Last week in a classroom discussion, we brought up the relationship between White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Dippin’ Dots. Long story short, Spicer has a long history of bashing Dippin’ Dots, and CEO Scott Fisher decided to extend an olive branch by offering to host an ice cream social at the White House.
My first thought was that Dippin’ Dots should be careful about associating themselves with the Trump administration. Although the letter was playful, boycotts could negatively impact sales and the image of Dippin’ Dots in the eyes of consumers (oh hey, #DeleteUber).
Some classmates disagreed, saying it was “just a joke” and a “great publicity stunt.” I, however, decided in that moment to never spend another cent on Dippin’ Dots.
It was an excellent public relations stunt, of course. However, that letter articulated to me that Dippin’ Dots is willing to entertain the individuals that occupy the White House and endorse and produce “alternative facts.”
And THEN, this weekend happened.
With each CNN update I recieved on my phone, I became more and more convinced I was living in a “Black Mirror” episode.
Between the Trump administration issuing the immigration ban, reviving the Dakota Access Pipeline and firing the acting Attorney General, I’m dreading to see what’s coming next.
What somewhat surprised me, though, was the public opposition from major companies in response to the immigration ban. Starbucks pledged to hire 10,000 refugees globally, Lyft pledged to donate $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union — and after some backlash, even Uber set up a $3 million legal fund for immigrant drivers.
So, I checked up on Dippin’ Dots and found no press releases, statements or pledges in response to the immigration ban.