brands that use social causes for marketing do so to meat a bottom line. they calculate decisions based on the risk/reward ratio of advertisers, current audiences, and potential audiences. workers internally may truly care, but the decisions are ultimately based in self-interest

even when a brand is on the "right" side of an issue, it’s because choosing that side is providing them value. it's not good or bad on its own, it's just self-interest. brands can influence people to move in any direction, but it will always be tethered to their own bottom line

brands can play a role in normalizing, rejecting, supporting, or ignoring social causes, much like celebrities and institutions. when they market themselves around social causes, they can also overtly or covertly trick consumers into thinking it's based on principle versus profit

steak-umm posts about coronavirus and online misinformation because (1) these are universal issues and (2) our audience has rewarded us for our commentary. we might internally think it’s the right thing to do, but if our brand was hurting from it we would either stop or reassess

we try to focus our humanized ads on vague, surface-level subjects that most people can agree on and understand. this includes critical thinking, understanding others, and introspection, with a dash of sass once in awhile if we're feeling spicy. that's the "steak-umm bless" ethos

when we remind people that brands do what they do to meat a bottom line, it postures us above the problem, but we aren't. we're just using self-aware anti-advertising to invoke transparency because it helps our own bottom line. it's all circular. that's the tea

steak-umm bless