The network pulled the show after the Federal Communications Commission chair threatened regulatory action after the host's comments about Charlie Kirk's death.
There has literally never been a case where defending free speech or any other ethical/moral position in the face of imminent business contract impact has successfully been used to defend against a breach of fiduciary responsibility claim.
You are talking about an imminent threat of action from extremely powerful business partners vs a nebulous argument towards the impact of moral decision making on profitability. Quite the contrary, there is a huge body of evidence that shows behaving immorally is often the most profitable behavior.
Brand damage from taking a show off the air for a week is far easier to undo than the fallout from two major affiliates cancelling their contracts for your entire network.
Sorry, I know what point you’re trying to make, and you are theoretically correct but because it’s completely unprovable with no precedent you are practically incorrect.
vs a nebulous argument towards the impact of moral decision making on profitability.
No, its that vs the clearly expected consumer response, which has a permanent brand impact and a short term subscriber/vacationer/etc impact, not to mention the 2% drop in stocks (an over $4b impact).
Ignoring ethics, this was a bad business decision. The long term impact is obviously not yet known, but the short term impact was rapid and strong.
It’s not a zero sum game. Once the FCC chair did what he did and the affiliate networks made their desires known, there were only two choices: gamble on the brand sentiment impact of pulling the show for an unknown amount of time (which we know now was short) or gamble by playing chicken with the affiliate networks and FCC chair.
As sad as it is to say, we have a lot of data about this: brand image problems are almost always transient while fights with corporate partners and regulators have drastic long term impact.
I abhor the fact that it’s true, but c’mon, it’s pretty clear what someone’s choice would be in that situation if they’re prioritizing shareholder value. Which, again, they are required to by law.
EDIT: I want to be clear here… You are talking as if “people get pissed but we bring it back a week later and then everyone moves on” wasn’t the best possible outcome for them given the circumstances. I think it was, and that was calculated.
There has literally never been a case where defending free speech or any other ethical/moral position in the face of imminent business contract impact has successfully been used to defend against a breach of fiduciary responsibility claim.
You are talking about an imminent threat of action from extremely powerful business partners vs a nebulous argument towards the impact of moral decision making on profitability. Quite the contrary, there is a huge body of evidence that shows behaving immorally is often the most profitable behavior.
Brand damage from taking a show off the air for a week is far easier to undo than the fallout from two major affiliates cancelling their contracts for your entire network.
Sorry, I know what point you’re trying to make, and you are theoretically correct but because it’s completely unprovable with no precedent you are practically incorrect.
No, its that vs the clearly expected consumer response, which has a permanent brand impact and a short term subscriber/vacationer/etc impact, not to mention the 2% drop in stocks (an over $4b impact).
Ignoring ethics, this was a bad business decision. The long term impact is obviously not yet known, but the short term impact was rapid and strong.
It’s not a zero sum game. Once the FCC chair did what he did and the affiliate networks made their desires known, there were only two choices: gamble on the brand sentiment impact of pulling the show for an unknown amount of time (which we know now was short) or gamble by playing chicken with the affiliate networks and FCC chair.
As sad as it is to say, we have a lot of data about this: brand image problems are almost always transient while fights with corporate partners and regulators have drastic long term impact.
I abhor the fact that it’s true, but c’mon, it’s pretty clear what someone’s choice would be in that situation if they’re prioritizing shareholder value. Which, again, they are required to by law.
EDIT: I want to be clear here… You are talking as if “people get pissed but we bring it back a week later and then everyone moves on” wasn’t the best possible outcome for them given the circumstances. I think it was, and that was calculated.