Rex
Bencher
Huh?Daniel said:Rex said:Daniel said:A sponsor is just that a sponsor, they do not have a decision based interest in this business, though they do have a right to withdraw funds if they think their brand has been damaged.
Huh? Why wouldn't Kaspersky have every right to withdraw offers of future (unsigned) sponsorship agreements?
And why wouldn't Kaspersky have every right to make their displeasure known if they want to, and however they want to?
If Zorba wants to call a journalist a good sort, or Sidney a garden gnome, that is entirely his right. And if he does, others have a right to take their actions too.
An simple apology from Zorba seems a likely bandaid solution. Sometimes bandaids are all that is needed. And sometimes bandaids can merely hide the seriousness of underlying illnesses.
huh?
Sure they have a right to demand if it is deemed it is damaging their brand, however they do not have a right to demand who and who is not on a board.
I'd like to see what proof you can provide me that this is in anyway damaging for the Kaspersky brand
What's this fixation with Kaspersky supposedly needing to provide proof of "damage to their brand"? I don't get that.
Aren't there unlimited reasons for not pumping millions into an organisation or advertising strategy? eg Is it at all conceivable to you that high maintenance, unprofessional petty disputes, bickering and/or namecalling might influence them to look elsewhere?
Kaspersky can set whatever prerequisites ("demands") they choose for pumping their millions into Manly. And if Manly have a better alternative, they can simply say no.