We have to send American business notice that they can not profit by caving in to the demands of hate mongers. We can't let minority groups that promote fear and hate like the Florida Family association define America just because they are shouting loudly. If you think bigotry should be considered unacceptable in America, make your voice heard.
** Yeah I know I'm days behind on this one, but cut me some slack, I'm living in Trinidad and Tobago.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that is frightfully pathetic. I hadn't heard about this, I've never spent a dime at Lowe's but this is discouraging nonetheless.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems more likely to me that the ads weren't paying off well enough for the fuss being made of the show wasn't worth the risk.
It's also possible that it wasn't a company decision on a whole but the actions of just a few in the company.
I'm not defending their actions if they did it for the reasons the article states but the article isn't the most unbiased piece I've read.
Posts: 503 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say shame on Lowes for letting a bunch of insane people like the Florida Family Association have any influence on what they do, if that's how it happened. I'm more concerned about the Florida Family Association, though. I would boycott them if that were possible.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kind of hard to organize a boycott of a place like Lowe's, where most of might not normally visit for a couple years at a stretch.
But for those of us that DO need what they sell, there's usually a Home Depot right around the corner.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: It seems more likely to me that the ads weren't paying off well enough for the fuss being made of the show wasn't worth the risk.
It's also possible that it wasn't a company decision on a whole but the actions of just a few in the company.
I'm not defending their actions if they did it for the reasons the article states but the article isn't the most unbiased piece I've read
Here is Lowe's official statement on their decision.
quote:Lowe's has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.
I find it deceptive. This show was not a "lighting rod" for any controversy until Lowe's pulled their ad. If Lowe's had not pulled their ad, this would have been nothing more than a complaint from a small group of Islamaphobes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
LAT on Daily Show on Florida Family Association on All American Muslim (guh)
quote:The decision by home-improvement chain Lowe's to cave to a Christian fundamentalist group and withdraw its advertising from the TLC series "All-American Muslim" has ignited a firestorm of controversy -- the very thing the retail giant was supposedly trying to avoid in the first place.
On Tuesday's episode of "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart weighed in on issue. He began with an observation about the sensationalistic, sideshow nature of much of the programming on TLC, a network once known as The Learning Channel. As Stewart pointed out, the only thing a viewer is likely to learn on TLC these days is "what it might be like to have eight children, 17 children or 19 children."
"Sometimes the Learning Channel slips up and creates programming that not only isn't educational, but is downright offensive," Stewart said, cutting to a clip of Fox's Megyn Kelly explaining the supposed controversy over "All-American Muslim."
Stewart reasoned that, based on the outrage, the show must be "jihadi propaganda." But the clip he played, in which a young Muslim father-to-be discusses his wife's pregnancy, was more than benign; it was banal.
"Seriously, that wouldn't have been interesting to hear even if that guy was building a bomb as he was talking," Stewart joked. "That's the most boring reality show imaginable. It seems to just show Muslims living our lives like the rest of us ... idiots."
So why did the Florida Family Assn. have such a problem with the show?
As the organization's executive director, David Caton, explained, "It's the absence of the radical side of the imam's proposition of sharia law that is most concerning."
Stewart was baffled. "Why would you be upset to learn that there are non-jihadi Muslims?" Caton claimed that the show was an affront to his "belief system," but Stewart argued that's what educational programming is meant to do. "I don't like the show 'Nova' because it is harmful to my belief structure that the ocean tides are controlled by monsters," he joked.
Caton's real objection to the show, Stewart claimed, was that it challenged his false stereotype about Muslim Americans. But "All-American Muslim" isn't the only TLC show to challenge negative stereotypes. "I am also troubled that no one on your show 'Little People, Big World' whistles while they work, or makes candy for Willy Wonka," he said.
The clips that Stewart had highlighted on his show with the Florida Family Association were really telling. Someone would ask him what the problem with this show was, and you could just SEE him struggling while thinking: "so how can I put this in a way which doesn't just admit that we just don't want people to see muslims as non-scary"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... this would have been nothing more than a complaint from a small group of Islamaphobes.
Not really convinced that this is a small group. How many Americans still think Obama is a Muslim, "prayer mats in the White House", the blocking of mosques in various communities. The Florida Family Association is really just one example in one state.
Story continues BTW:
quote: The controversy over the reality TV show "All-American Muslim" continues, with Kayak.com apologizing to customers Wednesday for deciding not to advertise on the TLC show next year. But an executive at the travel site said the network "was not upfront with us about the nature of this show" and added that "mostly, I just thought the show sucked."
...
In explaining the decision, he said Kayak's approach to advertising is to place ads based on who watches a program, and not its political leaning. Birge said the company deemed the show a worthy topic at first, but looked into the program more carefully after receiving angry emails over its decision to advertise.
"The first thing I discovered was that TLC was not upfront with us about the nature of this show. As I said, it's a worthy topic, but any reasonable person would know that this topic is a particular lightning rod," he said. "We believe TLC went out of their way to pick a fight on this, and they didn't let us know their intentions. That's not a business practice that generally gets repeat business from us... Sadly, TLC is now enjoying the attention from this controversy."
posted
It's a good point. For every company that outright says that they've caving in, there probably is a larger number that will just silently do it and/or simply make it company policy to avoid such "controversy" in the future.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As silly as I find the pressure that the group was placing on Lowes, I don't find giving in to that pressure a grievous enough crime to justify a boycott.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll answer for MPH, since I agree with what he said. His answer probably varies.
The group exerting pressure on Lowe's is reprehensible. From Lowe's actions, it seems to me that they simply don't want to deal with the controversy (yes I know their action generated even more controversy, but they didn't know it would do that). It seems to me that they decided they don't want to be in the business of making political statements, and a vocal group was treating their sponsorship as a statement. It's spineless, but I don't think it makes sense to boycott companies for not being willing to take principled stands. I'd only boycott if the company was actively taking a stand I found reprehensible.
By the same token, I despise YouTube's policy of removing a video if anyone claims copyright infringement, even if the video in question is clearly fair use. YouTube has decided they don't want to get involved in such disputes, and effectively neutralize them before they can even begin. It's spineless, but I'm not going to boycott YouTube over it.
It's not conventionally good business sense to take stands on principle. Being spineless (in this regard, obviously) is often regarded as the safer strategy. Personally, I disagree, but I don't really fault businesses for trying to stay out of these kinds of frays.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason Lowe's or any company advertises is to generate business for themselves. It would be stupid for them to pay a large sum of money to a television channel if doing so will cause them to lose business.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lowes didn't want to be in the business of making political statements, so they expressed that desire by...making a profound political statement?
I wonder if their corporation, or whoever owns them, donates to any political campaigns? No, I think what they didn't want was *trouble*, which is actually different from not wanting to make political statements.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Unless caving to these folks will cause them to lose even more business.
I doubt a substantial amount of people will end up boycotting Lowes and those that do likely weren't frequent patrons of the business to begin with. Long-time customers and contractors aren't going to jump ship because of this. I'm sure the company will do fine.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Unless caving to these folks will cause them to lose even more business.
I doubt a substantial amount of people will end up boycotting Lowes and those that do likely weren't frequent patrons of the business to begin with. Long-time customers and contractors aren't going to jump ship because of this. I'm sure the company will do fine.
*Glances at thread filled with "Man, if only I shopped at Lowe's so that I could boycott them!"*
Yeah, I think this forecast is accurate.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lowes didn't want to be in the business of making political statements, so they expressed that desire by...making a profound political statement?
I wonder if their corporation, or whoever owns them, donates to any political campaigns? No, I think what they didn't want was *trouble*, which is actually different from not wanting to make political statements.
I think you're right that they didn't want trouble, but I stand by my statement as well. They didn't want to be seen as making a political statement with their sponsorship. Once it became a political issue, they pulled sponsorship. You classify getting out of the situation as making a statement? By your criteria, once it became a political issue, anything they did can be classified as a political statement. If someone starts a fight with me, I can either fight back or run away. You're essentially saying either response should be defined as "fighting."
PS: Whether or not they make political donations is irrelevant. Making a political donation is not making a political statement (especially if it's the owner who makes donations). If Lowe's also runs a PAC that makes political ads, then you've got a point.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought that money now counted as speech? So PAC or not, donations are a political statement.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
PS: You know that the Citizen's United decision had to do with spending money on political ads, right? And not donations?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you're right that they didn't want trouble, but I stand by my statement as well. They didn't want to be seen as making a political statement with their sponsorship. Once it became a political issue, they pulled sponsorship. You classify getting out of the situation as making a statement? By your criteria, once it became a political issue, anything they did can be classified as a political statement. If someone starts a fight with me, I can either fight back or run away. You're essentially saying either response should be defined as "fighting."
Well, no, it's not analagous to a potential fistfight. And in this situation, 'getting out of the situation' meant...doing basically what a given political (supposedly religious) group wanted them to do. They didn't say, for example, "We're not going to take down our ads now because of this complaint, but we'll re-evaluate them later in the usual fashion." They got complaints and, well, pulled the ads. Strangely the timing of their concern over it being 'not their sort of show' coincided exactly with a political complaint.
If it were analagous to a potential fistfight, we could say that I gave my whole wallet to the guy threatening to beat me up not because I wanted to avoid a fight, but because I owed him money or something. Anyway, here's how it is similar to what you said about fighting: if someone comes along and threatens to fight you, your response to that threat may not be fighting, but it will certainly be an expression of your views on fighting, won't it?
quote:PS: Whether or not they make political donations is irrelevant. Making a political donation is not making a political statement (especially if it's the owner who makes donations). If Lowe's also runs a PAC that makes political ads, then you've got a point.
Setting legalities aside, how on Earth isn't it a political statement? Putting one's very valuable support (campain contributions being, well, vital) behind a political candidate to help in a political race...well, it seems pretty straightforwardly political to me. Not as political as, say, taking out a full page essay in the NYT, of course, but there's plenty of room for politics between 'none' and 'forms a group explicitly and constantly devoted to politics'.
quote:PS: You know that the Citizen's United decision had to do with spending money on political ads, right?
What will politicians be spending much of their campaign contributions on, I wonder?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, you make a good point re: the fact that them pulling sponsorship was precisely what the despicable group was asking them to do. Nevertheless, I still think that this instance taken alone more reasonably displays them as spineless (as you said, they wanted to avoid trouble. I said before and will say again: I think that's a very accurate characterization) than as in some way anti-muslim.
If some other vocal minority group pressured them to remove sponsorship of some other show with a very different message, and Lowe's refused, then I could see the argument that they capitulated because they agree with the group who was pushing them. But to my knowledge that hasn't happened, so it seems to me that they're simply caving in because someone didn't like it. Again: spineless, not wanting to be seen as making a political statement, wanting to avoid trouble, I see all of these in their behavior.
Tangent: Rakeesh, making a donation is certainly political, but I don't see it as a political statement. To me, "making a political statement" requires you to do just that. So yeah, an essay in the NYT, or an ad, or an endorsement, or some other issued statement.
And re: donations = ads... I don't really know what to say to this, guys. Giving someone money that they spend on ads for themselves, and spending money on an ad for someone, are two different things. I love simplified analogies, sooo... buying a hobo a sandwich (or a bottle of wine!) is different than giving a hobo a ten dollar bill. Even if you're sure the hobo is going to spend his ten bucks on what you expect him to, it's still not actually the same as buying that thing for him. Is that really hard to understand?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: Super-Pacs can also transfer money to special accounts (I forget the code, but the Colbert Report covered it with McCain's financial adviser) based in Delaware that are not required to disclose how those funds are spent. It's a mere formality that those funds can't be directly spent on anything other than advertisements and attack ads, though that in of itself already makes it nearly impossible for somebody to run for president who is not insanely rich, or willing to sell out to the rich.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... spent on anything other than advertisements and attack ads, though that in of itself already makes it nearly impossible for somebody to run for president who is not insanely rich, or willing to sell out to the rich.
(Setting aside the "special account" thing because, pending more information, I don't really have anything to say about it. It sounds a little shifty)
The above is funny, though, in that it might illustrate a fundamental difference in our outlook. I mean, the insanely rich have been running for president for a long time. But the idea that someone who isn't rich, but whose ideology aligns with some rich ideologues (like, say, the Kochs, or Soros), could have a shot because the rich ideologue does all the heavy lifting for their advertising... doesn't bother me at all. Why would it?
Despite what boots said in another thread, you can't actually buy elections, all you can buy is ads. Your ads still need to convince people that you're the man for the job (or, less interestingly, that your opponent isn't the man for the job). I'm a big fan of dialogues, of arguments, of criticisms, of the free exchange of ideas. I think quality of ideas can overcome quantity, if presented well enough.
Heck, I think Ron Paul is a great example of this, crazy little ball of libertarian caricature as he is. He's raised far less money than, say, Romney, and yet polls shockingly well. He'll never win, and rightfully so, but not because he doesn't spend enough money. He won't win because his ideas don't resonate with enough people, but everyone knows what his ideas are.
I think outspending the other guy only really makes a difference when you and the other guy are both mealy mouthed unprincipled demagogues, so there aren't enough good ideas to actually measure either of you on.
Sadly, those traits define most of the political class, and usually the only people willing to take real stands are, frankly, at least a little batsh*t crazy (Hi Ron Paul!)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, it would be nice if that were true. But it isn't. In a country this size, one guy shouting his head off with a brilliant idea is going to be drowned out by someone who can reach lots of people with their lesser but louder message.
Just look at all the money spent on advertising. If what you wrote were true, good products wouldn't need to advertise and no amount of marketing could induce us to buy bad ones.
EAT: As for Lowes's being spineless rather than political - of course they are. If you want something spineless to move your way, you need to apply pressure. FFA has done that and they moved. If we want them to move our way, we need to apply pressure, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, it would be nice if that were true. But it isn't. In a country this size, one guy shouting his head off with a brilliant idea is going to be drowned out by someone who can reach lots of people with their lesser but louder message.
Just look at all the money spent on advertising. If what you wrote were true, good products wouldn't need to advertise and no amount of marketing could induce us to buy bad ones.
Is Google the most commonly used search engine because of the advertising campaign it ran when it rolled out in 1998?
posted
If it won't make any difference for people to boycott Lowe's for canceling their sponsorship, why was Lowe's so concerned about the business they might loose from people who were complaining about their sponsorship in the first place.
Do you think there are really that many more people who would have boycotted Lowe's for sponsoring the show than those who would boycott Lowe's now that the controversy has blown up?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big problem is not that Lowes decided to back down from what was a political show because one group demanded it of them.
The big problem is that Lowes quit a non-political show because one group decided that it should be political.
American Muslim is far from political, and far from espousing any political or religious agenda. This group said, "we don't want the word Muslim on our TV. We don't want Muslim's portrayed as human. Get rid of it." Plain and simple fear mongering.
If Lowes or the majority of corporations agree that backing down to these types of created fears is good for business, then what is next? Oprah because she's liberal? Magyver reruns because there are good people who don't carry guns? Mythbusters because they teach the scientific method and question things?
Dan, you are right that Lowes does not deserve a boycott for dropping American Muslim. Yet they did not deserve the boycott that church group threatened for supporting American Muslim either. The only way to fight this fear-mongering attack on sanity is by wielding a bigger financial threat than the one the church group is swinging.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Rabbit, Boots, Darth (is your name Dan too, or am I misremembering?) et al... I think I need to check my assumptions. I tend to interpret boycotts as "This company has committed a terrible sin so I will no longer do business there."
But you guys are presenting it more as "Lowe's caved in to a stupid vocal minority's pressure, we should be a more vocal larger minority so that they have financial incentive to resist the stupider minority."
Which I don't really have a problem with. I normally associate this sort of action with a letter writing campaign or similar, and think of boycott's more as ongoing, principled stands (my mom still refuses to buy Nestle).
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I find your position very strange coming from an outspoken libertarian. Libertarians are usually pushing boycotts as a free market alternative to regulation. How do you see market forces working to solve problems if consumers don't choose to reward companies that share their values and penalize companies that don't?
I can't figure out how to say this so here's an example. Libertarians often argue that we don't need laws against businesses that discriminate based on race. The argument is that if enough people care that a lunch counter won't serve blacks, they will stop doing business with them. Lunch counters that don't discriminate will benefit and eventually the invisible hand of the market force all lunch counters to serve blacks. But that only works if the people who care about discriminatory practices stop spending their money at businesses that discriminate.
Any way, it seems totally inconsistent to me to hear a libertarian saying that people shouldn't boycott a business they think is unethical.
[ December 15, 2011, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I don't shop at Lowe's so hard for me to boycott a place I never go to.
Seems easy...
Is it boycotting if you continue to not shop somewhere you've never shopped before, but now with intent?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Dan, I find your position very strange coming from an outspoken libertarian. Libertarians are usually pushing boycotts as a free market alternative to regulation. How do you see market forces working to solve problems if consumers don't choose to reward companies that share their values and penalize companies that don't?
I can't figure out how to say this so here's an example. Libertarians often argue that we don't need laws against businesses that discriminate based on race. The argument is that if enough people care that a lunch counter won't serve blacks, they will stop doing business with them. Lunch counters that don't discriminate will benefit and eventually the invisible hand of the market force all lunch counters to serve blacks. But that only works if the people who care about discriminatory practices stop spending their money at businesses that discriminate.
Any way, it seems totally inconsistent to me to hear a libertarian saying that people shouldn't boycott a business they think is unethical.
Hmm?
Kay, well, first of all... the way that people have recharacterized the boycott resulted in it making a lot more sense to me, now. So, there's that.
I generally view boycotts as "I refuse to have anything to do with your company until you stop murdering Lithuanian children and using their blood to lubricate your machines," For sentiments like "Hey, I think this recent decision you guys made was lame, you should re-think it" I imagine letter-writing campaigns or similar. So it's a matter of degrees. The recent couple of posts above mine characterize the reasons for the boycott in a way that make more sense to me. This is all academic as I don't shop at Lowe's anyway.
More importantly, even if I was still against it, I would never try to stop someone else from boycotting a company (except by telling them why I think their boycott is a silly idea). As a libertarian I support everyone's right to boycott, but that doesn't mean I agree with every boycott anyone might put forth. Sometimes people boycott for dumb reasons. Same way I support legalization of all drugs, but the only drug I've ever consumed was alcohol, and even that one I haven't partaken of since I was a teenager.
I will continue to support the legality of boycotts and drugs, rarely partake in boycotts and never in drugs, and tell people not to participate in ill-conceived boycotts or take drugs. I really don't see how any of those positions are inconsistent.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quick thought: I've barely heard of a Lowe's. Quick areas of business are "Lowe's continued its hold on the South, its heartland, and gained in the Northeast from 2006, but Home Depot leads in the Midwest and West, according to the survey." Given the political leanings of homeowners as well, I have to wonder if Kayak might be a better target for the pissed-off plugged-in "liberal" demographic than Lowe's.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Lowe's intends this as an anti-Muslim statement. I think Lowe's intends this as a 'We don't want far-right Christians saying bad things about us in the media.' But just because Lowe's, or anyone really, doesn't explicitly intend to make a statement about something doesn't mean I'm not making a statement, actions or inactions sometimes being statements-that is, expressions of ideas, intent, personality, what have you.
As for ads bought by political campaigns and contributions made to those campaigns, well sure they're not the same. No one is saying they're *identical*. But just as, should you give $10 to a panhandler who has a visible needle highway and is shaking you can't claim complete separation from his drug buy, if you give $1m to a campaigning politician it doesn't seem reasonable to claim very much separation from that politician's politics, either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I've never actually been inside your store, but the next time one of my appliances break, or I need some wainscoting for my kitchen, I will NOT be getting it at your store, at whatever hypothetical future date I may need it, regardless of how old this controversy is.
The only way to effectively enact this boycott is to hold a serious grudge for years to come.
Sincerely, Angry Consumer
I dunno. Most people I know who boycotted BP after the oil well disaster no longer drive past them (with one exception, my best friend still refuses to buy there), and that really hasn't been that long. I question whether or not this will be long enough for an effective boycott.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
This seems very strange to me, Dan, the example of Google paling in comparison to, well, basically all of business-products and service. I mean, either advertising works or advertisers have just pulled the world's biggest con on *everyone* to make us think it works...which, come to think of it, isn't that different.
Is Coca Cola a substantially different product than your grocery store's generic coke, aside from price and packaging? Not at all. But even though it costs at least double, it sure makes a lot more money than the generic brand-more people buy it. And I can't turn around during Christmas without seeing a cool, nasty polar bear mugging it all cute and friendly for Coke either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: For sentiments like "Hey, I think this recent decision you guys made was lame, you should re-think it" I imagine letter-writing campaigns or similar.
But what would one say in such a letter? I submit that if it doesn't include at least the implication "and if you don't quit making such lame decisions I will quit spending money at your store" the letter is not likely to accomplish much of anything.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
DKW: Yep, you're absolutely right. As I said before, I was making assumptions about what people meant by boycott, and those assumptions were at least partially mistaken. This crow tastes terrible, but you guys just won't stop putting it on my plate. D:
Rakeesh: I'm not saying that advertising doesn't work. I specifically acknowledged that it *does* work, when you're comparing two unimpressive and/or similar products.
But unique products need far less advertising to be noticed. Especially terrible products get publicity far outstripping their ads. Amazing products spread like wildfire by methods totally unrelated to advertising. Do you disagree with this?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They spread without advertising, but spread even better *with* advertising. It's my understanding that advertising will hit diminishing returns eventually, but that there's hardly ever not a benefit to *some* advertising.
Recognizing that an extraordinary product or service will need less advertising seems a strange reason for dismissing the major impact ads have in elections, as you appeared to do above.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then I apologize for not being clear. It's a chronic condition.
I was objecting to the idea that people can buy elections. I was objecting to the idea that corporate sponsors can, via the Citizens United decision, flood the airwaves with oodles of money worth of ads and guarantee victory for their guy.
I never intended to say that corporations can't help the guys they like by flooding the airwaves. But it's only going to get them so far. And is made even less effective by the fact that even the evil super rich fat cats are actually pretty split about who they want to get elected, so it's not actually as if a single candidate is floated miles above the competition.
I cited Ron Paul because he has very little corporate sponsorship as far as I know, but he is extremely well known and has a dedicated following. As I said before, I don't think his ultimate failure is due to lack of funding. It's due to the fact that he's crazy, and only so many people are willing to get behind a crazy guy. So, despite being crazy, he's carved out an impressive stake for himself, simply by being principled and outspoken.
It's also worth mentioning that advertising is getting cheaper and cheaper, what with these old intertubes and all, so having an effective message is even more important. Do you think Rick Perry's "Strong" ad helped him? Last I checked it had well over half a million dislikes on YouTube, to something like 20,000 likes. YouTube skews young and liberal, but even then, that's pretty damn stark.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Only if you write them to tell them why.
quote:Dear Lowe's,
I've never actually been inside your store, but the next time one of my appliances break, or I need some wainscoting for my kitchen, I will NOT be getting it at your store, at whatever hypothetical future date I may need it, regardless of how old this controversy is.
The only way to effectively enact this boycott is to hold a serious grudge for years to come.
Sincerely, Angry Consumer
I disagree with the last part of this letter. If a boycott is perpetual, it doesn't provide any incentive for a business to change a practice that they're engaging in. You really need to have the carrot of promised future business along with the stick of the boycott action itself.
quote:I dunno. Most people I know who boycotted BP after the oil well disaster no longer drive past them (with one exception, my best friend still refuses to buy there), and that really hasn't been that long.
Really? I'm still not buying from them, and most of the people I know locally who gave a crap still aren't buying from them either.
In terms of Lowes and Kayak.com, I shopped at the former at least once a month, and used the latter when booking flights, and I won't be doing either for a while.
posted
Dobbie- I can taste the difference too. People think I am nuts but my husband has blind taste tested me because he was convinced I couldn't tell the difference. I am also constantly amazed when people tell me Pepsi and Coke are the same thing. My sister in law has her rules regarding soda choices include cans versus fountain drinks. If it is a can, she will order differently than a fountain drink. She and I get each other. Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
