Slim-Fast Cans Whoopi Goldberg Over Lewd Remarks about Bush

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pepsei
Funny, Slim-Fast is saying that most of their fat customers are Republicans, so they have to fire Whoopi.

Your logic is lacking. They are correctly assuming that 50% of their client base is republican and/or just disgusted with what she said.

You don't run a successful business by alienating half your customer base.

Or perhaps they are playing favorites, thinking by firing her, the other 50% fat liberals won't care.

edit: seriously , she's fat, that is a good reason to fire her and hire something thin like Mary Kay olsen.

Part of Slim Fast's success has been hiring recognizable spokespersons that have actually lost signifigant amounts of weight. Believe it or not, many fat people are bright enough to recognize models who have never struggled with obesity.

Whoopi never seemed obese but it also seemed that Slimfast wasn't working for her either. Of course as fitness buff yourself Amused you know that product is crap. Hell I wouldn't doubt if thise was some marketing ploy to boost sales so Fat Assed Repiblicans who would use it just to show their support for the Dub. They can use it along with the Freedom Fries and their "W" Ketchup LOL

 

[maziwanka]

i hate titles that make me read the thread in order to understand them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pepsei
Funny, Slim-Fast is saying that most of their fat customers are Republicans, so they have to fire Whoopi.

Your logic is lacking. They are correctly assuming that 50% of their client base is republican and/or just disgusted with what she said.

You don't run a successful business by alienating half your customer base.

Or perhaps they are playing favorites, thinking by firing her, the other 50% fat liberals won't care.

edit: seriously , she's fat, that is a good reason to fire her and hire something thin like Mary Kay olsen.

Part of Slim Fast's success has been hiring recognizable spokespersons that have actually lost signifigant amounts of weight. Believe it or not, many fat people are bright enough to recognize models who have never struggled with obesity.

Whoopi never seemed obese but it also seemed that Slimfast wasn't working for her either. Of course as fitness buff yourself Amused you know that product is crap. Hell I wouldn't doubt if thise was some marketing ploy to boost sales so Fat Assed Repiblicans who would use it just to show their support for the Dub. They can use it along with the Freedom Fries and their "W" Ketchup LOL

Whoopi had gained, then lost a considerable amount of weight.

And yes, I know that Slim Fast is crap. So are almost all weight loss plans/products. That's not the point, though.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused
[
Whoopi had gained, then lost a considerable amount of weight.

How can you tell? SHe looked the same to me!

And yes, I know that Slim Fast is crap. So are almost all weight loss plans/products. That's not the point, though.

Yeah the point is that companies are knee jerk reactionaries. I seriously doubt that Slimfast would have lost customers. However I di think they may gain some by their action.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
[
Whoopi had gained, then lost a considerable amount of weight.

How can you tell? SHe looked the same to me!

And yes, I know that Slim Fast is crap. So are almost all weight loss plans/products. That's not the point, though.

Yeah the point is that companies are knee jerk reactionaries. I seriously doubt that Slimfast would have lost customers. However I di think they may gain some by their action.

You'd be surprised over how damaging bad PR surrounding a spokesperson can be.

BTW, I think for any fair compairson, we should compare Whoopi's case to Anita Bryant's case (google the name). Not Rush Limbagh.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Were they more lewd than Dick Cheney's remarks on the floor of the Senate?

WTF does that have to do with a private business.

Just asking. If it's acceptable for the VP to drop F-bombs on the Senate floor, why does SlimFast think that Woopie saying what she said would be offensive to customers?

If Cheney was doing ads for a private company and they decided to fire him as a spokesperson due to his comments, I would completely support the company's right to make that decision.

Many people were offended by his comments, but their offense doesn't influence their decision to buy any particular products because he doesn't advertise any products.

It has nothing to do with whether her comments were acceptable or offensive. All that matters is that a private company has the right to decide who they want their product to be associated with. It's not even about politics. There are plenty of celebs who have taken political stands and continued to have product endorsements. It was the way in which she made the comments that led slimfast to decide that was not the image they wanted to be associated with.

If Tiger Woods was giving a speech and made lewd comments about his genitals, would you blame Nike if they decided to end their relationship with him?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Were they more lewd than Dick Cheney's remarks on the floor of the Senate?

WTF does that have to do with a private business.

Just asking. If it's acceptable for the VP to drop F-bombs on the Senate floor, why does SlimFast think that Woopie saying what she said would be offensive to customers?

Because SlimFast hired Whoopi, not Cheney?

You have no point other than the "well he did it too, why isn't he in trouble" defense. It didn't work in school, and hopfully your parents beat it out of you as well. So why try it here?

Well, WTF does politics have to do with losing weight?
I am guessing there is an organized tiny minority of so called "customers" bombarding them with complains, and they are overreacting thinking that it's a representative sample of their customers. It's a paranoid and irrational reaction, similar to the blacklisting of McCarthy era.

It has nothing to do with McCarthyism. ALL companies have clauses in their spokesperson contracts that forbid the spokespeople from doing things that potentially cause harm to the company.

And that's what McCarthyism blacklisting was. People getting fired out of fear that their political affiliations could potentially cause harm to the movie companies.

No, McCarthyism was government sponsered, and government ran.

Studios did so not out of fear of public reprisals, but out of fear of the House UnAmerican Committee.

Were people fired by private companies (studios) out of fear that their political affiliations could potentially cause harm to the movie companies, or not?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Were they more lewd than Dick Cheney's remarks on the floor of the Senate?

WTF does that have to do with a private business.

Just asking. If it's acceptable for the VP to drop F-bombs on the Senate floor, why does SlimFast think that Woopie saying what she said would be offensive to customers?

If Cheney was doing ads for a private company and they decided to fire him as a spokesperson due to his comments, I would completely support the company's right to make that decision.

Many people were offended by his comments, but their offense doesn't influence their decision to buy any particular products because he doesn't advertise any products.

It has nothing to do with whether her comments were acceptable or offensive. All that matters is that a private company has the right to decide who they want their product to be associated with. It's not even about politics. There are plenty of celebs who have taken political stands and continued to have product endorsements. It was the way in which she made the comments that led slimfast to decide that was not the image they wanted to be associated with.

If Tiger Woods was giving a speech and made lewd comments about his genitals, would you blame Nike if they decided to end their relationship with him?

Come on, you really don't think this was another rightwing astroturf campaign to bombard the company with complains? Do you think those complains were motivated by anything other than politics?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool
And that's what McCarthyism blacklisting was. People getting fired out of fear that their political affiliations could potentially cause harm to the movie companies.

No, McCarthyism was government sponsered, and government ran.

Studios did so not out of fear of public reprisals, but out of fear of the House UnAmerican Committee.

Were people fired by private companies (studios) out of fear that their political affiliations could potentially cause harm to the movie companies, or not?

Are you talking about now, or in the 1950's?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Were they more lewd than Dick Cheney's remarks on the floor of the Senate?

WTF does that have to do with a private business.

Just asking. If it's acceptable for the VP to drop F-bombs on the Senate floor, why does SlimFast think that Woopie saying what she said would be offensive to customers?

Because SlimFast hired Whoopi, not Cheney?

You have no point other than the "well he did it too, why isn't he in trouble" defense. It didn't work in school, and hopfully your parents beat it out of you as well. So why try it here?

Well, WTF does politics have to do with losing weight?
I am guessing there is an organized tiny minority of so called "customers" bombarding them with complains, and they are overreacting thinking that it's a representative sample of their customers. It's a paranoid and irrational reaction, similar to the blacklisting of McCarthy era.

It has nothing to do with McCarthyism. ALL companies have clauses in their spokesperson contracts that forbid the spokespeople from doing things that potentially cause harm to the company.

And that's what McCarthyism blacklisting was. People getting fired out of fear that their political affiliations could potentially cause harm to the movie companies.

No, McCarthyism was government sponsered, and government ran.

Studios did so not out of fear of public reprisals, but out of fear of the House UnAmerican Committee.

Were people fired by private companies (studios) out of fear that their political affiliations could potentially cause harm to the movie companies, or not?

They were fired because the House UnAmerican committee would come down on them like a ton of bricks. No matter how you try to spin it, McCarthyism was evil because it was government sponsered, NOT because consumers voted with their pocketbooks and companies listened.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Were they more lewd than Dick Cheney's remarks on the floor of the Senate?

WTF does that have to do with a private business.

Just asking. If it's acceptable for the VP to drop F-bombs on the Senate floor, why does SlimFast think that Woopie saying what she said would be offensive to customers?

If Cheney was doing ads for a private company and they decided to fire him as a spokesperson due to his comments, I would completely support the company's right to make that decision.

Many people were offended by his comments, but their offense doesn't influence their decision to buy any particular products because he doesn't advertise any products.

It has nothing to do with whether her comments were acceptable or offensive. All that matters is that a private company has the right to decide who they want their product to be associated with. It's not even about politics. There are plenty of celebs who have taken political stands and continued to have product endorsements. It was the way in which she made the comments that led slimfast to decide that was not the image they wanted to be associated with.

If Tiger Woods was giving a speech and made lewd comments about his genitals, would you blame Nike if they decided to end their relationship with him?

Come on, you really don't think this was another rightwing astroturf campaign to bombard the company with complains? Do you think those complains were motivated by anything other than politics?

Anita Bryant.

People have every right to organize and protest any damn thing they want. Liberals will be the first to tell you this... that is, until the person being protested is being protested for holding an opinion they agree with.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish

Originally posted by: dc
that's sure classy.

Them firing her or her exercising her right to free speech?

Slim Fast is a business. When she starts to hurt their business by exercising her First Amendment rights, they have every right to cease doing business with her.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Were they more lewd than Dick Cheney's remarks on the floor of the Senate?

WTF does that have to do with a private business.

Just asking. If it's acceptable for the VP to drop F-bombs on the Senate floor, why does SlimFast think that Woopie saying what she said would be offensive to customers?

Way to avoid the question. :roll:

The VP's behavior was questionable at best, and Slim Fast was justified.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Were they more lewd than Dick Cheney's remarks on the floor of the Senate?

WTF does that have to do with a private business.

Just asking. If it's acceptable for the VP to drop F-bombs on the Senate floor, why does SlimFast think that Woopie saying what she said would be offensive to customers?

If Cheney was doing ads for a private company and they decided to fire him as a spokesperson due to his comments, I would completely support the company's right to make that decision.

Many people were offended by his comments, but their offense doesn't influence their decision to buy any particular products because he doesn't advertise any products.

It has nothing to do with whether her comments were acceptable or offensive. All that matters is that a private company has the right to decide who they want their product to be associated with. It's not even about politics. There are plenty of celebs who have taken political stands and continued to have product endorsements. It was the way in which she made the comments that led slimfast to decide that was not the image they wanted to be associated with.

If Tiger Woods was giving a speech and made lewd comments about his genitals, would you blame Nike if they decided to end their relationship with him?

Come on, you really don't think this was another rightwing astroturf campaign to bombard the company with complains? Do you think those complains were motivated by anything other than politics?

Anita Bryant.

People have every right to organize and protest any damn thing they want. Liberals will be the first to tell you this... that is, until the person being protested is being protested for holding an opinion they agree with.

They sure do have the right. But Slim-Fast was stupid to fire Whoopie, that's all. Just because you have a right doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Who are their customers? I was under impression it was young professional women, who lean left. So why would they want to pander to a vocal group of whiners from the right, most of whom are probably not even customers. They are going to alienate more custmorers than they would have had they let it slide.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pepsei
It is interesting comparing this with ESPN letting Rush go for his "free speech", granted there are some differences. but many people who were defending Rush are now cheering Slim-Fast, and vice versa.

It is not hard to see that this a politically motivated firing. However, I stand by ESPN and Slim-Fast decision to do what's best for their company and Whoopi Goldberg can still practice her free speech, she doesn't need the money.

I think a closer comparison could be made with John Rocker. What Rush said was on the job.

Or Fuzzy Zoeller... another great example. It really does not matter if the statements were made in the course and scope of employment. What matters is that the statements were made in a public arena - where the Slim-Fast buying public could hear her crude remarks.

Sometimes there is a price to be paid for exercising your rights. The Constitution does not protect you from economic fallout for unpopular speech.

Rush, Whoopi, and Fuzzy all said the stupid things they said knowingly in public.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Were they more lewd than Dick Cheney's remarks on the floor of the Senate?

WTF does that have to do with a private business.

Just asking. If it's acceptable for the VP to drop F-bombs on the Senate floor, why does SlimFast think that Woopie saying what she said would be offensive to customers?

If Cheney was doing ads for a private company and they decided to fire him as a spokesperson due to his comments, I would completely support the company's right to make that decision.

Many people were offended by his comments, but their offense doesn't influence their decision to buy any particular products because he doesn't advertise any products.

It has nothing to do with whether her comments were acceptable or offensive. All that matters is that a private company has the right to decide who they want their product to be associated with. It's not even about politics. There are plenty of celebs who have taken political stands and continued to have product endorsements. It was the way in which she made the comments that led slimfast to decide that was not the image they wanted to be associated with.

If Tiger Woods was giving a speech and made lewd comments about his genitals, would you blame Nike if they decided to end their relationship with him?

Come on, you really don't think this was another rightwing astroturf campaign to bombard the company with complains? Do you think those complains were motivated by anything other than politics?

Anita Bryant.

People have every right to organize and protest any damn thing they want. Liberals will be the first to tell you this... that is, until the person being protested is being protested for holding an opinion they agree with.

They sure do have the right. But Slim-Fast was stupid to fire Whoopie, that's all. Just because you have a right doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Who are their customers? I was under impression it was young professional women, who lean left. So why would they want to pander to a vocal group of whiners from the right, most of whom are probably not even customers. They are going to alienate more custmorers than they would have had they let it slide.

I think that decision is best left up to Slim-Fast's marketing gurus. I believe they know a hell of a lot better than you how her actions would affect them.

Meanwhile, what about Anita Bryant? John Rocker?

 

[waggy]

Im just shocked that people are haveing problems with this.

It is NOT a free speech issue. It is a business issue.

She said something that could hurt the image of slim fast. Slim fast did NOT want the image tarnished. Slim fast fired her.

seems clear enough for me.

she still has the right to say what she wants. She does NOT have the right to work for slim fast.

 

[SuperTool]

What did she say that could hurt the image of Slim Fast? I don't see where Slim-Fast came up in her statements.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What did she say that could hurt the image of Slim Fast? I don't see where Slim-Fast came up in her statements.

wow. you really fit your nick you know that?

 

[Freejack2]

Well I'll be sure to recommend people don't use Slime-Fast products. :|

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Freejack2
Well I'll be sure to recommend people don't use Slime-Fast products. :|

For what? She had every right to say what she said. On the flip side, Slim-Fast had every right to exercise their rights to can her for what she said. Slim-Fast felt her derogatory comments would hurt their business, so they dumped her as their spokesman. It's just that simple.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: slycat
floridians :roll:

???

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
What did she say that could hurt the image of Slim Fast? I don't see where Slim-Fast came up in her statements.

Anita Bryant never said anything bad about Florida Orange Juice, but she got canned for her divisive political comments.