I can’t find fault with a direct boycott. Where I have a problem is when we start boycotting business A because we disagree with what person B did. If you don’t like Bill O’Reilly or Al Sharpton, that’s fine, don’t listen to them and convince your friends not to listen to them. But it’s sort of dishonest to turn around and boycott Coke for advertising on their shows.
It makes it too easy for a fringe group (I’m looking at Focus on the Family types) to have an impact way beyond their numbers.
Of course, there is no law I would put into place to keep such things from happening except for a good old fashion shunning.
I agree with the posters who say that a boycott is justified whenever the boycotting entity thinks that it is.
Either way, this issue drowns in shades of gray. I could disagree with Walmart policies but not feel strongly enough to actively boycott them, but when I want to buy a specific item and Walmart and Target are equally convenient choose to go to Target because of Walmart policies. Does that count as a boycott?
I don’t see why? Coke is putting their brand behind their advertising. It’s completely honest to hold them to the consequences of that speech. That’s kind of the whole point of advertising.
People who follow the boycott organized by FotF are their numbers. If you convince people to join your cause then your voice is stronger. If the world ignores their call to boycott, then their voice is weaker. If millions follow their call, then they’re clearly not fringe.
What I’m getting at is this. If a television show has enough of a following to keep it on the air, but pisses off a small population of non-watchers, I have no problem with those people telling their friends to boycott that show. If they can get enough of the watchers to rally to their cause then the show will become unprofitable and be pulled from the air because the viewership can’t support the advertising dollars.
But this isn’t what Focus on the Family types do. They, a small population of people who aren’t watching the show anyway, go to Coke and say, “We’re a small, but loud, population that will give you bad press, so pull your ads.” Coke would rather not see their name on CNN with bad press, so they kowtow. Repeat this with Pepsi, Kellogg and Nestle, and now the show becomes unprofitable and pulled from the air, having nothing to do with the viewership, and yet still everything to do with the advertising dollars.
The difference in the latter scenario is that the same people still want to watch the show, but can’t because a group of people who weren’t watching the show anyway did an endaround. They convinced no one that they were right, because it’s a much lower bar to get Coke to pull their ads than it is to get people to agree with your cause. Coke couldn’t care less about your cause, only the profits.
I don’t think Focus on the Family should be banned or anything, just that I find their techniques disingenuous. The way to combat speech you don’t like is with more speech. I can’t stand Bill O’reilly, but I would never want him pulled from the air for what he has to say. People seem to want to hear him, so he should stay on the air.
I don’t like when someone else tries to decide what I can and can’t watch for me. In the future, this will be moot as all televisions will be equipped with a personal dump button that will allow the viewer to dump out of anything they find objectionable while allowing the rest of us to make that determination for ourselves. The future will be awesome.
Then your problem is with Coke, not FotF. The bad publicity wouldn’t matter if it didn’t affect the bottom line. Getting bad press on CNN won’t matter unless it makes more people stop buying Coke products. While I’ve never agreed with FotF on any issue, I can’t see why their tactics are anything but smart and ethical. I also think that any companies that cater to FotF doesn’t deserve my business.
It’s unfortunate that some TV shows may suffer from that, but that’s the nature of the entertainment business. Content that gets people upset is subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. If some oddball fringe group threatens a boycott no one is going to care. If a group that can deliver a large number of people to a boycott threatens, people take notice. Which camp does FotF fall into? Bad press only matters if it relates to loss of revenue.
On the flip side what about when oppressed minority decided to boycott buses for being forced to sit in the back? That really hurt the buses who were just following the law. It did however make a huge difference.
Say the Mormans of Utah do start boycotting chains based on business practices would there be anything in Utah you couldn’t buy? Any normal service you couldn’t get? Seems like nonmorman niche markets would pop up.
I personally boycott Wal-Mart because their business practices are slime. Doesn’t seem to hurt the chain any but I have less quilt about what my money supports.
Personally, I’d say no. You’re just making personal buying decisions. When you start pushing other people to stop shopping there and taking actions to hurt their sales, then it’s a boycott. At least to me.
The act of boycotting a company because their ads appear on a certain TV show can hurt innocent companies and individuals. My business does very little advertising on TV and radio, but when it does I simply buy “X” number of spots, and they appear randomly throughout the day. I honestly have no idea whether my ad will show up during the program you hate, and not buying from me because of it accomplishes nothing except taking out an innocent bystander.
Yes, I realize that things are different with large business who advertise a lot, and pay premiums to have their ads show up during certain commercial breaks on certain shows.
I sort of agree. My problem is with both sides though. Coke is caving in too easily, but I understand it from a business perspective. As you note, there is very little chance that FOFs boycott would affect their bottom line, but there is little upside in standing up to FOF, so that very little chance is often one not worth taking.
Again, I agree. Most boycotts are not going to work, but multinational corporations are not going to take that risk when the only upside is that they get to have their ads on some show.
I don’t mind when a boycott succeeds because you’ve managed to convince enough people that you are right. I don’t like when a boycott succeeds despite the fact that you’ve convinced no one that you’re right.
It’s the difference between convincing your congressman that a law should be passed by explaining the situation to him versus convincing your congressman that a law should be passed because something bad might happen to his finances if he should disagree with you. Society should come to agreements based on speech and consensus and not financial strong arm tactics.
About the Focus on the Family tactics, the relevant number isn’t the membership of Focus on the Family itself, it’s the number of people who would tend to agree with FotF. If they were a truly fringe group, then when people heard that FotF were boycotting Coca-Cola, they wouldn’t care, and since the customers don’t care, the Coca-Cola company wouldn’t care, either. If they were actively unpopular, then their boycott might even convince others that Coke must be doing something good to attract their ire, and they’d gain more customers. In fact, this probably does happen already to some degree: Some people will preferentially select the companies that don’t knuckle under to FotF. It’s just that those numbers are currently less than the ones who go the other way (or at least, so the Coke executives think), so it makes business sense to heed FotF’s threats.
It’s the ultimate democracy: People have influence in proportion to their numbers. Large groups have large influence, and small groups have small influence. No, it doesn’t always give the best results, but I can’t think of any system that would give better results.
But today Coke doesn’t have any influence, or even knowledge, of what is on a show where they advertise. In the '50s and early '60s sponsors would “own” a show, and sponsor’s reps would be involved to make sure the show was pure enough for them. That was bad, and we don’t want to go back to it.
I believe the networks will warn sponsors if a show they are backing is likely to be controversial, but that’s about it. Most people’s view of controversial isn’t like that of FotF.
TBH, I think that people can put their own money where they like, but organising a public boycott of a theatre, because of the the legal actions (he has the perfect right to vote and support any view he wishes, and should not be fired because of it) of one high-level employee, with the sole purpose of punishing that man for exercising his rights is bullying and sick.
Basically, a man lost his livelihood because he exercised his political beliefs and donated a portion of his (not huge) salary to a campaign he (and the majority of voters) believed in.
He is then pressured out of his job by a public campaign.
That isn’t right.
It would surprise me very much if that were true… Don’t companies want to target their advertisements to their prime demographics? To do that, you pretty much have to be able to choose what shows you want your ads to be running during, and Coca-Cola executives are just as capable of watching a show to see what it’s about as you or I are.
Tell that to everyone who lost their civil rights, and the 18,000 who are already married and whose already established rights are now being targeting by people like this guy.
As pro-prop 8 types will tell you, “it was legal. Deal.”
This guy will have to “deal.”
Democracy and freedom is a cruel bitch sometimes, ain’t it?