Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    If he wore a tshirt with your logo to a public event, it would look like an endorsement. Why do you think Nike pays millions to athletes just to wear their logo'd hats, shirts, and shoes? We all know it's an endorsement. You're talking around it as best you can, but if you ask anyone else, I think you'll hear that they see it as an endorsement. It harkens back to the days when announcers would ad products vocally during breaks in the show. "This portion of Wild Kingdom is brought to you by Mutual of Omaha!" (There, I'm really dating myself now!)

    Well during Beck's show, thats a pretty obvious demographic.
    I'm sorry, but I don't see things that way. I don't believe Sprint sponsors the Glenn Beck show in order to endorse his political views. They do it to sell Wireless service.

    If they advertised during Battlestar Galactica are they supporting Edward James Olmos' political views or that of the Producers? Or the theme of the show? Are they endorsing cooperation with a robotic race that one time attempted to slaughter your entire civilization? No, its just a TV show with viewers they want to sell to. The content of the show they are advertising on is irrelevant--its the demographic of the viewer.

    People might see it as you say, but I really don't think that's how Sprint makes its decisions (until some pressure group forces them to).

    KAM
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Sure, but I don't have to like it.
    KAM
    You certainly don't, and I'll never say that you should.

    Someone told me this once, and I like it because it's true - "Opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has them and they all stink."
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by eddieroger View Post
    You certainly don't, and I'll never say that you should.

    Someone told me this once, and I like it because it's true - "Opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has them and they all stink."
    Not mine! Mine smells like pie!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    That is not the primary definition from Dictionary.com--it is the one that matched the context of the subject best (my opinion). You are right--the more common use is as you say--a threat to reveal something in order to force payment.
    That's the problem when we use dictionaries to support an argument. We forget that dictionaries don't define words. They merely document a common usage at a particular point in time.
    I agree that someone should accept the consequence of one's actions--or speech. But what consequence is it that we are talking about? He exercised his right to free speech and stated an opinion. Are we really at the point where we think it is proper to punish someone (via a third party) because they have an opinion we disagree with?
    The real issue is whether he is actually being punished. I do not agree that advertisers taking their money elsewhere is really a punishment. At most, it is withholding a reward.
    One cannot adhere to a principle of supporting free speech if they seek to silence others--with force--in this case the financial power of a corporation. Sprint doesn't sponsor someone for the purpose of endorsing their specific opinions or statements. They aren't giving money to a cause, they are sponsoring a TV program that has many different opinions on many different days.
    The key word here is sponsor. They are advertising their product only because they think that the people who watch the program may be interested in buying their product. If they estimate that the cost of advertising on a program will cost them more sales than they might gain, they are making a business decision. A business has no more obligation to financially support anyone's speech than it does to bankroll health care or education when it does not see a business benefit to do so.
    No one has an obligation to LISTEN to Glenn Beck (or anyone else), and they vote with their dial. That's passive and personal. Organizing a boycott of a third party with threats and intimidation is not the same thing.
    I think where we're disagreeing is whether or not a boycott is a threat or an intimidation. When religious groups organize boycotts on somewhere like Disney because of their providing insurance for gay partners or the unofficial Gay Days at the park, are they engaging in threats and intimidation?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #25  
    intimidation?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    That's the problem when we use dictionaries to support an argument. We forget that dictionaries don't define words. They merely document a common usage at a particular point in time.
    Well, I posted that to help illustrate what I meant by my use of the world blackmail and it fit sufficiently well in my view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The real issue is whether he is actually being punished. I do not agree that advertisers taking their money elsewhere is really a punishment. At most, it is withholding a reward.
    Hard to say. The punishment that the boycott organizers are attempting is to silence him. They are trying to inflict that punishment on him because they disagree with him, and are attempting to use a third party to do that, presumably because they cannot, or are not satisfied with their own power (the ability to not watch).

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The key word here is sponsor. They are advertising their product only because they think that the people who watch the program may be interested in buying their product. If they estimate that the cost of advertising on a program will cost them more sales than they might gain, they are making a business decision. A business has no more obligation to financially support anyone's speech than it does to bankroll health care or education when it does not see a business benefit to do so.
    I never said they had an obligation. We need to keep in mind Sprint had ALREADY chosen to advertise on that show. They didn't make an independent choice to remove that--someone pressured them to do it, going against what they had previously determined was a good business decision.


    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I think where we're disagreeing is whether or not a boycott is a threat or an intimidation. When religious groups organize boycotts on somewhere like Disney because of their providing insurance for gay partners or the unofficial Gay Days at the park, are they engaging in threats and intimidation?
    They are threatening to not use their products, yes. However again that is a direct interaction. If they threatened the people that provide food delivery to the parks (picking an example), that involves a third party.

    Glenn beck is the one doing what is being objected to. Disney is the one taking the action being objected to. If you target them, it is still a threat, but doesn't involve a third party being pulled into an issue that they are not seeking to be a part of, and which forces them to reverse a previously determined business action--which they presumed to be viable.

    There are a number of details here, all of which are interesting in my view. I'm happy to hear your opinion on any of them.

    KAM
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    The punishment that the boycott organizers are attempting is to silence him. They are trying to inflict that punishment on him because they disagree with him, and are attempting to use a third party to do that, presumably because they cannot, or are not satisfied with their own power (the ability to not watch).
    If history is any indicator, these sorts of things are horribly ineffective in achieving that goal. He will likely either stay just as outrageous or get even moreso, and attract _more_ viewers who tune in for the controversy. It will wind up benefiting the businesses who do continue to advertise with his show. Think back to the PMRC. Lots of crappy music sold simply because it had a sticker on it. Thanks Tipper and Susan!
    I never said they had an obligation. We need to keep in mind Sprint had ALREADY chosen to advertise on that show. They didn't make an independent choice to remove that--someone pressured them to do it, going against what they had previously determined was a good business decision.
    What is a good business decision today may not be so even later today. Such is the nature of business. As long as they paid for the advertising spots they received, I don't see how there should be any expectation from them.
    They are threatening to not use their products, yes. However again that is a direct interaction. If they threatened the people that provide food delivery to the parks (picking an example), that involves a third party.
    Again, where is the threat? How is one threatening a business by simply saying that one won't buy their product? Here's another way to look at it. Let's say that I disagree with the UAWs influence on Democratic policymakers. What if I organize a boycott of 'American' car manufacturers and suggest that people instead buy from 'foreign' car manufacturers who produce their product inside the US, but in non-UAW facilities? Am I threatening those car manufacturers, or am I just expressing my freedom as a consumer to make decisions based upon my own criteria?
    Glenn beck is the one doing what is being objected to. Disney is the one taking the action being objected to. If you target them, it is still a threat, but doesn't involve a third party being pulled into an issue that they are not seeking to be a part of, and which forces them to reverse a previously determined business action--which they presumed to be viable.
    Such is the nature of business. If Sprint doesn't have the business sense to consider all the potential consequences of their actions, the invisible hand will slap them down.
    There are a number of details here, all of which are interesting in my view. I'm happy to hear your opinion on any of them.
    I'm happy to share, especially when there's a respectful exchange of ideas.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    If history is any indicator, these sorts of things are horribly ineffective in achieving that goal. He will likely either stay just as outrageous or get even moreso, and attract _more_ viewers who tune in for the controversy. It will wind up benefiting the businesses who do continue to advertise with his show. Think back to the PMRC. Lots of crappy music sold simply because it had a sticker on it. Thanks Tipper and Susan!
    You are probably right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    What is a good business decision today may not be so even later today. Such is the nature of business. As long as they paid for the advertising spots they received, I don't see how there should be any expectation from them.
    An activist group getting their panties in a bunch is unlikely to be valid grounds to change your business plan--as you pointed out above--these efforts often fail. Yet Sprint has caved in anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Again, where is the threat? How is one threatening a business by simply saying that one won't buy their product? Here's another way to look at it. Let's say that I disagree with the UAWs influence on Democratic policymakers. What if I organize a boycott of 'American' car manufacturers and suggest that people instead buy from 'foreign' car manufacturers who produce their product inside the US, but in non-UAW facilities? Am I threatening those car manufacturers, or am I just expressing my freedom as a consumer to make decisions based upon my own criteria?
    It is your freedom to follow that course of action. I pointed out that I see individuals doing that as perfectly acceptable. My belief is that when you coerce a third party that isn't involved directly as an attempt to expand your influence, that is different. If I say "I'm not going to buy your lousy cars"--that is in fact a threat--perfectly legal of course. Boycotts are inherently threats. You threaten to stop buying someone's products and encourage others to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Such is the nature of business. If Sprint doesn't have the business sense to consider all the potential consequences of their actions, the invisible hand will slap them down.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I'm happy to share, especially when there's a respectful exchange of ideas.
    Thank you. Rare to have an honest conversation even if we seem to disagree on a few points.

    KAM
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions