TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Kellogs Brand Blacklists Breitbart, Declares Hate for 45,000,000 Readers

karl271 · Guru

45,000,000 and dumping on these will not affect sales at all?? What is Kellogg thinking of? Obviously, not thinking. Just make the product and sell it; don't try to dictate how your customers think or vote, etc. Good heavens, they are in business, aren't they?

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

The Dem supporters and politicians have not learned a thing from the election. They are gone/dead.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Kellogg is a HUGE company.

Better get a full list.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lol! Let's see how that works out for them. Losers.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, it may not hurt them but it's a few less of my dollars.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I already stopped buying all that when I went non-GMO. Well, except Kashi. But I can buy Cascadian Farms instead.

Lindley · Guru

Dang I like special K.

WYSIWYG · Guru

This is going to hurt Kellogg's a whole lot more than it hurts Breitbart.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

WYSIWYG wrote:
This is going to hurt Kellogg's a whole lot more than it hurts Breitbart.

My take too. Businesses should stay off the political scene.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Why do they do that at all? I can understand artists and actors. They can't seem to help shooting off their mouths. But, why would a company want to make some issue and offend customers? I dont' get it.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Big conglomerates like Kellogg have their fingers in so many pies that there is no way a person boycott all of them.

I remember way back when people were trying to boycott Proctor and Gamble.

People were amazed at how many products they were a part of.

Tangerine · Guru

I'm confused. The Kellogg's statement was that the Breitbart company did not align with their values. They did not say anything about the people who read breitbart.
I think the news organization is the one escalating this.
Kellogg's is not boycotting breitbart. They are choosing to discontinue advertising with them. Why should they have to advertise anywhere they don't want to?

Tangerine · Guru

Choosing not to advertise equals "blacklisting"??

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

True.

Tangerine · Guru

It's bigoted not to pay for advertising now?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

No.

That they can choose where to advertise.

Ilumine · Regular

And this is why I am a libertarian. Seriously, the hypocrisy of both sides...

Tangerine · Guru

This reads like breitbart is very upset over the loss of advertising revenue and is choosing to start a ****storm with their readers in order to hurt the Kellogg's company financially.

That's disgusting. Especially from a purported news organization.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tangerine wrote:
It's bigoted not to pay for advertising now?

I think the problem is the political commenting that went with it. It's one thing to choose to end a relationship, another to say it's because "it doesn't align with our values" when it DOES align with the values of its readership.

Companies need to learn to make their decisions for business reasons and shut up about commenting on the values of people they don't agree with as if they are bad.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tangerine wrote:
This reads like breitbart is very upset over the loss of advertising revenue and is choosing to start a ****storm with their readers in order to hurt the Kellogg's company financially.

That's disgusting. Especially from a purported news organization.

Well, since Kellogg's is the one that decided to go public first with their comments, I think that's an unfair assessment.

FNW · Guru

Pringles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Tangerine · Guru

Perhaps they found out something unsavory about breitbart's board of directors.
Maybe they strongly disagree with something written on the site.

I agree that Kellogg's could have just ended their contract without comment, but it looks like breitbart contacted them for a reason and then published this article with a quote from "Kellogg's flak Kris Charles".

You must agree that this article was intended to be inflammatory?

Tangerine · Guru

I looked it up on a bunch of news sources. Kellogg's didn't announce this. They confirmed it when contacted.

This is a ****ty move by breitbart.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

So, Kellogg's did not say -

“We regularly work with our media-buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren’t aligned with our values as a company,” said Kellogg’s flak Kris Charles. “We recently reviewed the list of sites where our ads can be placed and decided to discontinue advertising on Breitbart.com. We are working to remove ads from that site.”

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

You know, every time someone is asked to actually show the "hate" articles Breitbart is printing, people can never come up with anything. They are basically being skewered for being conservative.

Tangerine · Guru

This is the quote from USA Today.
"We regularly work with our media buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren't aligned with our values as a company," Kellogg spokesperson Kris Charles in a statement. "This involves reviewing websites where ads could potentially be placed using filtering technology to assess site content. As you can imagine, there is a very large volume of websites, so occasionally something is inadvertently missed. In this case, we learned from consumers that ads were placed on Breitbart.com and decided to discontinue advertising there."

As you can see it has been presented in a different way in the article posted. Also they gave this statement when they were contacted by the person writing an article about advertisers withdrawing from breitbart, not just out the blue.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tangerine wrote:
This is the quote from USA Today.
"We regularly work with our media buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren't aligned with our values as a company," Kellogg spokesperson Kris Charles in a statement. "This involves reviewing websites where ads could potentially be placed using filtering technology to assess site content. As you can imagine, there is a very large volume of websites, so occasionally something is inadvertently missed. In this case, we learned from consumers that ads were placed on Breitbart.com and decided to discontinue advertising there."

As you can see it has been presented in a different way in the article posted. Also they gave this statement when they were contacted by the person writing an article about advertisers withdrawing from breitbart, not just out the blue.

That still says the same thing. And IN FACT, makes it a bigger issue, because they are not only removing direct advertising, but advertising bots as well - you know, the kind that follow you around the internet? Kelloggs has taken a big stand against Breitbart here based upon not agreeing with their VALUES, the same values shared by its readers.

And yeah, Breitbart has the right to publicize that someone actively is discontinuing business with them because of a political position.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Kelloggs has basically said it doesn't want to advertise to the people that read Breitbart. That is ME. So, if I'm not good enough to court and advertise to, if I'm such a horrible person, they don't need my business.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

You realize you are contributing to the mantra that liberal organizations can say and do whatever they want, but conservative organizations need to take the high road?

FNW · Guru

I have another reason not to buy from them now. Good for me.

Tangerine · Guru

I didn't think of that way. Kellogg's obviously hates people who read breitbart.

They clearly don't want their money and so no one who reads breitbart should give them any money.

Tangerine · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
You realize you are contributing to the mantra that liberal organizations can say and do whatever they want, but conservative organizations need to take the high road?

No mantra here. I just think that people and companies should be able to spend their money however they choose.

Lindley · Guru

As a wife of a business owner I would say Kelloggs has a right to choose who they pay to advertise their product. Now if they really did call their customers names I will definitely boycott their products. I thought the call for a boycott for chic fila and hobby lobby was ridiculous.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tangerine wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
You realize you are contributing to the mantra that liberal organizations can say and do whatever they want, but conservative organizations need to take the high road?
No mantra here. I just think that people and companies should be able to spend their money however they choose.

And they can do so without saying things like "they don't share our values" as if people who disagree with them are lesser and unimportant.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tangerine wrote:
I didn't think of that way. Kellogg's obviously hates people who read breitbart.

They clearly don't want their money and so no one who reads breitbart should give them any money.

The sarcasm is heavy here.

The scary thing is that they do obviously not care or consider the people who read Breitbart to be worthy of their advertising dollars. Therefore, the natural correlation is that people who read Breitbart should not consider Kellogg's worthy of their shopping dollars.

Although, I'm quite certain they would happily TAKE the money of the people they consider beneath them. Hypocrites.

Cheerios4606 · Guru

Must be nice to be able to choose who to do business with based on your personal convictions.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Cheerios4606 wrote:
Must be nice to be able to choose who to do business with based on your personal convictions.

biggrin

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

C'mon Cheerios, you know that it's only RELIGIOUS personal convictions that don't matter.

Cheerios4606 · Guru

Aw shucky darn.

Lindley · Guru

deleted

-- Edited by Lindley on Thursday 1st of December 2016 12:42:42 PM

-- Edited by Lindley on Thursday 1st of December 2016 01:27:41 PM

Cheerios4606 · Guru

Dont say that too loud Lindley. If the wrong person hears it, you would be sued.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And would lose. Only liberals get to deem others unworthy of doing business with.

And - good for you!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The thing is - I agree with the general principal that you don't have to buy things or spend advertising dollars from people you don't want to. But, then you have to deal with the consequences.

You don't have to do something, but neither do I. And same thing - if I, as an attorney, do something you don't like, why would you hire me?

This is no different. Kellogg's did and said what they did because they felt what Breitbart said and did was wrong and so they stopped doing business with them. Now, people who don't like what Kellogg's did and said means Kellogg's will face the exact same consequences.

Kellogg's said they did it because people complained.
Breitbart readers will do it because Breitbart complained.

In the current atmosphere of being perpetually offended, everyone is going to suffer.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Kellogg's can bite my ass.

I am getting more and more irritated by the left leaning business garbage.

Since I am so unimportant, then so is my money.

The list of places I can shop is getting narrower and narrower..

Cheerios4606 · Guru

I wish we could all go back to the almighty dollar being what drives the product instead of everyone's feelings.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

^ What she said.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I signed the petition. I mean they can choose to advertise or not, but they could have simply just quietly removed their ads and not renewed them without making some Statement . Soooo, if you do that, then i turn can my own "statement" about buying your products. Had they simply just not renewed their ads, nobody would have noticed or cared. But, everyone now feels entitled to shoot off their mouths so there are consequences for that.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Honestly, I don't care enough one way or another.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Yeah, i kinda don't really care either, lol. They can advertise or not with whomever they want. But, i do think twice when someone shoots off their mouth to slam the right. A few dollars spent less with them won't hurt them much but I like to be a bit purposeful about my spending.