I'm all for drug legalization (even drugs much harder than pot), but it sounds like Kellogg's is just deciding that Phelps is no longer reflective of their image. It does not seem they are canceling an existing contract or asking for the return of any monies paid...just choosing not to re-up a contract when it naturally expires, which businesses do all the time. The article even states that without a spectre of drug use looming overhead, they allowed the Olympic team's contract to lapse in December just because it was no longer financially beneficial to keep. That is just what companies do.
The entire POINT of spokespeople and pitch people is to make the product look good both directly and by association. That is *all* they are for. Once they stop doing that, it is not only fine, but necessary to let them go. You can't force a company to keep using someone who makes their product look bad. That's silly and pointless. Even if someone did something LEGAL (like visit a legal brothel in Nevada) that tarnished their image in the minds of people that buy the products they are associated with, it would be OK to let that person's contract expire.
Keep in mind, Kellogg's targets young kids and parents of young kids. Drug use is not something their purchasers want to associate with. But most of his other sponsors (Visa, high-end Swiss watch makers, fitness sports beverage makers, etc) target adults who are probably less-discerning. It isn't about him or his activities directly, it is about his effect on sales. He hurts Kellogg's, he doesn't hurt the rest. Therefore Kellogg's cuts ties and others don't. This "stand by him" crap is only PR spin. It is ALL ABOUT SALES at the end of the day. Period. End of story.
If Phelps had killed a hooker, but Kellogg's sales went up from the publicity of the case, they'd probably "stand by him" and keep him on the payroll. That's just business.
Let's not kid ourselves - he was dropped because of the drug pictures.
Yes, Kelloggs has a right to say that that's not the image they want, I have the right to say that that -is- the image I want - a person who shows that marijuana use and achievement aren't mutually exclusive, and that dropping the sponsorship simply because of that shows a short-sightedness and short-mindedness.
Phelps didn't intend to become a compelling argument for legalization, but simply because of who he is, he has. Kelloggs has said "We do not approve." I think it's a dick move, quite frankly, and that's why I'm boycotting.
You're right in saying that companies are only motivated by what will make them more sales. That's the -point- of this boycott. To lower sales, and let Kelloggs know they made the wrong choice.
I agree that you have the right to protest people for any reason you want. You can protest their product because the name has 2 g's when one will suffice if you want, but for my dollar, I don't find this to be a particularly egregious move worth protesting. To each his own. I was just curious as to why.
I'm all for drug legalization (even drugs much harder than pot), but it sounds like Kellogg's is just deciding that Phelps is no longer reflective of their image. It does not seem they are canceling an existing contract or asking for the return of any monies paid...just choosing not to re-up a contract when it naturally expires, which businesses do all the time. The article even states that without a spectre of drug use looming overhead, they allowed the Olympic team's contract to lapse in December just because it was no longer financially beneficial to keep. That is just what companies do.
The entire POINT of spokespeople and pitch people is to make the product look good both directly and by association. That is *all* they are for. Once they stop doing that, it is not only fine, but necessary to let them go. You can't force a company to keep using someone who makes their product look bad. That's silly and pointless. Even if someone did something LEGAL (like visit a legal brothel in Nevada) that tarnished their image in the minds of people that buy the products they are associated with, it would be OK to let that person's contract expire.
Keep in mind, Kellogg's targets young kids and parents of young kids. Drug use is not something their purchasers want to associate with. But most of his other sponsors (Visa, high-end Swiss watch makers, fitness sports beverage makers, etc) target adults who are probably less-discerning. It isn't about him or his activities directly, it is about his effect on sales. He hurts Kellogg's, he doesn't hurt the rest. Therefore Kellogg's cuts ties and others don't. This "stand by him" crap is only PR spin. It is ALL ABOUT SALES at the end of the day. Period. End of story.
If Phelps had killed a hooker, but Kellogg's sales went up from the publicity of the case, they'd probably "stand by him" and keep him on the payroll. That's just business.
Reply
Yes, Kelloggs has a right to say that that's not the image they want, I have the right to say that that -is- the image I want - a person who shows that marijuana use and achievement aren't mutually exclusive, and that dropping the sponsorship simply because of that shows a short-sightedness and short-mindedness.
Phelps didn't intend to become a compelling argument for legalization, but simply because of who he is, he has. Kelloggs has said "We do not approve." I think it's a dick move, quite frankly, and that's why I'm boycotting.
You're right in saying that companies are only motivated by what will make them more sales. That's the -point- of this boycott. To lower sales, and let Kelloggs know they made the wrong choice.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment