Martyn Bradbury has succeeded in getting Pak'n'Save to pull their advertising from Whale Oil.
Well, that is their right, as Cam says. But the reaction from Whale Oil readers has been swift with many expressing their disapproval directly to Pak'n'Save.
Whale Oil is the best read blog in NZ by a country mile. Pak'n'Save are cutting off their noses etc.
WO has a million visits a month. I ask Cam to publish something to make the most of that readership. It does not mean I agree with or condone everything Cam writes. I'm sure that is no surprise to him.
The thing is Cam has built his readership on the back of controversy and attack. That doesn't mean Whale Oil can't be a force for good. And for Pac'n'Save that 'good' is reaching existing and potential customers.
They would do best to steer clear of political alignments. This morning I donated to a street collector for Samaritans because they don't meddle in politics. If it was the Salvation Army I'd have walked past.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
To true Lindsay. I shop at places run by the lefties, as they are entitled to their beliefs. I dont boycott them because of it. This response by Pak n Save to the odious, and I use the name with great care, Martyn Bradbury has annoyed me.
Foodstuffs will be losing about $30,000 of revenue from me now on. From what I can read on Whaleoil I think they are probably down over a $1 million now.
I agree also about the Salvos.
Strange how some people think that freedom of speech applies only to the things that they agree with. I think we need to keep repeating what free speech actually means and how necessary it always is.
WO uses blackhat techniques to fake views and gets most of its traffic from the media coverage of Slater's comments.
Sort of a fake it till you make it success.
I doubt very much that PnS will miss out on customers due to this. Whomever does their online adspend should learn to target URL's properly. What a waste they could have hired me instead.
I shop at places run by the lefties, as they are entitled to their beliefs.
Not really, no, they're not. They are absolutely not entitled to their beliefs when they cost me - or you - money. And in the strongest possible terms they are not entitled to your custom - and so they are not "entitled" to their beliefs if they expect any self-respecting Kiwi to give them business.
Would you buy petrol, say, from Shell if you knew they bought their oil from the "Islamic State"? I hope not - and that's nothing to do with your right to free speech (or their free speech either).
On of the mods at Whale said to could end up like East Germany vs West Germany. Well - remember who won that one and on what terms. East Germany was the price we had to pay for West Germany; Cannon's Creek is the price we have to pay for Khandallah; South Auckland is the price we have to pay for Remurea & Orewa.
And it is a price worth paying!
This election feels like '84 or '91 - an election that will determine the future of the country. Whoever wins, NZ will not be the same on Sept 21st as it is on the 20th.
think we need to keep repeating what free speech actually means
Free speech means precisely that you cannot be found criminally liable for speech that is not libellous, slanderous, inciting violence, sedition, or otherwise likely to cause harm ("shouting fire in a crowded theatre"). Free speech has absolutely nothing to do with supporting (or not supporting) business who in their turn support leftists or avowed terrorists.
Post a Comment