On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:35:52AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/04/2016 10:20 PM, jim bell wrote:
*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
"apparently" eh?
in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt
"felt" eh?
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.
Again missing the point, and the difference with the examples you brought up (such as BMW) and your claim that they are the same, and your final claim that Kellogg is not being political in the way they executed their 'hit' on Breitbart.
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 you may experience consequences" such as when a company decides to get really political by being particularly public about a 'target' of their 'non advertising'.
but don't expect an advertiser to fund it for you if it is hate speech,
Oh so Breitbart publishes hate speech hey? I'm assuming it must be "easy" for you to provide a couple examples...
conflicts with their company values,
... or the "company values" held by Kellogg which conflict with which specific articles over at Breitbart, for a random example.
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).
Take a baseless stand in support of a fascist pillaging, opportunistic corporation with a PR department evidently under the control of extreme Lefty morons. Of course that's what you'd do Shawne when you have ZERO facts to support your position. You keep repeating your moronicity over and over again. "Trigger a retard today: point out his total lack of facts." Anon. -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488