• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Can anyone name a company or network that took a financial hit by hiring a personality or publishing media that wasn't PC?

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell
Tomorrow, comedian Andrew Schulz's special airs on his website. For those who've never heard of him, you can find a lot of his stuff on Youtube. I think he's one of the best comedians going right now. He's absolutely hilarious. He does a lot of crowd work at his shows, and you have to be super quick witted to do that stuff. He's extremely sharp, and he always finds something current to put in his shows.

Anyway, he had an exclusive deal with a streamer service(he is refusing to name them, but it's been reported it was Amazon). He put together his new special and they told him they refuse to air it unless he cuts out several jokes because they were afraid of the backlash. He said he's not cutting out the jokes, so he ended up buying his special back from the service. He didn't give an exact number, but he stated on a podcast it was for over a million dollars, and cost a major chunk of his life savings to buy it back.

So, I was curious. These fears by companies or networks to hire politically incorrect people or put out politically incorrect or "controversial" media never seem to actually cost them money. It's usually the opposite--when a company fires someone because they said something a tiny % of people found offensive that the real backlash happens. But, as always, I like to be fact driven, so I want to know if anyone can name a company that hired a personality who carried a label of not being PC or a company who released some form of media that people considered not PC, and took a major financial hit. Off the top of my head I can't name one. I think the fears by these companies are not driven by an actual precedent.

Anyway, if anyone wants to support Andrew or are a fan, you can order the special on his website. I hope it has a lot of success and he makes back all the money he lost in doing this and then some.
 
Last edited:

DragoonKain

Neighbours from Hell
It does cost them money. There are investment groups out there that have a legitimate "social messaging" score and they will stop investing if a company doesn't meet it.
Can you name any in particular that stopped investing? I don't think it happened with Netflix with Chappelle. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is are you bringing in more revenue than you're losing and I don't think a company has ever lost more than they gained. Netflix didn't lose anything by sticking by Chappelle. Spotify gained when hiring Rogan.

Anything "lost" by sticking by these personalities is always made up by whatever new fans or revenue they bring in, and making them more appealing overall as a platform.
 

Lady Jane

Banned
Can you name any in particular that stopped investing? I don't think it happened with Netflix with Chappelle. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is are you bringing in more revenue than you're losing and I don't think a company has ever lost more than they gained. Netflix didn't lose anything by sticking by Chappelle. Spotify gained when hiring Rogan.

Anything "lost" by sticking by these personalities is always made up by whatever new fans or revenue they bring in, and making them more appealing overall as a platform.

There's an investment group out there called "Black Horse" or something like that. They even has an acronym for the score. And they may be losing money but the people that were put in charge are so obsessed with bending the world that they're willing to fall on their sword to get it done. You're putting sense where there is none.
 

nush

Member
Dave Chappelle and Rickey Gervais make more than enough money to counteract the backlash.
 

Mistake

Member
I have heard stories of advertisers deciding cut their business for one reason or another. That’s what happened when cancel culture was really ramping up in the beginning, and they got harassed. Still happens to some youtubers. But for a major company? I’m not too sure either
 
Last edited:

DeafTourette

Older than air but younger than the foundations of the earth
Only thing I can think of is when O'Reilly got the boot because all of the advertisers jumped ship when all the allegations came out (which had some teeth because he was settling A LOT of lawsuits through Fox News with female ex-employees).
 

Grildon Tundy

Gold Member
There's an investment group out there called "Black Horse" or something like that. They even has an acronym for the score. And they may be losing money but the people that were put in charge are so obsessed with bending the world that they're willing to fall on their sword to get it done. You're putting sense where there is none.
This is fascinating. Anyone have the name of this company or their social score acronym? I'd love to see how they define and quantify their metrics.

EDIT: I think this article is talking about it. Someone please let me know if I should completely disregard this source. I'm not familiar with them.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/2...ystems-force-corporate-america-to-lurch-left/
 
Last edited:

Smiggs

Member
This is fascinating. Anyone have the name of this company or their social score acronym? I'd love to see how they define and quantify their metrics.

EDIT: I think this article is talking about it. Someone please let me know if I should completely disregard this source. I'm not familiar with them.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/2...ystems-force-corporate-america-to-lurch-left/
Just do a google search on your source, there. Trusting what they publish would be like believing what a "blue hair" rag would report. You don't get news from partisan entities, you get propaganda.
 

AJUMP23

Gold Member
The Oscars Hired then Fired Kevin Hart. Which is dumb. I think they hurt themselves by being blown by the mob.
 

Smiggs

Member
How about BlackRock's own website?

I have no issue with the companies site itself. However, the issue is the article that was linked originally makes some ... leaps in logic on what their ESG policies actually mean. That's the issue with biased sources; they'll take real information or events, then spin it around with presumptuous narratives or straight up fake stories, and pretend its real. The stated in the article the CEO was a supporter of a "new movement", but any quick reading I've done regarding the CEO shows nothing definitive regarding that--not saying he doesn't, just that I can't find anything that says he does.

Unfortunately we can't get too deep into this without it getting political.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I dunno, Netflix keeps standing behind controversial comedians and they are in trouble.

I'm kidding, you can't really equate the 2.. but you know if they had cancelled Dave Chappelle or something certain people would be shouting "Get woke go broke".. in fact, they already are about Netflix.. while completely ignoring that Netflix pays for and promotes anti-woke productions lol

In the end "companies" don't always do things directly for the bottom line.. they are just a group of people and sometimes that group of people just doesn't want to associate w/ something.
 

*Nightwing

Member
Chapelle, Gervais, Kevin Hart, Sarah Silverman, Louis CK… outside of comedy Mel Gibson, Gina Carano, Chris Pratt..

They all end up making money for backing the supposed pariahs not losing it
 
Top Bottom