In an NPR interview, the CEO of the ad agency said they were concerned about getting in the political mix, but people were expecting the company to respond, so they had little choice. The company executives decided how to respond: "Scott Fischer, the CEO of Dippin' Dots, and his executive team wanted to openly address the issue in a way which was transparent and stayed true to their brand values – fun, community, and camaraderie."
Dippin' Dots offered to serve the White House and press, but Spicer suggested treating the military and first responders. It's not clear how this might happen.
- How well did Dippin' Dots handle the situation? What were the risks?
- It sounds as though Dippin' Dots responded because of the social outcry. Should the company have jumped into the conversation with Spicer earlier? How could they have done this?