chief warns global investors are staying on the ‘sidelines’ in China

Published

on

Goldman Sachs’ chief warns global investors are staying on the ‘sidelines’ in China

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Goldman Sachs’ chief executive has warned that global investors are still “predominantly on the sidelines” over deploying capital in China because of weak consumer confidence and difficulties getting money out of the country.

David Solomon said investors “continue to be concerned” about cashing out of investments in the world’s second-largest economy.

“It’s been very difficult over the course of the last five years to get capital out,” he told an event on Tuesday organised by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the territory’s de facto central bank.

Advertisement

“I think you’ve got a combination of issues that have global investors predominantly on the sidelines with respect to capital deployment,” Solomon said.

He added that investors would like to see “an improvement in consumption” in China and “continued progress in the opening up of the capital markets”. 

Speaking on the same panel, Morgan Stanley chief executive Ted Pick said he agreed with Solomon. “Transparency is important and battling deflation takes time,” he said.

Deflationary pressures have increased in China, where the country’s leadership is trying to stabilise a property sector crisis and boost domestic consumption in order to meet its economic growth target of 5 per cent for the year.

Chinese stocks rallied in September after Beijing launched a stimulus package, including measures to boost the stock market. But the rally has cooled as authorities held off from making significant new fiscal spending announcements.

Advertisement

The CSI 300, China’s blue-chip index, on Tuesday closed down 11 per cent from a post-stimulus peak on October 8.

“The fiscal piece will take time, the real estate dynamic is going to take a number of quarters,” said Pick. “Clearly the name of the game here is to reignite consumer confidence and that’s something that takes a while to take hold, but we’re seeing some green shoots.”

The conference is a sign of HKMA’s sway over global financial institutions even as US-China relations fray. The annual event is attended by the biggest names on Wall Street, in part because the HKMA oversees hundreds of billions of dollars and is a valuable client and limited partner of many of the institutions.

Attendees included Apollo Global Management’s chief executive Marc Rowan, Blackstone president Jon Gray, and leading figures from buyout groups KKR, TPG, CVC and Carlyle.

Solomon and Pick were responding to a question from deputy HKMA chief Howard Lee about whether China’s stimulus package and “positive remarks” from Beijing officials, who stressed the importance of China opening up to the world, would make investors “feel more assured” about the country.

Advertisement

Earlier in the morning, China’s vice-premier He Lifeng delivered a speech in which he said mainland officials wanted to preserve Hong Kong’s status as an international financial centre while encouraging greater mutual market access between the city and the rest of mainland China.

The bank bosses spoke briefly about Donald Trump’s US election victory. Citi chief executive Jane Fraser said it had prompted a “big unlock” in demand for initial public offerings and mergers and acquisitions that had been “very gummed up” in recent years.

The prospect of reduced regulation “puts many CEOs in a good mood”, she said.

Continue Reading

News

California governor delays clemency decision for Menendez brothers pending new DA review | CNN

Published

on

California governor delays clemency decision for Menendez brothers pending new DA review | CNN



CNN
 — 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom will delay his decision on clemency for Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were convicted of murdering their parents in 1989, until the newly elected Los Angeles County district attorney completes his review of the case, Newsom’s office said Monday.

“The governor respects the role of the district attorney in ensuring justice is served and recognizes that voters have entrusted District Attorney-elect (Nathan) Hochman to carry out this responsibility,” Newsom’s office stated. “The governor will defer to the DA-elect’s review and analysis of the Menendez case prior to making any clemency decisions.”

Current District Attorney George Gascón, who has voiced strong support for the Menendez brothers’ clemency petition and submitted letters to the governor advocating for them, requested a judge in October to resentence the siblings, who are serving life without parole.

Gascón was recently defeated in his reelection bid by Hochman, a former federal prosecutor who campaigned on a tougher stance against crime. With Hochman set to take office in December, questions have arisen about the future of the resentencing effort and the clemency process.

Advertisement

Hochman stated that he is committed to thoroughly reviewing the Menendez case, including the confidential prison files, trial transcripts and extensive exhibits, as well as consulting with prosecutors, defense attorneys and family members of the victims.

“This is the same type of rigorous analysis I have done throughout my 34-year career in criminal justice as a prosecutor and defense counsel, and the same type of thorough review that I will give to all cases regardless of media attention,” he told CNN.

The brothers, family members and the public deserve a thorough review, Hochman said.

The renewed examination of the Menendez case comes more than 35 years after Jose and Kitty Menendez were shot dead in their Beverly Hills home. Their sons, then 21 and 18, were arrested less than a year later in 1990 and found guilty of first-degree murder in 1996.

During their two highly publicized trials, the brothers did not dispute the act of killing their parents but claimed self-defense, citing a lifetime of physical and sexual abuse by their father. The first trial, notable for being one of the earliest televised cases, ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury. In the subsequent trial, much of the evidence regarding the alleged abuse was deemed inadmissible, resulting in the brothers’ conviction and life sentences.

Advertisement

Attention to the case has surged following the September release of the Netflix series “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story.” Netflix recently launched a documentary on the case, featuring the brothers discussing the events that led to the tragic killings.

Continue Reading

News

Hong Kong sentences 45 democracy activists to up to 10 years in prison

Published

on

Hong Kong sentences 45 democracy activists to up to 10 years in prison

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A Hong Kong court has sentenced 45 leading pro-democracy activists to up to 10 years in prison in a landmark security case as authorities stamp out dissent in the Chinese territory.

Legal scholar Benny Tai received 10 years in prison, the heaviest sentence. The court, in its ruling on Tuesday, said that Tai was a “principal offender” in organising an unofficial primary election in 2020.

The other defendants received sentences of between four and eight years. Joshua Wong, a former leading student protest organiser, was sentenced to more than four years in prison, while Gordon Ng, an Australian national, received more than seven years.

Advertisement

“One day in prison is too many,” said Chan Po-ying, wife of former lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung, 68, who was sentenced to 81 months.

The trial of the Hong Kong 47, as the case was known, was the largest national security trial in Hong Kong, which has been struggling to restore its reputation as an international financial centre in the wake of Beijing’s political crackdown and coronavirus pandemic restrictions.

“This case is unprecedented in Hong Kong’s history of democratic movement,” said Eric Lai, a research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Asian Law. “Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement will suffer for many years due to the vacuum of leaders and outstanding activists.”

The defendants — who were arrested in sweeping dawn raids in January 2021 — represented some of the city’s most prominent pro-democracy politicians, activists, union officials, journalists, academics and student leaders.

Thirty-one, including Tai and Wong, had pleaded guilty in hopes of receiving reduced sentences, while 14 were convicted in May. Two were previously acquitted, though prosecutors have filed an appeal against one of the acquittals.

Advertisement

Most of the defendants have been in detention for more than three years after being denied bail. The charges carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

This is a developing story

Continue Reading

Trending