NASCAR driver loses sponsor because of his dad's racist remark...from before he was born

[GOATER]

I understand why the sponsor doesn't want to associate with him.......People, the general public, would blame the son for it, thus the sponsor could suffer....The Sponsor is in it for the well being of the sponsor...so why would they want this negative attention that could fuck them over? It's safer to just sponsor someone else.....they can still get hate from the right wingers tho, but I guess they felt that's ok......I think they fucked up because right wingers are a bunch of hateful bunch, so I guess the sponsor is fucked either way.


The real culprit here is the media IMO and people who would get offended and blame the sponsor......The media is making a big deal out of this and people would harass this company like crazy.


Still, I wished the sponsor had balls to stand up from themselves.

 

[Ruprecht]

Yikes, that's no good. I mean, it's within the sponsor's business judgment to not want association with that....but damn.


Better yet, who the fuck would be at the cross section of watching NASCAR and caring about active racism, let alone racism from a family member 30 years ago? Like...can you imagine a NASCAR fan being offended by this?

Something tells me they wanted to sever the relationship and this was a subterfuge.

It's the new math. Social media responses aren't something you can just weather like a typical news cycle. I'd say their strategy of trying to avoid the controversy failed though because of the MSM reporting.

 

[helltoupee]

the underlying ambition to the idea of America itself is that an individual's life and circumstances shouldn't be dictated by his surname.

Except when it comes to the retention of generation

Always a few bandwagoners who buy are persuaded by racist notions.

Completely false. This has nothing to do with capitalism. There was no free market response. Furthermore, observing recent history, in these instances where the "collective voice" of the "commoner" (we aren't a feudal state with "nobility", btw) was used to oppress the voice and livelihood of the speaker, as with Brandon Eich, Donald Sterling, or Roseanne, the precise opposite effect had been observed. Profits were up, sales were up, users/attendance was up, and those "social media hysterics" were, indeed, limited to complainers who don't buy anything from the people they're criticizing, and certainly don't drive markets. There is defense of this couched in business strategy.

I know you guys are trying to understand these concepts about capitalism and the free market, in order to deploy them in service of your agenda, but you clearly don't comprehend their rudimentary mechanics. Perhaps you're simply ignorant to the reality you take for granted.

I'm trying to help you cure your racism by addressing your ignorance. Ignorance is a Petri dish for destructive forces like racism.

Those decisions have everything to do with long term perception and sustainability, and nothing to do with current levels of revenue. Regardless of whether or not the complainers buy the products/services offered, they influence public awareness, hence why business decisions are made accordingly. Consumers are fickle. Adjustments are made.

 

[Whippy McGee]

#woke

Strange thing is, we all came from about the same 40 to 1,000 couples if we want to roll this back to our ancestors. So we are basically all guilty! Welcome to mankind, check your outrage at the door.

 

[tehJameson]

Nascar is trash and those hillbillies are lucky to be paid for driving in circles, but why take sponsorship money for something he didn't do? lol, dumb as hell.

 

[Ripskater]

#woke

Strange thing is, we all came from about the same 40 to 1,000 couples if we want to roll this back to our ancestors. So we are basically all guilty! Welcome to mankind, check your outrage at the door.

Like

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Like father, like son.

 

[n...not crazy]

This would be better if the driver was half black, but oh well.

 

[Madmick]

You're going off the deep end, duder. We've had this discussion plenty of times, if the perceived value lost is more than the perceived value gained, a private enterprise will cut ties.

You can keep trying to attach this to some sort of moral imperative (because i'm sure you have some convoluted reason in your head why your concerns are valid, but broad regulatory action on private enterprise is bad), but i'm really not in the mood to hash this out for the umpteenth time so Mick can be obtuse and thump his chest when he inevitably fails to address my posts in good faith.

I evaluated you, and you're dismissed. Maybe next time. ✌

Yet "perceived value" is inferior to earned value.

You're not in the mood to "hash this out" because you get thrashed every time we do. I'm not the one who is "going" off the deep end. You're the one who has drowned in it. Return to the living.