Remember when advertiser wanted to reach as many people as possible? To, you know, sell stuff?
Now it seems they want to limit their reach to only people who think the "correct" way, where "correct" is defined by whatever insane minority can shriek the loudest.
People who don't watch Alex Jones' channels aren't going to see whatever advertisements are placed there. Advertisers aren't "supporting" the viewpoints you disagree with. They're hawking their wares to the million eyeballs watching that viewpoint. So the larger picture is "I'm not going to buy your stuff if you let "those people" buy your stuff".
It's a losing proposition for businesses that succumb to it. Virtue signal to the loonies and maybe piss off half your potential customers, or stay out of politics and concentrate on selling refrigerators, if that's what you sell.
At what point in making my buying decisions am I insane and when am I shrieking? Or is it when firms make business decisions that they're insane and shrieking?
Advertisers aren't "supporting" the viewpoints you disagree with.
How do you figure? What's the money for, then? If that's so, what's the problem with losing your advertisers? Hurt feelings?
Virtue signal to the loonies
Oh, wait... I get it now. It's the free market itself that's, per you, insane and shrieking? Maybe you should work to make boycotts illegal. Ooh, or maybe you should go after the boycotters instead. How about making any pocketbook decisions acts of terror?
Are you going to stop flying Delta because 13 NRA members used a discount? Is that what factors into your buying decision? If it is, there are probably at least 5 NRA members that won't fly Delta because they listened to t he mob.
Advertising money is to put their product in front of eyeballs. Now you're not only leaving eyeballs out, you're telling those eyeballs that there is something wrong with them. So you not only passively lose customers, you actively do so.
Businesses who make decisions based on whatever is loudest on twitter (today) deserve to fail. Nobody who wasn't already going to fly Delta is going to choose them based on their dropping the NRA. They are going to fly based on ticket price and destination, just like always.
Advertiser boycotts are an attempt to silence a point of view you disagree with. Very fascist sounding.
I'll buy my toothpaste, foot powder, and vehicles based on value, price, and quality, not on who advertises on channel, show, or subject I might object to. But I'm just one tiny part of the marketplace. A hangnail on the free hand.
Advertising money is to put their product in front of eyeballs.
The timeless complaint against any other people having the right to complain. Opinions for me, but none for thee.
Now you're not only leaving eyeballs out, you're telling those eyeballs that there is something wrong with them.
So if an advertiser realizes there's something wrong with Alex Jones, and decides not to advertise that way, it's just rude? I might've used "obvious" there, but okay.
Advertiser boycotts are an attempt to silence a point of view you disagree with.
I see. Alex Jones was born entitled to steady cash flow from Acer, Alibaba, ClassPass, Expedia, Honey, Moen, Nike, and OneFamily, and unless he gets his money — not some of his money, not part of his money, but all of his money — he's being persecuted. I'll bet that's a lot like he sees it. Me, not so much.
Alex Jones' name is synonymous with callous crackpot antics. If companies calculate they'll make money advertising with him, they likely will. If businesses decided they wouldn't, I'm not sure they did it as part of an elaborate conspiracy to silence his important voice, however much he may think so. Maybe he should dial the jackass down a bit, but then he wouldn't have an act.
I think you are attributing a conscience to corporations. "Good corporate citizenship" is like "Trust me" from a politician. They hope you'll be dumb enough to believe it.
If tit was about conscience, they wouldn't have advertised there in the first place, or dropped it long ago. It's about money., as always. They fear the loons making a fuss on social media, but virtue signalling to them isn't going to gain net customers.
Seems like it's a stretch to use 'virtue signaling' to describe straightforward business decisions. I mean, "I loathe Trump as much as anyone," now that's virtue signaling. Whereas distancing your brand from a dangerously-unmedicated Alex Jones trolling massacre survivors and victim's families, that's sensible. That just recognizing that we're judged by the people we disassociate with. A better word might be 'decency.'
Remember when advertiser wanted to reach as many people as possible? To, you know, sell stuff?
Now it seems they want to limit their reach to only people who think the "correct" way, where "correct" is defined by whatever insane minority can shriek the loudest.
People who don't watch Alex Jones' channels aren't going to see whatever advertisements are placed there. Advertisers aren't "supporting" the viewpoints you disagree with. They're hawking their wares to the million eyeballs watching that viewpoint. So the larger picture is "I'm not going to buy your stuff if you let "those people" buy your stuff".
It's a losing proposition for businesses that succumb to it. Virtue signal to the loonies and maybe piss off half your potential customers, or stay out of politics and concentrate on selling refrigerators, if that's what you sell.
At what point in making my buying decisions am I insane and when am I shrieking? Or is it when firms make business decisions that they're insane and shrieking?
How do you figure? What's the money for, then? If that's so, what's the problem with losing your advertisers? Hurt feelings?
Oh, wait... I get it now. It's the free market itself that's, per you, insane and shrieking? Maybe you should work to make boycotts illegal. Ooh, or maybe you should go after the boycotters instead. How about making any pocketbook decisions acts of terror?
Using Delta as an example:
Are you going to stop flying Delta because 13 NRA members used a discount? Is that what factors into your buying decision? If it is, there are probably at least 5 NRA members that won't fly Delta because they listened to t he mob.
Advertising money is to put their product in front of eyeballs. Now you're not only leaving eyeballs out, you're telling those eyeballs that there is something wrong with them. So you not only passively lose customers, you actively do so.
Businesses who make decisions based on whatever is loudest on twitter (today) deserve to fail. Nobody who wasn't already going to fly Delta is going to choose them based on their dropping the NRA. They are going to fly based on ticket price and destination, just like always.
Advertiser boycotts are an attempt to silence a point of view you disagree with. Very fascist sounding.
I'll buy my toothpaste, foot powder, and vehicles based on value, price, and quality, not on who advertises on channel, show, or subject I might object to. But I'm just one tiny part of the marketplace. A hangnail on the free hand.
Interesting example. Because the U.S. has little to no antitrust protections, and complete regulatory capture by business, U.S. airlines operate as a cartel. Even if I flew Delta, what am I going to do, take my business from one of the beast's tentacles and hand it to another?
The timeless complaint against any other people having the right to complain. Opinions for me, but none for thee.
So if an advertiser realizes there's something wrong with Alex Jones, and decides not to advertise that way, it's just rude? I might've used "obvious" there, but okay.
I see. Alex Jones was born entitled to steady cash flow from Acer, Alibaba, ClassPass, Expedia, Honey, Moen, Nike, and OneFamily, and unless he gets his money — not some of his money, not part of his money, but all of his money — he's being persecuted. I'll bet that's a lot like he sees it. Me, not so much.
Alex Jones' name is synonymous with callous crackpot antics. If companies calculate they'll make money advertising with him, they likely will. If businesses decided they wouldn't, I'm not sure they did it as part of an elaborate conspiracy to silence his important voice, however much he may think so. Maybe he should dial the jackass down a bit, but then he wouldn't have an act.
I think you are attributing a conscience to corporations. "Good corporate citizenship" is like "Trust me" from a politician. They hope you'll be dumb enough to believe it.
If tit was about conscience, they wouldn't have advertised there in the first place, or dropped it long ago. It's about money., as always. They fear the loons making a fuss on social media, but virtue signalling to them isn't going to gain net customers.
Ask Papa Johns how that worked out.
You realize you're describing Alex Jones, I hope.
Here is the dichotomy on the add thing, they don't care who reads them. Ah, virtue signaling, I was wondering when that would work into the mire.
Among many others, yes.
Seems like it's a stretch to use 'virtue signaling' to describe straightforward business decisions. I mean, "I loathe Trump as much as anyone," now that's virtue signaling. Whereas distancing your brand from a dangerously-unmedicated Alex Jones trolling massacre survivors and victim's families, that's sensible. That just recognizing that we're judged by the people we disassociate with. A better word might be 'decency.'
You're more generous than I am. Revenue trumps decency, that's the mantra of business!