Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1  
    Hello Everyone,

    I started this thread, because I don't want anyone to confuse this with the Glenn Beck issue, although it is what got me started thinking about it.

    I should also say my Thread Title here may be SLIGHTLY off base, but one definition of blackmail is "to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc." From Dictionary.com

    So, I was thinking about this boycott stuff running around, and I sort of defaulted to thinking--fine. I'm not into that, but go ahead--people can spend their money however they wish. Then I realized--that's not really what is happening.

    If I find that a company of which I am a customer supports causes or politicians that I disagree with and that support comes from the money I (and anyone else) pay them for a product or service, and I no longer want to help them do that--then it seems perfectly reasonable to choose to not give them my money. My money, my choice--I don't really need a reason.

    However, that's not what happens when someone organizes a boycott of sponsors. They are threatening a third party unless they behave in the way they demand. This third party may have no interest whatsoever in the thing that the boycott organizers are angry about, and as such, this third party becomes a pawn of that organization. They advertise on a TV show (or radio--whatever) on the basis of the audience and their ability to sell them products. That's what advertising is--a way to reach and communicate with your target audience. This is part of doing business, whereas support of a political candidate or non-related cause is not (well, it might be, but that sort of payoff is unethical and perhaps illegal).

    If Sprint on its own decided that they didn't like what someone they sponsor said or did or that it undermined their business, then like an individual choosing to spend their money, that is totally their choice. But as a third party being pressured and threatened--this is not a free choice, it is reacting to a form of extortion or blackmail.

    The goal of coercing a corporation to pull advertisement is an attempt to remove funding, and theoretically without funding a TV show, Radio show--whatever cannot remain on the air. If a show cannot remain on the air, its voice is lost. So, let's be clear--this type of boycott is an attempt to shut them up--to destroy their ability to make their voice heard, and the means of doing so is blackmail.

    So, as I see it--there is a very big difference between an individual deciding that they don't want their money to support a given activity, and choosing how to spend it and attempting to blackmail a third party into being their pawn in an attempt to shut up someone they disagree with.

    Attempts to silence those who disagree with you may not be specifically illegal (unless you are the government), but it certainly is contrary to the spirit of free speech and expression. If an organization disagrees with what someone says, it has many outlets to counter the argument or statements. That is open and honest exercise of free speech on both sides.

    If you dislike what someone on TV says--you can exercise you "voice" by refusing to watch them--as such they have fewer viewers. This is an honest party to party interaction. 'I don't like X, so I don't support/watch/fund X.'

    Threatening a third party into doing your dirty work--which is to silence your opponent doesn't strike me as patriotic, or in the Spirit of open debate or free speech. It is an attempt to end the free speech of those you disagree with. This is 'I don't like X, I'm going to threaten Y until they agree to harm X.'

    Does anyone else here see the distinction between the two? I'd be interested in hearing sincere opinions agree or disagree.

    KAM
  2. #2  
    It comes back to money. I don't believe X, and I don't want to give my money to a company that supports X. In this case, enough subscriber noise was made to get Sprint's attention, and they took action. Right or wrong, that's what happens. Sprint would rather cut their advertising than lose subscribers -- especially because it's something like four times more expensive to get a new subscriber than keep an existing (citation needed...). So, like I said, it's not the politics or right and wrong or ethics or dirty work, it's money. Capitalism FTW.
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by eddieroger View Post
    It comes back to money. I don't believe X, and I don't want to give my money to a company that supports X. In this case, enough subscriber noise was made to get Sprint's attention, and they took action. Right or wrong, that's what happens. Sprint would rather cut their advertising than lose subscribers -- especially because it's something like four times more expensive to get a new subscriber than keep an existing (citation needed...). So, like I said, it's not the politics or right and wrong or ethics or dirty work, it's money. Capitalism FTW.
    Hello Eddieroger,

    But to use this example--Sprint isn't endorsing anything specific Glenn Beck said, or specifically endorsing him at all. They are advertising to an audience.

    To you specific point--I understand how it works, and what sprint's motivation is, but I'm also sort of doubting that Sprint verified what boycott participants were their actual customers. It is just as likely that these people actually support their competition--in fact more likely given that sprint has a smaller market share than some others.

    I'd be willing to bet they caved into a group that has more AT&T customers than Sprint.

    The boycott people have pulled Sprint into this--making them a victim of either them or those who oppose them (a counter boycott). They are now a pawn that cannot really win. They've opened the door to coercion.

    KAM
  4. #4  
    In this specific issue, the advertisers were pressured by interest groups to withdraw their support of Glenn Beck. In reaction to that, I cancel my coverage, usage, et cetera with that company if that company continues with its decision. Ultimately the advertiser looses a customer by giving in to special interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    I started this thread, because I don't want anyone to confuse this with the Glenn Beck issue, although it is what got me started thinking about it.


    KAM
  5. #5  
    Sprint has the option of not bowing to pressure. Sprint has the option of going public about the pressure, as other companies have done so.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Eddieroger,

    But to use this example--Sprint isn't endorsing anything specific Glenn Beck said, or specifically endorsing him at all. They are advertising to an audience.

    To you specific point--I understand how it works, and what sprint's motivation is, but I'm also sort of doubting that Sprint verified what boycott participants were their actual customers. It is just as likely that these people actually support their competition--in fact more likely given that sprint has a smaller market share than some others.

    I'd be willing to bet they caved into a group that has more AT&T customers than Sprint.

    The boycott people have pulled Sprint into this--making them a victim of either them or those who oppose them (a counter boycott). They are now a pawn that cannot really win. They've opened the door to coercion.

    KAM
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I should also say my Thread Title here may be SLIGHTLY off base, but one definition of blackmail is "to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc." From Dictionary.com
    I don't think I'd agree with Dictionary.com. The common connotation of blackmail would require some sort of payment in exchange for not revealing some piece of information that the person doesn't want revealed. Dictionary.com's definition there would fall more under extortion. I realize it's not as alliterative, but it seems more fitting.

    That being said, I don't think these sorts of things rise to that level. If one is going to speak on one's principles, then one should be willing to accept the consequences of one's actions. One should also realize that in today's society, most of the time this sort of thing is all bluster. When it comes down to it, very few people are willing to inconvenience themselves for principle.
    ‎"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...
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I don't think I'd agree with Dictionary.com. The common connotation of blackmail would require some sort of payment in exchange for not revealing some piece of information that the person doesn't want revealed. Dictionary.com's definition there would fall more under extortion. I realize it's not as alliterative, but it seems more fitting.

    That being said, I don't think these sorts of things rise to that level. If one is going to speak on one's principles, then one should be willing to accept the consequences of one's actions. One should also realize that in today's society, most of the time this sort of thing is all bluster. When it comes down to it, very few people are willing to inconvenience themselves for principle.
    Hello Toby,

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    Now, people might agree that this is acceptable--fine. I'm still not 100% decided, but am leaning towards thinking this really isn't a principled action. Silencing someone by threats isn't really a principled position if you believe in free speech.

    KAM
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    I started this thread, because I don't want anyone to confuse this with the Glenn Beck issue, although it is what got me started thinking about it.

    I should also say my Thread Title here may be SLIGHTLY off base, but one definition of blackmail is "to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc." From Dictionary.com

    So, I was thinking about this boycott stuff running around, and I sort of defaulted to thinking--fine. I'm not into that, but go ahead--people can spend their money however they wish. Then I realized--that's not really what is happening.

    If I find that a company of which I am a customer supports causes or politicians that I disagree with and that support comes from the money I (and anyone else) pay them for a product or service, and I no longer want to help them do that--then it seems perfectly reasonable to choose to not give them my money. My money, my choice--I don't really need a reason.
    agree 100%
    However, that's not what happens when someone organizes a boycott of sponsors. They are threatening a third party unless they behave in the way they demand. This third party may have no interest whatsoever in the thing that the boycott organizers are angry about, and as such, this third party becomes a pawn of that organization. They advertise on a TV show (or radio--whatever) on the basis of the audience and their ability to sell them products. That's what advertising is--a way to reach and communicate with your target audience. This is part of doing business, whereas support of a political candidate or non-related cause is not (well, it might be, but that sort of payoff is unethical and perhaps illegal).
    Here's where you're loosing me. I don't see where/how the boycott organizer is coercing advertisers directly. Its economics that drives them, not the organizer. The advertiser has to decide if their best interest is to boycott because they'll otherwise lose revenues/market share/customers. The promoter/organizer may focus and add some momentum, but the people in the market the advertisers are appealing to have to be on board with the reasoning in the first place. This is all part of a free market economy.
    If Sprint on its own decided that they didn't like what someone they sponsor said or did or that it undermined their business, then like an individual choosing to spend their money, that is totally their choice. But as a third party being pressured and threatened--this is not a free choice, it is reacting to a form of extortion or blackmail.
    Sprint did this, on it's own, either on ideology of its board members, or on the percieved ideology of its market audience. Again, the pressure is actually from their customers, and only indirectly from the organizers.

    I do agree that if I could force a Sprint to change their spending habits based on say, legislation, or tax benefits... that would be unethical, if not illegal. It happens all the time, I'll wager, in the back rooms and city halls.

    But I should have a right to organize in any legal manner I wish, either by setting up a petition drive, or organizing a boycott.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Here's where you're loosing me. I don't see where/how the boycott organizer is coercing advertisers directly. Its economics that drives them, not the organizer. The advertiser has to decide if their best interest is to boycott because they'll otherwise lose revenues/market share/customers. The promoter/organizer may focus and add some momentum, but the people in the market the advertisers are appealing to have to be on board with the reasoning in the first place. This is all part of a free market economy.
    They boycott organizer is threatening Sprint--not Glenn Beck. Sprint isn't initiating a boycott because they are taking a stand on Glenn Beck. Someone is threatening them in order to force them to do so. Sprint is a third party.

    I understand the Position Sprint has been put in, and the economic impact is what they are worried about, but this isn't their issue. It is really a conflict between Glenn Beck and the Boycott Organizer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Sprint did this, on it's own, either on ideology of its board members, or on the percieved ideology of its market audience. Again, the pressure is actually from their customers, and only indirectly from the organizers.
    Did they? Did Sprint watch the Glenn Beck show and say "Wow, we can't support that?" I wasn't under the impression that this was the case.
    You are right--pressure is coming from people CLAIMING to be their Customers, which defines that Sprint is the third party--a pawn. Not only that, they are in a no win position if those who support Glenn Beck decided to retaliate in kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I do agree that if I could force a Sprint to change their spending habits based on say, legislation, or tax benefits... that would be unethical, if not illegal. It happens all the time, I'll wager, in the back rooms and city halls.

    But I should have a right to organize in any legal manner I wish, either by setting up a petition drive, or organizing a boycott.
    I didn't say that organizing a boycott is illegal. I'm questioning whether threatening a third party who is merely advertising to customers (without taking a political stand on any issue at hand) is ethical. I can't say that it isn't in every case. Let's say Glenn Beck was killing babies on his show, then obviously providing material support for that is a bad thing.

    Providing non-specific support for someone exercising their Right to free speech is what the actual situation is, and those organizing the boycott have the specific goal of silencing someone. Let's be clear--the goal of this boycott that Sprint is being threatened into participating in is to Silence someone. If you support this effort I don't see how you can claim to support free speech.

    Remember that old saying--about disagreeing with what you say, but defending their right to say it? I guess we don't need that archaic concept in the 21st century huh? Its all about how effectively we can intimidate others into forcing others into silence. Its about NOT letting people speak freely, but to demand we have that right, while seeking to deny it to others.

    That's what I see going on here.

    KAM
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I didn't say that organizing a boycott is illegal. I'm questioning whether threatening a third party who is merely advertising to customers (without taking a political stand on any issue at hand) is ethical.
    But that's exactly what boycotting is. It's still voluntary, on the part of Sprint. Yeah, they may lose a few customers, but I doubt it. I'm leaning towards it being because of the ideological bent of their board of directors.
    I can't say that it isn't in every case. Let's say Glenn Beck was killing babies on his show, then obviously providing material support for that is a bad thing.
    as opposed to killing them off his show? lol! Come on, there'd be no show to boycott.
    Providing non-specific support for someone exercising their Right to free speech is what the actual situation is, and those organizing the boycott have the specific goal of silencing someone. Let's be clear--the goal of this boycott that Sprint is being threatened into participating in is to Silence someone. If you support this effort I don't see how you can claim to support free speech.
    I'm sorry. I'm not convinced they were coerced.

    Remember that old saying--about disagreeing with what you say, but defending their right to say it? I guess we don't need that archaic concept in the 21st century huh? Its all about how effectively we can intimidate others into forcing others into silence. Its about NOT letting people speak freely, but to demand we have that right, while seeking to deny it to others.

    That's what I see going on here.

    KAM
    Agree with you here.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    But that's exactly what boycotting is. It's still voluntary, on the part of Sprint. Yeah, they may lose a few customers, but I doubt it. I'm leaning towards it being because of the ideological bent of their board of directors.
    I really see the third party as being a different thing. You seem to be assuming that this is due to the Board of Directors or that Sprint cares about what Glenn Beck says. That may be true, but I've seen no evidence of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    as opposed to killing them off his show? lol! Come on, there'd be no show to boycott.
    Obviously I was giving an outlandish example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'm sorry. I'm not convinced they were coerced.
    Well, my goal really wasn't to discuss Sprint or Glenn Beck specifically--I'm not aware of the interactions or reasons behind the scenes there. However, if boycott organizers threaten a third party into an action that they would not have taken independently against another party, that is the definition of coercion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Agree with you here.
    Regardless of what we call the practice of threatening a third party into damaging your enemies, we agree that the goal is literally to silence that enemy. I don't see how silencing someone (with threats or intimidation) who disagrees with you can in any way be identified as pro-free speech.

    KAM
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Eddieroger,

    But to use this example--Sprint isn't endorsing anything specific Glenn Beck said, or specifically endorsing him at all. They are advertising to an audience.

    To you specific point--I understand how it works, and what sprint's motivation is, but I'm also sort of doubting that Sprint verified what boycott participants were their actual customers. It is just as likely that these people actually support their competition--in fact more likely given that sprint has a smaller market share than some others.

    I'd be willing to bet they caved into a group that has more AT&T customers than Sprint.

    The boycott people have pulled Sprint into this--making them a victim of either them or those who oppose them (a counter boycott). They are now a pawn that cannot really win. They've opened the door to coercion.

    KAM
    Sprint doesn't have to endorse anything, it's the perception. Their advertising dollars are going to keep Beck on the air, and in the viewers' mind, that's an endorsement. I agree with you that Sprint got pulled in to this, but they have fiscal decisions to make. Just as easily as any person can pull their subscription because Sprint didn't respond to their behavior, you have the same right to pull yours now because they did. But it's not coercion, it's listening to the voice of the consumer. Not every consumer, I'll freely admit, but the vocal consumers. The squeaky wheel got the grease.
  13. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by eddieroger View Post
    Sprint doesn't have to endorse anything, it's the perception. Their advertising dollars are going to keep Beck on the air, and in the viewers' mind, that's an endorsement. I agree with you that Sprint got pulled in to this, but they have fiscal decisions to make. Just as easily as any person can pull their subscription because Sprint didn't respond to their behavior, you have the same right to pull yours now because they did. But it's not coercion, it's listening to the voice of the consumer. Not every consumer, I'll freely admit, but the vocal consumers. The squeaky wheel got the grease.
    Doesn't this assume that these people ARE consumers? Do we know that this is true--that these boycott organizers were somehow able to find JUST the sprint customers? I find that unlikely. If I'm right, then Sprint is running scared from a pressure group, which makes it more likely that someone else will try to pressure them in the future.

    Personally, I'd like to keep Sprint and other corporations focused on their business and not politics, and not turn them into pawns. However, if they become puppets of someone, do they deserve MY business?

    KAM
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Doesn't this assume that these people ARE consumers? Do we know that this is true--that these boycott organizers were somehow able to find JUST the sprint customers? I find that unlikely. If I'm right, then Sprint is running scared from a pressure group, which makes it more likely that someone else will try to pressure them in the future.

    Personally, I'd like to keep Sprint and other corporations focused on their business and not politics, and not turn them into pawns. However, if they become puppets of someone, do they deserve MY business?
    I would as well. I'll never buy insurance from Progressive (even tho Flo is a hottie!) because they openly pour money into the Democratic coffers during campaigns. Won't buy Ben and Jerry's either for the same reason, and thats hard man... just hard!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I would as well. I'll never buy insurance from Progressive (even tho Flo is a hottie!) because they openly pour money into the Democratic coffers during campaigns. Won't buy Ben and Jerry's either for the same reason, and thats hard man... just hard!
    As I stated above--this direct choice on how to spend your money isn't an issue for me. If Sprint was dedicating money to something I oppose I'd have no problem with individually choosing to spend my money elsewhere. That's me directly to them.

    Where I see a difference (and apparently others don't) is when the boycott is directed at a third party who isn't supporting anything in particular at all, but merely advertising their product which doesn't involve endorsing anything.

    Now that I think about--the joke is really on the boycott organizers, because if Sprint is still putting money into Fox News, just not during Glenn Beck's show, Fox isn't losing anything. Glenn Beck's show isn't an independent enterprise. Plus it leaves open a popular slot for some Conservative business to get a choice deal on some commercial time, which will let them earn a lot more money to give to conservative causes.

    It may be that these activists just need something to grasp onto--to make themselves feel like they are making a difference. Most people that I know are busy with things like jobs or family (or burning time on Internet forums)...or I guess perhaps fewer than there used to be.

    The more relevant issue, I think is to realize that these boycott organizers are attempting to silence people that disagree with them, and are willing to drag innocent wireless service providers into it in order to accomplish their goals.

    KAM
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    As I stated above--this direct choice on how to spend your money isn't an issue for me. If Sprint was dedicating money to something I oppose I'd have no problem with individually choosing to spend my money elsewhere. That's me directly to them.
    They don't hear from me either way, if I don't give them my money. A boycott though, they hear that.
    Where I see a difference (and apparently others don't) is when the boycott is directed at a third party who isn't supporting anything in particular at all, but merely advertising their product which doesn't involve endorsing anything.
    I disagree. Corps are very aware that if their advertisement pops up during a show, it's a direct endorsement. You like extreme "for instances": can you imagine an ad for a local liberal democrat running for office being read by Rush Limbaugh? The talking heads would have a field day! Which was it? Rush endorsing the democrat? The democrat endorsing Rush's show?
    Now that I think about--the joke is really on the boycott organizers, because if Sprint is still putting money into Fox News, just not during Glenn Beck's show, Fox isn't losing anything. Glenn Beck's show isn't an independent enterprise. Plus it leaves open a popular slot for some Conservative business to get a choice deal on some commercial time, which will let them earn a lot more money to give to conservative causes.
    There you go. Fox said that when the story broke. They've lost zero ad revenues. And Beck's viewership has actually increased.... people tuning in to see what he may say next.
    It may be that these activists just need something to grasp onto--to make themselves feel like they are making a difference. Most people that I know are busy with things like jobs or family (or burning time on Internet forums)...or I guess perhaps fewer than there used to be.
    I think they're reacting in anger and frustration.... not nobly acting on an impulse for positive change.
    The more relevant issue, I think is to realize that these boycott organizers are attempting to silence people that disagree with them, and are willing to drag innocent wireless service providers into it in order to accomplish their goals.

    KAM
    I appreciate your thoughts and the debate.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    They don't hear from me either way, if I don't give them my money. A boycott though, they hear that.
    Yes, it is an attempt to forward your views with the illusion of representing a large group.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I disagree. Corps are very aware that if their advertisement pops up during a show, it's a direct endorsement. You like extreme "for instances": can you imagine an ad for a local liberal democrat running for office being read by Rush Limbaugh? The talking heads would have a field day! Which was it? Rush endorsing the democrat? The democrat endorsing Rush's show?
    That's guilt by association essentially. If I have a friend who is a raging liberal, and I give him a ride somewhere it doesn't mean that I endorse his views. Sprint is a business engaging in legitimate business practices (advertising). Advertising seeks to reach a large audience of a given demographic, and I highly doubt that sprint is seeking to market to either Conservatives or liberals over the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    There you go. Fox said that when the story broke. They've lost zero ad revenues. And Beck's viewership has actually increased.... people tuning in to see what he may say next.

    I think they're reacting in anger and frustration.... not nobly acting on an impulse for positive change.


    I appreciate your thoughts and the debate.
    Likewise--just wanting to hear what people think, while expressing my own perspective.

    KAM
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Doesn't this assume that these people ARE consumers? Do we know that this is true--that these boycott organizers were somehow able to find JUST the sprint customers? I find that unlikely. If I'm right, then Sprint is running scared from a pressure group, which makes it more likely that someone else will try to pressure them in the future.
    Yes, it assumes that they are consumers, and no, it's obviously not 100% true, but Sprint has to make the decision to act based on how many of them could be. In this case, they chose to listen. Do they deserve your business? That's up to you, but based on your arguments, I'd say no. Will you cancel? Also up to you. However, if you do, tell them why - that type of insight does get logged and if the corporation is remotely well run, it will be noticed by execs.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Personally, I'd like to keep Sprint and other corporations focused on their business and not politics, and not turn them into pawns. However, if they become puppets of someone, do they deserve MY business?
    You do realize that almost every large corporation has a government affairs office, right? It is in the best interest of the corporation to pay at least some attention to politics because they are affected by the decisions politicians make. Everything from employment regulation to land zoning at local and Federal levels (and for Sprint, don't forget the FCC) will have large-scale impact on the company. I don't want them to be a pawn, but I want leaders at the company thinking about this.

    edit: Thinking about what you said again, I know what you mean versus what I said, but I'm choosing to leave it because it's true and should be known. But as for politics in the form of infotainment shows, it's all risk and reward -- is continuing to advertise on a show where a vocal group of potentially current consumers don't like the message versus the reward of their revenue.
    Last edited by eddieroger; 08/27/2009 at 02:55 PM.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, it is an attempt to forward your views with the illusion of representing a large group.



    That's guilt by association essentially. If I have a friend who is a raging liberal, and I give him a ride somewhere it doesn't mean that I endorse his views.
    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!)
    Sprint is a business engaging in legitimate business practices (advertising). Advertising seeks to reach a large audience of a given demographic, and I highly doubt that sprint is seeking to market to either Conservatives or liberals over the other.
    Well during Beck's show, thats a pretty obvious demographic.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by eddieroger View Post
    Yes, it assumes that they are consumers, and no, it's obviously not 100% true, but Sprint has to make the decision to act based on how many of them could be. In this case, they chose to listen. Do they deserve your business? That's up to you, but based on your arguments, I'd say no. Will you cancel? Also up to you. However, if you do, tell them why - that type of insight does get logged and if the corporation is remotely well run, it will be noticed by execs.
    I don't disagree with your assessment of the situation. I'd hate to have to change my service, because some group of idiots trying to silence someone else have dragged my wireless provider into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by eddieroger View Post
    You do realize that almost every large corporation has a government affairs office, right? It is in the best interest of the corporation to pay at least some attention to politics because they are affected by the decisions politicians make. Everything from employment regulation to land zoning at local and Federal levels (and for Sprint, don't forget the FCC) will have large-scale impact on the company. I don't want them to be a pawn, but I want leaders at the company thinking about this.
    Sure, but I don't have to like it.

    KAM
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions