Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My Reply From Slim Fast

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
mourningdove92 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:02 PM
Original message
My Reply From Slim Fast
July 21, 2004


Thank you for contacting us to share your comments about our relationship with Ms. Goldberg.
We do read all e-mails and take them seriously. We also appreciate the opportunity to clarify our
position.

Ms. Goldberg's remarks created a great deal of negative media and consumer attention and this
affected Ms. Goldberg's ability to positively communicate our message of weight loss. Because
of this, we decided to conclude the current advertising campaign. Slim Fast believes its decision
in no way impacts Ms. Goldberg's freedom of speech, now or in the future.

Thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns.

Kathi Eckler
Consumer Support



Oh no, this does not affect free speech at all. Speak your mind, get fired....no, no impact at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Corporate Speak for Go Fuck Yourself
Edited on Sun Jul-25-04 12:05 PM by otohara
we don't care what you think
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Goldberg's ability to communicate message of weightloss
...was significantly impaired before all this by her evident lack of, well, weight loss. I saw those adds and wondered wtf they were thinking in hiring her for that gig anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. I have no problem with a business distancing itself from someone
controversial. If I was trying to sell a nice, family-friendly product to a general-public audience, I probably wouldn't choose a controversial celebrity to be its spokesperson. I'd choose someone popular but bland.

HOWEVER: Slim-Fast knew Whoopi before they hired her. It's not like anything she said was out of character for her. My question -- they knew her political leanings; they knew she had a potty mouth. Why did they hire her in the first place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elfwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Exactly!
It's not like they thought they hired Kelly Rippa and all the sudden they got Whoopi Gold berg. Whoopi didn't go trashy, Whoopi went Whoopi.

It would be like hiring Robin Williams and then being surprised that he got all crazy on stage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. They didn't respond to mine
Of course, I wasn't exactly diplomatic.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. That's their right
There's no reason Whoopi should get to exercise her free speech while the makers of Slim Fast are told they can't. And Slim Fast is there to make money, not to support America, freedom, or truth. If Whoopi's statements make some fat Republicans switch to another weight-loss ripoff, then the makers of Slim Fast are completely justified in firing Whoopi so they can continue to scam money from Republicans.

Of course, we should still give them a hard time about it. That's the American way, and all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. The problem overall here
is that we've given corporations rights in the first place. Corporations should have NO rights; they should only have priveleges- which the people of the state in which they are incorporated may revoke at will.

The very idea of the corporation has no place in a representative democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AwareOne Donating Member (319 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. I got the same exact chain letter response
I was very civil in my first letter to them. After hearing their corporate speak response, I was not so civil in my follow up. Just exercising my free speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
luaneryder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Got mine a couple of days ago from Unilever
Same wording, different signatory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC