 |
|
|
|||||
The sonic backdrop of the Twin Cities in 2026 is a cacophony. As thousands of ICE agents raid residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, and businesses, theyre trailed by the ambient noise of piercing sirens, whirring helicopters, and screeching whistles at all hours of the day, along with the occasional boom of flashbang grenades and the odd cry for help. Conspicuously silent in all the commotion, however, are major corporations that are headquartered in Minnesota. It’s a list that includes some of the most well-known consumer-facing brands in the country, including Target, Best Buy, and Land O’Lakesall of which have an obvious direct stake in the communities that are currently being disrupted by this occupation. As of Friday morning, not one of them has released an official statement about whats happening. After an ICE agent killed Renee Nicole Good last week and brought international attention to Minneapolis, escalating tensions have knocked residents out of their normal routines. A pervasive awareness has sunk inviolent ICE sweeps of residents or their neighbors can happen anywhere, and anyone might get caught up in them just for walking their dog at the wrong moment or not carrying proof of citizenship. One of the consequences is that small businesses are sufferingespecially those owned by immigrants. Local restaurants are speaking up about the situation. Minneapoliss Mothership Pizza, for instance, announced its owners are giving 10% of all dinner sales directly to team members affected by ICE, while Owamni by the Sioux Chefwhich the New Yorker dubbed the best new restaurant in the U.S. in 2022donated 10% of its proceeds last weekend to Goods family. As for the Fortune 500 companies based in Minnesota, well, its anyones guess how those in their C-suites feelor at least prefer to be seen as feelingabout what ICE is doing in the state. Fast Company reached out multiple times this week to General Mills, Target, Best Buy, Cargill, UnitedHealth Group, 3M, and Land OLakes for comment. None of them responded. What a difference five yearsand a pivotal electioncan make. The reckoning of the reckoning In the summer of 2020, another broad-daylight killing at the hands of a law enforcement officersimilarly captured on videobrought this city international attention. The murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police sparked massive protests, and what some at the time prematurely called a racial reckoning. Even Donald Trump, whom many seem to forget was president at the time, briefly acknowledged in a statement, All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd, before turning his ire forever toward the angry mob of protesters. Meanwhile, all of those major companies mentioned above were sufficiently moved to join the chorus of CEOs who had publicly weighed in on that moment. Depending on your perspective, they were either unburdening their consciences or paying lip serviceyour mileage may varybut it’s notable that their ranks included Targets then-CEO Brian Cornell, who declared in a statement, “We are a community in pain. Graveyard of good intentions The intervening Biden years saw a swift and relentless rightwing backlash against anguished executives promising to do better. Tech CEO Vivek Ramaswamy, for instance, squeezed so much juice out of his staunch opposition to what he termed “woke capitalism” that he briefly became a long-shot 2024 presidential contender. Conservative media hubs like Fox News and Trump-Lite figures like Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida strongly denounced corporate gestures toward social justice, including Targets Pride merch and Disneys LGBTQ advocacy. After a flurry of high-profile boycotts, the sprawling corporate conscience of 2020 looked more like a dream blinked away in the harsh light of day. Many companies had already begun retreating from DEI initiatives and inclusive messaging by 2024; partly for organic reasons, and partly as a result of MAGA influencers orchestrating social media attack campaigns. The election, however, changed everything. The Eye of Sauron is watching brands Conservatives hailed Trumps return to office as the final nail in the coffin of Woke. Mega-companies such as Meta Platforms and Amazon, formerly critical of Trump, made a grand show of shredding their last remaining vestiges of DEI, seemingly part of a broader strategy to ingratiate themselves with the new president and his supportersor, at least, to avoid their wrath. Nearly a year into Trump 2.0, corporations now understand that speaking up about social issues might bring to bear the full force of the federal government in retaliation. Before Good was killed, for instance, a local Hilton affiliate declined to house ICE agents booked at the hotel. The Department of Homeland Security responded by posting on X that Hilton had launched a coordinated campaign against the agency, siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement. By the end of the day, the #BoycottHilton hashtag was all over X and the companys shares were down by 2.5%. The hotel giant quickly clarified that the establishment responsible for canceling the reservations was independently owned, and that Hilton is in fact a welcoming oasis for any government agency conducting violent missions in any U.S. city. (More or less.) In another era, the company might have ended its ass-covering there. In this one, Hilton went scorched earth. It de-franchised the hotel, lest there be any confusion about whether the brand itself had been taking a stand against ICE, or even permitting a stand to be made on its property. No brand wants to be a target If it was unexpected how vehemently Hilton distanced itself from the possibility of having an opinion, other recent brand reactions to government overreach are much less surprising. Not a peep was heard from Jeff Bezos this week when the FBI raided the home of a reporter at the newspaper he owns. Nor is anyone holding their breath waiting for Mark Zuckerberg to speak out about ICE reportedly abducting workers from a Meta data center in Louisiana this week As for Minnesota businesses, the most conspicuously silent among them is Target. Its perhaps the company most closely associated with the area, the one whose name adorns local baseball stadium and concert venue Target Field. And its the company most closely connected to the ICE raids, after agents snatched and injured two employees in the middle of a shiftboth of whom turned out to be U.S. citizens, as caught on a disturbing video. But Target also might be the company with the most financially at stake. The retailer incurred persistent boycotts in 2025, after rolling back DEI initiatives amidst a changing political landscape. Its share price has only recently begun to recoverit’s up more than 10% in 2026. Still, the Twin Cities community wants action from the brand. Since the incident last week, residents have protested outside the store where the employees were abducted, demanding a response. A strong statement at least acknowledging that Minneapolis is, once again, a community in pain, might even help win back disappointed progressive shoppers. Then again, if Minnesota businesses continue to keep quiet about the ICE invasion, perhaps consumer demand within the state will become silent too.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Justice Department’s investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has brought heightened attention to a key drama that will play out at the central bank in the coming months: Will Powell leave the Fed when his term as chair ends, or will he take the unusual step of remaining a governor?Powell’s term as Fed chair finishes on May 15, but because of the central bank’s complex structure, he has a separate term as one of seven members of its governing board that lasts until January 31, 2028. Historically, nearly all Fed chairs have stepped down from the board when they are no longer chair. But Powell could be the first in nearly 50 years to stay on as a governor.Many Fed-watchers believe that the criminal investigation into Powell’s testimony about cost overruns for Fed building renovations was intended to intimidate him out of taking that step. If Powell stays on the board, it would deny the White House a chance to gain a majority, undercutting the Trump administration’s efforts to seize greater control over what has for decades been an institution largely insulated from day-to-day politics.“I find it very difficult to see Powell leaving before midnight on Jan. 31, 2028,” said David Wilcox, a former top economist at the Fed and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “This is a mortal threat to the governance structure of the Fed as we’ve known it for 90 years. And I think that Powell does take that threat exceedingly seriously, and therefore will believe that it is his solemn duty to continue to occupy his seat on the board of governors.”Powell, 72, was appointed as Fed chair by Trump in 2018, and must step down from the position in May because his second four-year term is ending. He has declined several times to comment on his plans beyond that when asked by reporters. A spokesperson declined to comment for this story.Trump has sought to push out Powell before his time is up, obsessively attacking him for not cutting rates as sharply as the president wants, particularly in light of ongoing concerns about high costs for groceries, utilities, and housing that have remained a salient political issue even as inflation has cooled.On Tuesday, Trump highlighted that mortgage rates have declined in the past year. “If I had the help of the Fed, it would be easier,” he said. “But that jerk will be gone soon.”Or maybe not.Here is a look at the impacts of whether or not Powell stays on the board could have: What happens if Powell stays on the board Trump said Tuesday that he hopes to name a new Fed chair in the next few weeks. But that could get held up by the criminal investigation of Powell.Several Republican senators, including at least two on the banking committee who would have to approve Trump’s nominees to the Fed, have expressed skepticism that Powell committed crimes during his testimony last June regarding the Fed’s $2.5 billion renovation of two office buildings, a project that Trump has criticized as excessive. That testimony is the subject of subpoenas sent to the Fed by U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro.Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, said he would not vote for any Fed nominees until the legal cloud around Powell is resolved. That would be enough to delay a nomination from getting out of the banking committee.If no new chair of the Fed’s board has been confirmed by May 15, then Powell could remain in that post until a replacement has been confirmed. As a result, the Fed might not cut interest rates anywhere near as quickly as Trump wants.If Powell stays on as a governor even after he is no longer chair, Trump could still name someone to lead the Fed but that would give him a total of three appointments on the board including two from his first term and short of a majority.So even if Trump nominates a chair who seeks to do the president’s bidding regarding interest rates, that person “would have very little persuasive power with his colleagues,” said Wilcox, who is also director of research at Bloomberg Economics. Powell, along with other members of the Fed’s 19-member interest-rate setting committee, could outvote the new chair. That hasn’t happened since 1986. What happens if Powell leaves the board In that case, Trump could nominate a fourth person to the board and gain a majority. He could even then add a fifth, if the Supreme Court allows his attempt to fire Governor Lisa Cook to proceed. The high court will hear her case on Wednesday.A majority on the board would enable the White House to make sweeping changes to the Fed. Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, has advocated numerous reforms to reduce the central bank’s influence in the economy and financial markets.Trump’s majority on the Fed’s board could also remove some of the presidents of the 12 regional banks, who are members of the Fed’s rate-setting committee. The New York Fed president has a vote on the committee and four others vote on a rotating basis.Several of those bank presidents have expressed opposition to the deep rate cuts that Trump has demanded. The board of governors could seek to have them fired if a chair wanted to do so. What past Fed chairs have done While nearly all Fed chairs have left the board of governors before their terms were up, there is some precedent for Powell to stay. In 1978, then-Chair Arthur Burns stayed on the board for about three weeks after his chairmanship ended. But in 1948, then-Fed chairman Marriner Eccles remained as a governor for three years after finishing as chair, in part because President Harry Truman asked him to remain.In 1951, however, he played a key role in undercutting the Truman administration in a dispute over interest rates, which led to the Fed-Treasury Accord that established the modern Fed as a largely independent institution.Eccles became a symbol of Fed independence, though some academics say that reputation is overstated. The Fed’s principal office building currently under renovation and at the center of the criminal investigation of Powell is named after him.Truman then appointed a Treasury official, William McChesney Martin, to the Fed chairmanship and assumed he would do his bidding. Yet Martin defied Truman and raised interest rates. Years later, Truman ran into Martin in New York City and called him a “traitor.” The Fed’s second office building in Washington is named after Martin.“So it’s a cautionary tale also for Trump, thinking he’s going to get his own Fed chair in there,” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia University who studies the Fed. “Martin didn’t do what Truman wanted.” Christopher Rugaber, AP Economics Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
Everything from coffee to a used car is more expensive these days, and now your music streaming service is too. Spotify announced this week that it will raise prices for U.S. subscribersagain. Spotify Premium plans will jump up to $12.99 from $11.99 starting with the next billing date. The streamer last increased prices for U.S. users in 2024 after a decade-plus run of charging $9.99 for ad-free listening on its Premium individual streaming plan. The main individual plan isnt the only Spotify subscription getting a price hike. Discounted student plans are getting bumped up to $6.99 from $5.99, the Duo two-person plan will go to $18.99 from $16.99 and the streamers Family plans will hop to $21.99 from $19.99. Users outside the U.S. in Estonia and Latvia will also see prices go up next month. Spotify offered little in the way of explanation for the pricing changes. Occasional updates to pricing across our markets reflect the value that Spotify delivers, enabling us to continue offering the best possible experience and benefit artists, the company wrote in a blog post announcing the new pricing scheme. The early 2026 pricing changes are the third time Spotify has raised prices for U.S. listeners since launching in the country in 2011. Two of those price hikes were back-to-back $1 increases, one in 2023 and one in 2024. In 2024, Spotify explained that the service would occasionally update its pricing in order to continue to invest in and innovate on our product features and bring users the best experiencelanguage echoed in its short statement on the latest price increase. Why is Spotify raising prices? Spotify isnt explaining much about the decision to tack another dollar onto its core Premium subscription service, but the company is in a very different place now compared to when it was duking it out with Pandora in the dark ages of music streaming more than a decade ago. Now, the Swedish company is the globally dominant force in streaming audio, boasting north of 713 million users and 281 million paid subscribers worldwideup from 252 million in 2024. Apple Music and Amazon Music are the next closest competitors, but Spotify sits pretty with a much bigger share of the market. As a household name at this pointa level of brand recognition boosted even further by its genius flourish of marketing, Spotify WrappedSpotify will be increasingly hard-pressed to reach new subscribers in super-mature markets like the U.S. Like other public companies, Spotify is beholden to a set of shareholders who want to see the line go upand its sort of that simple. The company needs to squeeze more money out of its entrenched, very popular subscription service, all while likely approaching a saturation point in markets like the U.S. Changes afoot for the Swedish streamer Last November, the Financial Times reported that another price jump was on the way for Spotify subscribers in the U.S. Questions around the timing of the potential U.S. pricing step-ups . . . have taken a toll on sentiment, Deutsche Bank analysts observed late last year. Analysts at JPMorgan estimated that another $1 price hike in Spotifys U.S. market would net the company an additional $500 million in revenue. Another big factor: Spotifys founder and CEO Daniel Ek announced last September that he would step down from his role after steering the company through two decades of explosive growth. Entering 2026 without its longtime leader, Spotify wants to signal to investors that stability and sustainability are the name of the game. In Spotifys November earnings report, Ek emphasized that Spotifys business is healthy and focused on growing its profit and revenue. It all comes back to user fundamentals and thats where we are: 700 million users who keep coming back, engagement at all-time highs, Ek said. Were building Spotify for the long-term. After this weeks price increase, Wall Street will likely agree. But in an age of mounting inflation stress, yet another price hike may not go down easy for Spotifys already financially exhausted U.S. users.
Category:
E-Commerce
In two years, there could be a space station orbiting the moon. NASAs Gateway Lunar Space Station, set to launch as early as 2027, will support the Artemis IV and V moon missions and, eventually, be a jumping-off point for missions to Mars. And maybe, one day, a colony. But before any of that can happen, the Gateway will need a power sourcea powerful one, at that. The challenge is getting that energy supply into orbit the way anything reaches space: in the nose cone of a rocket. Gateways power will come from a pair of blankets of photovoltaic cells, known as Roll-Out Solar Arrays (ROSAs). Each is roughly the size of a football end zone, and together theyll provide 60 kilowatts for 24 hours a dayenough energy to power roughly 50 American homes. But to minimize their profile on the trip out of Earths atmosphere, the arrays will be launched in a rolled-up state, a pair of sci-fi rugs bound for lunar orbit. The Gateways ROSAs are built by space company Redwire, using tech initially developed by its subsidiary Deployable Space Solutions. When the arrays get to the Gateway, theyll be attached [to the station] and then roll out, says Mike Gold, a NASA veteran and Redwires president of civil and international space business. The unrolling process doesnt require an electric motor: A flexible boom simply guides the arrays as they unspool. After successfully testing the panels roll-out capabilities in July, Redwire is handing them off for prelaunch testing to space tech company Lanteris (formerly Maxar), which is building the Gateways power and propulsion element. Though the arrays for the Gateway are the largest and most powerful ROSAs that Redwire has built, the companys tech is all over space. Six smaller ROSAs have already deployed on the International Space Station, with two more set to be launched and installed in 2026. Smaller versions of Redwires arrays will power the new Space Inspire telecom satellites from aerospace company Thales Alenia Space (launching in 2026). Redwire is also working on two ROSA wings for Axiom Spaces planned module for the International Space Station, slated to launch in late 2027. We like to say we are second only to the sun when it comes to providing power in space, Gold says.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Most Interesting Man is set to make a return to television. In a marketing push that kicks off with a new 60-second spot airing on ESPN during the College Football Championship Game, Heinekens Dos Equis has rehired Jonathan Goldsmith to play the Most Interesting Man, closing the ad with a familiar, iconic line. I dont always drink beer, but when I do, I still prefer Dos Equis. That copy, the return of Goldsmith, and even the original campaigns Western-themed instrumental music were all elements of what felt like some magic that we need to bring back, says Alison Payne, chief marketing officer of Heineken USA in an interview with Fast Company. Payne, who assumed the role of CMO at the beginning of 2025, says her creative team did some soul-searching with Le Pub, the Publicis Groupe-owned creative agency that Dos Equis hired in May 2025 to help Dos Equis resonate with todays drinkers. Why age became an asset They landed on reviving a campaign that broke through the cultural zeitgeist enough to be spoofed on Saturday Night Live. The return of Goldsmith, now 87 years old, may seem counterintuitive as beer brands like Dos Equis aim to lure younger drinkers, with Gen Z now being the most prized demographic. Dos Equis did consider more youthful talent, but Payne says we actually learned that consumers wanted someone who had some age and wisdom. You cant have an interesting archive of life lived if youre really young. The campaign comes as Dos Equis parent company Heineken has faced some sales pressures. In October, the Dutch brewer announced that annual profits for 2025 would be lower than anticipated due to weak demand in Europe and the Americas. Amid the woes, Heineken announced in January that CEO Dolf van den Brink would step down in May, after six years leading the company. [Photo: Dos Equis/HEINEKEN USA] A campaign that once tripled the brand The Most Interesting Man campaign recalls more heady times. Debuting in 2006, it helped triple the size of the Dos Equis brand for the creative campaign over a decade, according to Heineken, citing internal U.S. sales volume data. After a decade, the creative concept was scrapped shortly after Heineken hired a decades-younger actor, Augustin Legrand, to play the Most Interesting Man in 2016. A more abstract concept that said basically anyone could be interesting also had a short shelf life. Goldsmith moved on to laud Astral Tequila. Millennials, who were the target demographic for brewers like Dos Equis back in 2016, rebuffed the younger pitchman. Heineken then parted ways with the creative agency Havas in favor of Droga5, with media reports attributing the switch to the Most Interesting Mans failed pivot. Purchase consideration for Dos Equis dropped by more than half, according to a YouGov poll published in 2017. But Dos Equis says Goldsmith is returning as the Most Interesting Man because theres still some thirst for the brands most well-known creative concept. More than eight out of every ten consumers who were exposed to the original Most Interesting Man campaign wanted to see it back, according to a survey conducted by Dos Equis. Age is actually almost irrelevant in this campaign, says Payne of Goldsmith. He’s totally timeless. A broader beer marketing trend The new Most Interesting Man campaign aligns with an emerging trend among brewers that have built marketing campaigns around more seasoned spokespeople. Over the past couple of years, actor Christopher Walken appeared in a new Miller Lite spot, actors Willem Dafoe and Catherine OHara have pitched Michelob Ultra, Bud Light called in former NFL star Peyton Manning, actor Pedro Pascal starred in bilingual ads for Corona, and UFC legend Chuck Liddell fronted a martial arts-inspired campaign for Garage Beer. [Image: Miller] Manning, at the age of 49, is the most spry of the bunch. Christopher Walken is really one of those rare cultural figures who truly transcends generations, Sofia Colucci, the chief marketing officer for Miller Lites parent company Molson Coors, tells Fast Company about the companys Legendary Moments Start with Lite creative campaign that launched this January. Beer has faced sluggish sales as millennial and Gen Z drinkers have increasingly prioritized a healthier lifestyle and more moderation. Theyve been spending more on non-alcoholic beverages and other alternatives, like cannabis. Americans spent $925 million on non-alcoholic beer, wine, and spirits at retail stores in 2025, a 22% increase from the prior year, according to market researcher NIQ. Selling connection, not consumption Miller Lites latest ad is a sequel between the light beer brand and the Dune: Part Two actor, who did voiceover work last year in a campaign tied to Miller Lites 50th anniversary. He went in front of the camera for a series of TV spots built around the premise that drinkers should cancel fewer plans and spend more time connecting in person. Promoting socialization has been a key throughline in alcohol marketing, a theme that Heineken itself tapped into with its Social Off Socials marketing blitz that aired last year, starring singer Joe Jonas. [Photo: Garage Beer] Colucci said that the brewer conducted extensive researchincluding panels that focused exclusively on the Gen Z cohortand determined that the Miller Lite brand would benefit from Walkens strong name recognition and positive sentiment across more established Miller Lite drinkers and younger adults the brand would like to attract. Nostalgia, with a wink Garage Beer, a scrappier upstart founded in 2018, has aimed to lure millennial drinkers who have turned away from craft beers but dont want legacy brands like Coors Light or Miller Lite. CEO Andy Sauer, who acquired the Ohio-founded brewer in 2023 and added NFL stars and brothers Jason and Travis Kelce as majority owners in 2024, says the brands marketing isnt meant to be too serious. People arent getting together to have beers because theyre bummed out, says Sauer in an interview with Fast Company. Garage Beers martial arts-inspired Brewmite campaign, which included a 17-minute spot starring the Kelce brothers and 56-year-old Liddell, generated 9.3 million views across social media in the first week after its debut last year. With the exception of a single fight in 2018, Liddell has been retired from mixed martial arts since 2010, but Sauer says 30-something consumers still think fondly of the champion fighter. He was a great fit for the nostalgia of what we were trying to do with that spot, says Sauer.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] next »