Are product sponsors cowardly for caving in to threats of a boycott?

Are they just looking at the bottom line... sales and profit?

Or, are some of them genuinely embarrassed about being associated with a particular person and/or incident?

In reality, what percentage of people actually follow-up their threats of a boycott and stick to it?

2% - 5%? More?

i think it is about the money....

In general; in this case I think there were larger reasons for the Imus firing than any potential boycott.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

A Boycott to silence free speech is immoral the same way that encouraging others to steal or to hate is immoral. It is an allowed usage of free speech, but it is still immoral.

Bryant

I have the right to call immoral behavior immoral.

Bryant

For some corporate CEOs, when informed where their advertising dollars are going they are embarassed.

For others it's all about the money. But that's ok too.

I think boycotts are great regardless of which side is doing them. When the right-wingers do a boycott it always makes me look at the company they're boycotting and many times I'll increase my own pruchases from them.

do we WANT to advertise on a show like this and have our product be connected with it?

I think that was a larger reason than any threat of boycott, myself.

like coulter, limbaugh and beck are threatened. They still show and air their hate and vile. Look at the campaign about the false 9/11 film. ABC wasn't scared one bit. The showed it anyway and distributed it all over the world. They select and choose who to fire..Look at what they did to Woopi Goldberg because she made jokes about bush.

... of business is that imposed by regulation and the conscience of people associated with the activities of that business, either as employees, owners, or customers. Indeed, even that latter influence has been dramatically reduced: an employee with a conscience is a career-limited employee. Believe it. In the last 25 years (ever since the enactment of RICO and FCPA in the 70s), there has been a consistent and ever-increasing "filtration" of anyone who'd blow the whistle, complain, or rebel against predatory and exploitative business practices.

... and you can take that to the bank. :crazy: :scared:


A corporation is a beast whose sole 'motivation' is the love of money. As we all should know, the love of money is the root of all evil. We have, in a very real sense, created Frankenstein's monsters in the form of "person-hood" entities driven by the root of all evil. These entities know no 'loyalty,' no 'patriotism,' no boundaries other than whatever serves the sole goal of profit. Even 'power' is merely a tool - a means to the end of seeking money. Wealth.

It is NOT, I assert, an exaggeration.

This is great.

Stroudsburg station fires host for repeating Imus’ slur

Gary Smith, a morning radio show host in Stroudsburg (PA) who was fired for using the same phrase that got Don Imus suspended, apologized today...

(C. O. O. Rick) Musselman added, "Gary has done a tremendous amount of good in the community over the past 17 years as the morning voice of WSBG, but his comments yesterday crossed the line. He used the phrase with full knowledge of the reaction to Don Imus' use of the exact same phrase just a day earlier, which is the reason he was terminated and not suspended...

http://www.southflorida.com/news/all-radiofiring0411-cn,0,3476785.story?track=rss

And there you have it. He wasn't fired because what he said was wrong or immoral or illegal or any of that stuff, most of which is debatable. He was fired because he said something that might cause heat for his employer. As long as they are honest about it, I have no problem with that. Its about the money and nothing else.