• Kerrigor@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not everyone can afford such alternatives. It isn’t simply a matter of inconvenience, it’s a matter of access and expense.

    • PupBiru@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      also a crap excuse… P&G don’t make cheap products; they make brand name products… plenty of home brand stuff is cheap, and doesn’t actively support russias genocide

      there are other discussions to be had about environmental impact, pay gap, etc but that’s not what we’re discussing

      • Kerrigor@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m referring to ones that are made by non-controversial companies. It’s difficult to find products that aren’t made by the same companies just under a different name. Finding ethical alternatives isn’t as simple as “don’t buy P&G”, and isn’t cheap either

        • PupBiru@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          there are (at least) 2 things that boycotts are meant to do:

          • directly deny funding to the company which will pass that onto “causes” you disagree with
          • make a statement that you and others disagree with decisions the company is making

          in the first point, switching to a different brand produced by the same company clearly does nothing unless the at product has a lower margin (which isn’t even unlikely either: plenty of brands do the “budget”, “midrange”, “luxury” brand concept and budget is where they make their least overhead)

          on the second however, that’s where you can maybe make a difference… if a company starts to see market share dip in their big name products, that’s problematic for them even if people are switching to other products in their line that are less well known, because it shows that people have more negative attitudes to their brands