On 12/04/2016 11:35 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

     Companies decide that an advertising contract no longer suits their
     business needs, whatever those needs may be, all the time. Often
     they
     don't write a press release about it and explain their choices, but
     apparently in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they
     felt
     this was necessary.

   DUDE You're arguing for the FREE Market system.
   Despite their lips moving making sounds that they are the most ardent
   supporters of Fre Markets, Most of the Libertarians I've met or read
   only believe in Free Markets when it's 'free' the way THEY want it to
   be free.
   Kelloggs, a multinational corporation that OWNS MARKETS could give no
   shits about a pissant little blog like Breitbart. One of their ad
   people probably thought it might be a good way to pick up a few more
   customers who'd buy healthyflakes at the local Prepper supply house,
   but it became a liability... It's history.
   Rr

On 12/04/2016 10:20 PM, jim bell wrote:

*From:* Shawn K. Quinn [1]<skquinn@rushpost.com>

Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't
want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising.

You are writing this as if there is only one kind of Kelloggs
customer, and that customer "Their customers didn't want  the company
supporting Breitbart with advertising. " Well, I'm a Kelloggs
customer, and while before I heard this I didn't care whether
Kelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do.  I find it amazingly
biased and PC that Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an
obviously bogus reason, one that it clearly won't apply to
advertising on other media organizations, or marketing in other
nations around the world.

Companies decide that an advertising contract no longer suits their
business needs, whatever those needs may be, all the time. Often they
don't write a press release about it and explain their choices, but
apparently in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt
this was necessary.

Again, purchases of advertising in the past do not in any way create an
obligation for purchases of advertising in the future.


At this point, I am inclined to join the anti-Kelloggs boycott.  I
access the Breitbart website an average of once a year or so, but I
find such lame and unjustified attempts to obstruct freedom of speech
to be detestable.

"Free speech" refers to freedom, not price. You can say what you like,
but don't expect an advertiser to fund it for you if it is hate speech,
conflicts with their company values, or their customers' values. You are
welcome to do what you like, of course; personally I'm inclined to
celebrate the willingness of Kellogg's to take a stand with a bowl of
Frosted Flakes (or maybe Frosted Mini-Wheats, I haven't decided yet).

References

   1. mailto:skquinn@rushpost.com