'Swiggy's Swag' or 'Swiggy's a Slag'?

So, this happened: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-bytes/swiggy-gives-twitterati-much-to-chew-on/articleshow/79499163.cms

A friend asked whether a corporate brand like Swiggy needs to wade into current politics, and if that is the job of a brand. He also asked that if brands shouldn't stick to delivering a great customer experience and if they care for the society, then shouldn't they solve for education in their communities or hunger or climate change rather than politics.

I disagree. I think Swiggy reacted to an item connected clearly by a straight line to their business: food, and they got an equal amount of people loving it and people hating it. My personal opinion is:

1. Those who resolved to boycott it and those that vowed to love it cancel each other out. There is probably no net loss of business.
2. The other brand, Zomato, is already aligned with Swiggy's own philosophy (and quite publicly so). Where else will the boycotting customer go? I do not see any VC funding another aggregator with a "Not political like Swiggy or Zomato" line on their pitch decks as the only differentiator.
3. People have short memories. The market forgets and goes back to normal most times. Unless it has made a mistake on a galactic scale, which this one isn't.
4. The TG nowadays, on both sides, does kinda expect their brand to take a stand. Also, what is 'political' for one is 'principled' for another. After all, brands that last are the ones that have and stick by their principle. Even brands like Google were panned when they agreed to work with the DoD to make software that was widely seen as contravening their 'Don't be evil' motto.
5. There is nothing like 'non-political' in 2020.
6. All publicity is good publicity.

That being said, I have very strong views on what brands and enterprises are about to begin with. The 'maximise shareholder value' school of thought has been obsolete for some time now. My own enterprises have always been about stakeholder value and not just shareholder value. And I believe most brands and companies are moving towards that. I will hope to continue to live my life and build my enterprise as per my principles and for the good of all stakeholders, including employees, customers, vendors, investors/shareholders, their families, and the society that the enterprise functions in. Of course, we can't always get it right (no one can), and sometimes we have to decide to go with the higher principles and sacrifice the lower ones (yes, there is always a hierarchy), like doctors must know, and use, triage in similar situations. But I fervently believe that companies and brands cannot make just markets and profits as their sole drivers if they want to survive in the long term and actually remain relevant. More importantly, the people driving and being driven by the brand (after all, what is an enterprise or brand if not the people that represent it, serve it, and are served by it?) will be connected to the brand longer and more meaningfully if the brand stands not only for maximising shareholder value, but also something that is higher, more worth their life and work, and more fulfilling at the end of the day. I believe every brand chooses the principles it stands for and on, and most of these are derived from the very people involved in its creation and sustenance.

As for the other argument about what brands can do if they must intervene in social situations ('solve for education in their communities or hunger or climate change'), my views are that unfortunately or fortunately, solutions (or even mere discussions or differences of opinion) on education, science, poverty, hunger, climate change, shelter, drinking water, women's rights, equality, land reforms, fair play, justice, affirmative action to atone for and correct the sins of our forefathers, or even the eternal tussle between economic systems (that very much affect the core of doing business) are all political in nature.

The interesting part is that this is not a new revelation or discovery. These conversations always were political. And companies and brands always took sides. Just that with the advent of always-on, omnipresent, universally accessible, mobile, never deletable, never forgettable, never 'cleansable' social media, this has come in sharp relief and one can see not just the end message of the brand (as it used to be once, not long ago), but the entire process, and the people behind it all, including any conflict they may have had, are having, or have in the future regarding that specific message. In effect, the character of the brand which was always something that customers primarily 'bought' (or as advertisers and marketers prefer to call it, the 'story') is now more transparent, more in your face, and more definitely clearer, with nothing to hide behind and nowhere to hide it. So, those brands who embrace this new openness (nakedness?) have a higher chance of survival than those who choose to pretend that they are apolitical, and can remain so for long.

The reason for this is simple: it is because, and I repeat, there is nothing like 'non-political' in 2020. In fact, there never was.