My Reply From Slim Fast

[mourningdove92]

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.

[otohara]

1. Corporate Speak for Go Fuck Yourself

we don't care what you think

[DrBB]

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.

[eyesroll]

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?

[elfwitch]

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.

[Skip Intro]

4. They didn't respond to mine

Of course, I wasn't exactly diplomatic.

:evilgrin:

[jobycom]

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.

[Occulus]

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.

[AwareOne]

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.

[luaneryder]

8. Got mine a couple of days ago from Unilever

Same wording, different signatory.