Hi. This post is an example of the kind of exclusive dailies I write for LibUX Patreon subscribers, in which I respond to timely issues in the news or in the community with respect to their impact on the business of UX. If you’re in a position to support LibUX, access to these dailies is just $1 per month. Your support goes a long, long way. | Subscribe

Starbucks pledged to hire 10,000 refugees and — to the vindication of the #boycottstarbucks crowd — their stock took a hit.

Graph showing starbucks' stock dip

This is probably going to be good for Starbucks.

In May last year, around the time of the passage of North Carolina’s bathroom law, Taylor Pepper wrote in Time that

In recent years, Americans seem to have embraced the notion that the private sector has a role in shaping the political debate, according surveys by the public relations firm Global Strategy Group. In the most recent survey — the results of which were published in January — 78% of Americans said that “corporations should take action to address important issues facing society.” That’s up from 72% in 2013.

To be sure, Americans tend to think it’s more “appropriate” for companies to take stands on economic issues such as the minimum wage, pay equality, and parental leave. Still, a majority also think it is suitable for companies to weigh in on social and political issues ranging from LGBT equality to Obamacare to race relations.

This is not just a sign of the times but a trend carried by the momentum of aggregation theory, which describes how the user experience has become such a dominant force shaping the success of businesses.

And this makes sense.

We increasingly use products and services we identify with. We buy food that aligns with our ethics, we laud brands who align with our worldview, we put face to vast companies — Tim Cook and Apple, Marissa Mayer and Yahoo!, Richard Branson and Virgin, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook — and by so anthropomorphizing them the character of these individuals either shake our loyalty or increase our engagement.

Starbucks made a shrewd move. They took an ethical stance at a highly controversial and thus public time, that — regardless of your political beliefs — positions them in an inarguably favorable matchup.

Which leads me to this plea from Tim Spalding:

Libraries skew liberal and what-with the growing clamor around never-neutral / critical librarianship — read my thoughts about you might bake these kinds of ethical stances into your designs —  for-profit library vendors have an opportunity to make a statement that resonates their existing — and potential — buyers.

Michael Schofield Michael is a deep-thinking beach-bum developer librarian doing and writing [sorta] impressive things around design, development, and the user experience. You should ask him to speak or do a workshop.