Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?

• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  Time puts the Pope on the cover as man of the year and there isn't nearly as much outrage. Catholic church rapes children and denounces gays but this guy expresses views from his faith and people are talking about boycotting A&E. Retarded.
• IggyPride00

  

  See above. If a militant coalition is tuning in, A&E's response is "welcome".

  Rush Limbaugh has a huge audience, but finding sponsors has been a nightmare because they head right to the top of the boycott list.
  
  The left has been incredibly successful at going after sponsors in situations like this through sustained campaigns.
  
  A&E only makes money through the selling of commercials, and if it becomes a political liability to companies to be seen as associated with or supporting "bigoted rednecks" A&E's cash cow dries up quick when sponsors bale.
  
  More eyeballs does A&E no good if they can't translate that into big time cash through commercial sales & sponsorships. Having the outrage brigade protesting you and trying to line up boycotts is absolutely something no company would pick as a business model. There will always be some companies that stay, but your blue chip ones get spooked quite easily if they become the targets of these boycott campaigns because they are seen as supporting bigots.
• queencitybuckeye

  IggyPride00;1555780 wrote:Rush Limbaugh has a huge audience, but finding sponsors has been a nightmare because they head right to the top of the boycott list.
  
  The left has been incredibly successful at going after sponsors in situations like this through sustained campaigns.
  
  A&E only makes money through the selling of commercials, and if it becomes a political liability to companies to be seen as associated with or supporting "bigoted rednecks" A&E's cash cow dries up quick when sponsors bale.
  
  More eyeballs does A&E no good if they can't translate that into big time cash through commercial sales & sponsorships. Having the outrage brigade protesting you and trying to line up boycotts is absolutely something no company would pick as a business model. There will always be some companies that stay, but your blue chip ones get spooked quite easily if they become the targets of these boycott campaigns because they are seen as supporting bigots.

  You're wrong, as in this case, the "outrage brigade" will be the bulk of the incremental viewers. The sponsors, not being idiots, will react to what they see, not what people are saying.
• WebFire

  SportsAndLady;1555646 wrote: Just because you believe in a religion doesn't mean you have to believe in everything that religion's 5,000 year old book says.

  So religion is simply picking the parts out that you want to agree with, and ignoring the rest. That seems about right.
• Heretic

  

  WebFire;1555788 wrote:So religion is simply picking the parts out that you want to agree with, and ignoring the rest. That seems about right.

  Well, considering the average Christian (or virtually all of them) don't follow Leviticus to the letter of the law, you'd be correct.
  
  As has been said before, sure, the stuff in there was essentially the laws of the time, but it's still in the Bible, so I'd think if people can ignore things about not suffering witches to live and not eating shellfish whenever, they can pick and choose other portions to follow or not, as well. I've already seen the "man's laws" rational for that stuff. So who's to say other parts aren't "man's laws", but only attributed to "God" in order to get people to follow them? After all, that has been the foundation of every religion throughout eternity. Man makes laws; man puts stamp of religion behind them; suddenly man-law is holy doctrine.
• SportsAndLady

  

  WebFire;1555788 wrote:So religion is simply picking the parts out that you want to agree with, and ignoring the rest. That seems about right.

  Uh, ya.
• gut

  IggyPride00;1555719 wrote:..that they have been so effective with against Limbaugh's.

  According to who, the left wing blogs? By what standards, the ones set by left wing blogs?
  
  Boycotts rarely work, if they do any damage at all. SOP is to pretend to care, issue an apology, and let them claim some sort of victory to move on to the next manufactured cause.
• queencitybuckeye

  gut;1555811 wrote:According to who, the left wing blogs? By what standards, the ones set by left wing blogs?
  
  Boycotts rarely work, if they do any damage at all. SOP is to pretend to care, issue an apology, and let them claim some sort of victory to move on to the next manufactured cause.

  I'd be willing to bet that if I tuned to Limbaugh's show (I won't, these kind of programs make me nuts), I would hear no dead air between segments, and the commercials would not be from Mabel's Flower Shop or Fred's Mostly Honest Auto Repair.
• gut

  queencitybuckeye;1555812 wrote:I'd be willing to bet that if I tuned to Limbaugh's show (I won't, these kind of programs make me nuts), I would hear no dead air between segments, and the commercials would not be from Mabel's Flower Shop or Fred's Mostly Honest Auto Repair.

  Yeah, sometimes I think sponsors "drop" a slot to get the free press and PR for doing so, and are back like literally the next week. I don't know that syndicated radio shows even have many "sponsors"
• queencitybuckeye

  gut;1555816 wrote:Yeah, sometimes I think sponsors "drop" a slot to get the free press and PR for doing so, and are back like literally the next week.

  or have wanted to drop it but feared the backlash from the wackadoodles.
• thavoice

  gut;1555816 wrote:Yeah, sometimes I think sponsors "drop" a slot to get the free press and PR for doing so, and are back like literally the next week. I don't know that syndicated radio shows even have many "sponsors"

  and possibly to save a little money in the process. About the same listeners tune in each day and hear the XYZ company hawking their goods. Company pulls their ads for awhile and they save some money and listeners dont even realize it.
• fish82

  

  dlazz;1555749 wrote:Rainbows exist. God doesn't

  Yet when trying to hide behind either, the results are the same.
• se-alum

  

  I think it would be hilarious if the Robertsons walked away from A&E. That would be a huge backfire for the company.
• OSH

  

  se-alum;1555827 wrote:I think it would be hilarious if the Robertsons walked away from A&E. That would be a huge backfire for the company.

  It'd be even better if A&E almost went under because of it.
• queencitybuckeye

  A&E is a joint venture between Disney-ABC and Hearst. Losing one's top program would hurt any network, but they aren't going out of business no matter what happens with this show.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Yeah, LOL @ thinking A&E could go under from losing one show lol
• pmoney25

  

  I love the sin is sin crowd. If that is true, how come I don't see people protesting Seafood restaurants for serving shellfish or barber shops for cutting your beard. How often do you hear opinions on people who wear clothes made of more than one fabric?
  
  Also I'm about to delete my facebook account if one more post on free speech comes up.
• queencitybuckeye

  pmoney25;1555835 wrote:I love the sin is sin crowd. If that is true, how come I don't see people protesting Seafood restaurants for serving shellfish or barber shops for cutting your beard. How often do you hear opinions on people who wear clothes made of more than one fabric?
  
  Also I'm about to delete my facebook account if one more post on free speech comes up.

  It's a sin that so many people don't know what and to whom the 1st amendment applies. This sin will probably lead to them fucking farm animals.
• Con_Alma

  se-alum;1555827 wrote:I think it would be hilarious if the Robertsons walked away from A&E. That would be a huge backfire for the company.

  
  It wouldn't necessairly be hilarious to me but I too would love it if they walked away. I would view it as an indication of the solid nature of their family loyalty and core convictions.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ""1st amendment doesn't protect assholes from criticism. The right to act like an asshole and be called an asshole's the same fucking right."
  
  - Sam Halpern"
  
  That includes assholes that are offended by might-be assholes. The former is the real asshole.
  
  How in the hell is anyone offended by what he said? Are you an eggshell? A *****?
• Heretic

  

  queencitybuckeye;1555837 wrote:It's a sin that so many people don't know what and to whom the 1st amendment applies. This sin will probably lead to them fucking farm animals.

  Or at least, it's pretty damn comedic. Reminds me of our political board: A lot of 10-cent minds thinking they know the answers to complicated issues when all they're really doing is spouting buzzwords with no real knowledge of what they mean.
• queencitybuckeye

  Manhattan Buckeye;1555840 wrote:
  
  How in the hell is anyone offended by what he said? Are you an eggshell? A *****?

  or by the reaction to it by the network? Seemingly would have to work both ways for the point to make sense.
• se-alum

  

  SportsAndLady;1555834 wrote:Yeah, LOL @ thinking A&E could go under from losing one show lol

  Who was thinking they could go under?
• Heretic

  

  se-alum;1555846 wrote:Who was thinking they could go under?

  OSH was hypothesizing the humor in the possibility, at least.
• queencitybuckeye

  se-alum;1555846 wrote:Who was thinking they could go under?

  OSH was saying it would be great if they "almost" went under. Not sure why that would be better than them actually going under, not that either is going to happen.
  
  Edit: Damn you Heretic for your clarity and brevity.