Shame-Fast
Recently, Slim-Fast terminated its contract with Whoopi Goldberg due to some remarks she made at a non-Slim-Fast-related event, a Kerry/Edwards fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall. This annoyed me enough that I went to the Slim-Fast website and submitted some feedback informing them that their response to her remaks bothered me. Much to my surprise, I actually got a personal response a couple days later. The relevant paragraph is as follows:
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.
I completely disagree. A decision like the one Slim-Fast made in this situation implies that there is no separation between Ms. Goldberg’s work and personal life. It implies that for the duration of her contract with Slim-Fast, every second of every day of her life should be devoted to the company. It furthermore implies that Ms. Goldberg, or someone like her, cannot be free to speak as she chooses at a non-work-related event without fearing for the safety of her livelihood. If one has to be perpetually in fear that a random comment made at any time could ruin one’s life, how can our speech be truly free?
Shame on you, Slim-Fast, for this stupid and cowardly act. All that was needed was a simple public disclaimer. People are smart enough to know that when Ms. Goldberg isn’t standing behind a glaring Slim-Fast logo, she’s not speaking for Slim-Fast.
9 Comments
Comments are closed.
Damn straight!
The problem with this is not necessarily that Slim Fast can’t tell the difference between Whoopi Goldberg’s private and public life, it’s that actions have consequences. She made the choice to perform at the Kerry fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall, and say a lot of off-color and, I’m guessing, nasty things. That’s her right. No one’s taking that away from her. But Slim Fast, likewise, has the right to decide with whom they want to do business. And they decided, based on her actions and the effects of her actions on their consumer base, that Goldeberg was really not the right choice to represent their product. If, say, ten million people (I’m making up a number here) wrote Slim Fast and said, “I really disagree with the way that Whoopi Goldberg demeans my President, and I will not buy your product again until she is no longer your spokesperson,” does Slim Fast have no responsibility to them? Do their concerns carry no weight? I’ve got news for you–since the money they pay for Slim Fast products pays the salaries of the people at the company–and Goldberg’s–there’s a huge responsibility to them, and the Slim Fast people met it.
The thing to remember is that freedom of speech, like every other freedom, comes with responsibility. If Whoopi Goldberg believes that she has the right to get paid by a major nationwide country for hawking their product and then go and insult ten ways from Sunday a man that, judging by the 2000 election and most polls, half those people voted for, isn’t she letting down on her responsibility to Slim Fast? Isn’t she, by treating the President of the United States as though he’s stupid and meaningless saying that people who like him and care about him are the same? And can you really not understand why people would get upset about that?
This is what bothers me so much about so many people on the left–you think you should be allowed to say whatever you want, but no one else should be allowed to get upset about it. Well, I’ve got news for you: The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but it doesn’t guarantee that anyone has to listen. That’s what you forget, though–that words mean things. The things you say HAVE consequences and have meaning that a lot of people might not like. Whoopi Goldberg made the choice to disrespect the President of the United States, and in doing so angered a lot of people. Those people exercised their freedom of speech by telling Slim Fast they no longer had interest in their products. And Slim Fast exercised their freedom of speech by letting go of the person that was causing them to lose business, someone they hired to increase their business.
The epilogue to this story is that never once did the government get involved, because that’s what the first amendment is really about. All of this was handled without the help of the government, and whether or not you like the result, you live in a country where people can say terrible, hateful things about the leader and get away with it. You live in a country where people are allowed to express their displeasure with people who say terrible, hateful things about the leader, and where companies are able to take the first person to task for it, all peacefully, all legally, and all humanely. How many countries are there on Earth in which that can’t happen? This is a great country, precisely because we can handle all of this like we have, without resorting to killing people who disagree with us, which is something (for example) Saddam Hussein did routinely. If you don’t like the outcome, I’m sorry, but freedom was exercised here on all sides. If you want to allow Goldberg her freedom of speech, you have to allow others theirs. Otherwise, it’s all meaningless.
Matthew,
That’s nice. However, it has very little to do with my point. Slim-Fast claimed their termination of her contract did not impact her freedom of speech; I say it did.
You’ve used this tactic in our past discussions, claiming that when I say “X is bad” it means “X shouldn’t be allowed.” That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m glad Slim-Fast has the right to do what they did, and I won’t deny the Slim-Fast company that right. I’m saying it’s shameful of them to have taken that action, and that by doing so they help foster a culture of fear and censorship that is not conducive to free speech.
This action does indeed impact freedom of speech in general, sorry Matthew. It’s saying “If you dare exersize your right, there will be consequences if someone happens to disagree with your political views.”
Whoopi is not stupid, and if she is, then I am sure she has at least one lawyer who is not. I am sure she never agreed to anything in her contract limiting which political views she could express because to have a clause like that in a contract would be illegal. The proof that she never signed, nor agreed to any such thing? Because
of this, we decided to conclude the current advertising campaign. Not “Found her in breech of contract, and therefor dismissed her.” Most contracts in that line of work read something along the lines of “We can fire you if you are in breech of this contract, and your employment with us is ended when the campaign comes to its conclusion.”
Meaning, they had to “end” her campaign before its softly-predesignated time in an attempt to avoid legal action. If they feel so strongly about what she did and it’s impact on her work as a spokesperson they would have simply held her in breech of contract and made their case in court as to how exactly they had the right to fire her. But they didn’t have the right to fire her based on her performance, so they had to exersize a loophole.
I totally wish I was a slim fast consumer so I could boycott their product. I guess Ill just have to be content with my Ben and Jerry’s burning pants effigy.
Yay Big Bidniss. A government unto itself, running a gauntlet through the loopholes in the American legal system to avoid having to do the right thing, which of course, would impact the profit margin.
I’m a proponent of free speech to the death, but I don’t think SlimFast has done anything wrong here. They did what any company would be expected to do: protect its public image. They haven’t in any way limited her ability to speak, only her employment.
However, I also support your efforts to tell them that you don’t agree with they’ve done. That’s how free markets work. These companies market to consumers, so they’re at the mercy of consumers like you.
They think that keeping Whoopi is going to be bad for their image. If enough people like you complain about dumping her, you’ve showed them that not supporting their spokespeople when they express their political views is even worse for their business. Sure, this reeks of a tyranny of the majority, but it’s business, not politics.
As far as I see it, this is everything working like it should. They have the right to hire and fire, and you have the right to be outraged about it and to try to convince them to do otherwise. The problem is that far too few people are as motived as you are to tell companies what they think of their business practices.
To those people who say SlimFast shouldn’t have the right to do this, what recourse would they have if a spokesperson suddenly showed up at a KKK rally to express their political views? I shudder to think of a world where SlimFast is forced to keep a vocal racist as their spokesperson.
Ryan,
I’m afraid I have to respectfully disagree with you. There was a contract between Whoopi and Slim Fast. Most endorsement contracts contain an out clause for the company for extreme cases (I bet OJ Simpson lost a ton of endorsement contracts after that fiasco). Why? Because the whole concept of a celebrity endorsement is premised on the image of the endorser, on the CREDIBILITY of the endorser, on his/her power to convince people to buy the product.
Whoopi has freedom of speech. But Slim Fast has freedom of association. They shouldn’t be forced to associate with someone they don’t want to. If it’s in the contract, then it was part of the deal Whoopi consented to in the first place.
Most corporations don’t like their endorsers to be controversial. Is it fair? Perhaps not. But if you sign a contract with them, you know that going in. You make a deal. You sacrifice some of your freedom of speech in exchange for a big paycheck. If that bargain is unacceptable to you, don’t sign the contract.
Frankly, when you sign an endorsement contract, you are voluntarily accepting to blur some of the line between private and public. Because the endorsement is based on the public image of the person. Hanes didn’t sign Michael Jordan the husband or Michael Jordan the son. They signed Michael Jordan the famous (famous means public) basketball star. While this line between public and private is not totally erased, it is not as clear cut as for us non-celebrities simply because non-celebrities are not being paid handsomely to blur that line.
In short, Whoopi’s freedom of speech was limited. But she voluntarily accepted to limit it when she voluntarily signed the contract. Just like soldiers voluntarily cede some of their free speech rights when they join the military.
By all means, tell Slim Fast they are stupid and that you will never buy their products again unless they re-hire Whoopi. That’s how campaigns are supposed to work. Enlightened self-interest.
I’m certainly as suspcious of big corporations as you. But saying they aren’t right to do so is different than saying that they don’t have the right to do so.
B
Hmm. When I posted this I wasn’t thinking of the difference between a spokesperson and a regular employee of a company. If my employer fired me because of some political views I posted on this blog, for instance, that’s wrongful termination and is limiting my free speech. I’m not supposed to be the one presenting the company’s public face, so it’s entirely wrong of them to fire me for that. But when someone, like Ms. Goldberg, is hired to be the voice of the Slim-Fast company, her actions even in non-work settings do have an effect on the public’s perception of the company.
I suppose I wished that people could understand the difference between Ms. Goldberg’s statements as an individual and as a Slim-Fast spokesperson and not let them colour their opinions of the company, but on further consideration I realize that’s unreasonable. As Kris pointed out, if a company’s spokesperson turned out to be a KKK supporter, it would be hard for anyone not to associate that with the company and not just the person.
My apologies to Slim-Fast. I was mistaken.
Considering Goldberg’s background there is a very slim chance that she signed anything that would limit her political actions, and my opinion is further supported by the method in which she was terminated. I still believe that this was not ethical on the part of Slim Fast, and if they had intended to do the right thing they would do what other companies do when their spokespeople suddenly don’t give them the image they want. Shoot the footage and never release it. This seems, to me, to be a message to the media icons opposing Bush. *shrug* Slim Fast still gets no apologies from me.
Aimee, saying they deserve criticism is an entirely different thing than saying what they did was an illegal restriction of free speech. Most endorsement contracts have a provision that the company can voluntarily terminate for any reason, arbitrary or not. That’s part of the deal in exchange for big $$$.