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
*From:* Shawn K. Quinn <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
On 12/04/2016 10:20 PM, jim bell wrote: 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).