- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Seattle pastor claims newspaper canceled church's Easter service ad after CEO objected
Posted on 4/10/24 at 11:43 am to L.A.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 11:43 am to L.A.
quote:
Could be. But I keep going back to the quote from the employees that this had never happened before at that newspaper. And they quote the CEO as being personally offended by the ad. Just based on what we know, I'd say the newspaper is in deep doo doo.
Just bc it never happened before, as far as this particular employee knows, doesn’t mean the contract did not have a unilateral termination right. As the newspaper with all the leverage I would expect them, and their legal counsel, to have included that option. I could very well be wrong, but I’d be surprised.
0
Posted on 4/10/24 at 11:43 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I don't understand the two lines quip.
Yup, and it was more than two lines. Crazy, right?
What was the contract agreement? What did they promise to do for you?
Posted on 4/10/24 at 11:48 am to L.A.
quote:
I don't understand the two lines quip.
You seem to be trying to limit this to A said they would do XYZ, and B said they would pay for A to do XYZ.
Most contracts have termination conditions. That this may have been unprecedented is entirely irrelevant.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 11:50 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
What was the contract agreement you entered into? What did they promise to do for you?
Posted on 4/10/24 at 11:50 am to L.A.
quote:
You seem to be trying to limit this to A said they would do XYZ, and B said they would pay for A to do XYZ.
Most contracts have termination conditions. That this may have been unprecedented is entirely irrelevant.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 11:55 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Yeah, that's what I thought. You've never entered onto a contractual agreement, so you have no clue what you're talking about. This is just a theoretical topic for you. That also makes you a liar for misrepresenting yourself. I regret wasting time trying to have an honest discussion with you. Feel free to have the last word.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:02 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
There are words in the article that make it sound like the parties had a contract:
quote:When you see words like "accepted," "paid for," and "canceled," it sounds like there was a contract.
The ad's original messaging mentioning "Hell" and "revival" was altered after it was rejected by the paper, but a modified version of the ad was finally accepted and paid for on March 19, the emails reportedly showed.
However, Johnson said the contract was canceled the following day, just two days before the ad was to be published.
He claimed the marketing team told him that "the owner [Frank Blethen] personally stepped in today and canceled your ad." He was told the prominent religious ad would hurt the company's reputation.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:04 pm to L.A.
Well, when the Newspaper owner Burns eternity in hell maybe that’ll hurt his reputation too
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:13 pm to L.A.
Here we go boys...the ole google machine comes through again, the terms of a Seattle Times advert contract, in pertinent part:
LINK
There's what some employee says and then there's what the published contract says.
quote:
e) The position, subject matter, form, size, wording, illustrations and typography of all advertising is subject to The Seattle Times Company approval. The Seattle Times Company reserves the right to reposition, classify, edit, reject or cancel any advertisement at any time, before or after insertion. Any specific page or position requests must be contracted in writing. Position is not guaranteed outside of position specific advertising.
quote:
h) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS PARAGRAPH, NEITHER THE SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY NOR THE OPERATOR OF PARTNER SITE(S) WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ERRORS IN, OR FAILURE TO PUBLISH ADVERTISING, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, GENERAL, PRESUMED OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES OR LOST PROFITS. THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE ADVERTISER FOR ANY ERROR IN, OR NON-PUBLICATION OF, AN AD SHALL BE LIMITED TO A PRO RATE CREDIT FOR SUCH ADVERTISING, PROVIDED THAT THE ADVERTISER HAS PAID FOR THE AD CONTAINING ERROR OR WHICH WAS NOT PUBLISHED. If the Seattle Times Company is unable to cause the operator of the site(s) to provide advertising on the schedule set forth in the insertion order because of Advertiser or its Agency’s act of omission, The Seattle Times Company and operator of its partner sites shall be entitled to full payment of all charges for such advertising. No allowance other than herein specified shall be made for imperfect display or omission of key information.
LINK
There's what some employee says and then there's what the published contract says.
This post was edited on 4/10/24 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:14 pm to L.A.
quote:
Yeah, that's what I thought. You've never entered onto a contractual agreement, so you have no clue what you're talking about. This is just a theoretical topic for you. That also makes you a liar for misrepresenting yourself. I regret wasting time trying to have an honest discussion with you. Feel free to have the last word.
I made you look foolish, and you're having an emotional reaction.
If you knew half of what you claim to know, you wouldn't be running your mouth about a lawsuit without even seeing the contract.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:15 pm to cwill
quote:
There's what some employee says and then there's what the published contract says.
Well, there goes OP's bullshite about "I know contracts."
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:22 pm to chalmetteowl
The problem isn’t the refunding of the money.
The problem is that an agreement was made between two parties, including a custom ad altered to meet the paper’s standards, was made and then unilaterally backed out of by the paper too close to the date of the publishing for them to take it elsewhere.
If there is a contractual reason that was allowed to happen, make it public. And make the paper eat those words in negative publicity.
But I have a feeling the owner of the paper said “kill it” in violation of the contract in the belief that the church couldn’t or wouldn’t sue him over it.
The problem is that an agreement was made between two parties, including a custom ad altered to meet the paper’s standards, was made and then unilaterally backed out of by the paper too close to the date of the publishing for them to take it elsewhere.
If there is a contractual reason that was allowed to happen, make it public. And make the paper eat those words in negative publicity.
But I have a feeling the owner of the paper said “kill it” in violation of the contract in the belief that the church couldn’t or wouldn’t sue him over it.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:23 pm to teke184
quote:
But I have a feeling the owner of the paper said “kill it” in violation of the contract in the belief that the church couldn’t or wouldn’t sue him over it.
Man, you shoulda read through the thread first.
This post was edited on 4/10/24 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:29 pm to L.A.
quote:
However, Johnson said the contract was canceled the following day, just two days before the ad was to be published.
He claimed the marketing team told him that "the owner [Frank Blethen] personally stepped in today and canceled your ad." He was told the prominent religious ad would hurt the company's reputation.
"They said, ‘You know, it didn’t really fit with the ethic of the paper.’ However, the marketing team told me in all of their years of doing advertising for The Seattle Times, this has never once happened, where the owner and the CEO personally stepped in at the last minute to cancel a signed contract," Johnson told Rantz.
I would be interested in knowing what ads may have been found acceptable by the owner of the newspaper.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:32 pm to cwill
And my point still remains… the church can take the “we cancelled the ad two days before it was supposed to run because our boss doesn’t want us associated with Christianity” and shove it up their arse.
There may be a tort if a lawyer wants to get really creative but dragging the paper for doing this potentially hurts their advertising business. And that’s not a minor thing given that print media is bleeding revenue these days.
Telling people “This paper will waste your time and not run your ad” means that it could cost the paper a ton of business.
There may be a tort if a lawyer wants to get really creative but dragging the paper for doing this potentially hurts their advertising business. And that’s not a minor thing given that print media is bleeding revenue these days.
Telling people “This paper will waste your time and not run your ad” means that it could cost the paper a ton of business.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:34 pm to teke184
This is a newspaper in Seattle we're talking about, not in Greenbow, Alabama.
This post was edited on 4/10/24 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:38 pm to cwill
quote:
This is a newspaper in Seattle we're talking about, not Greenbow, Alabama.
Business is business. If businesses realize that the paper is going to play fast and loose with contracts based on the CEO’s whims, businesses can decide to advertise with other papers or through other mediums.
Maybe he will decide that Krispy Kreme can’t advertise because he is against junk food. Maybe he will reject Academy because they sell guns at their stores. Doesn’t really matter as much as the paper clearly setting precedent that they will back out of advertising over one person’s feelings rather than rules.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:40 pm to teke184
Aw-ight, sure.
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:43 pm to cwill
Will this break the Seattle Times like it did Bud Light / Busch? No.
But it is going to start hurting their bottom line a bit as demand for advertising through them goes down. Businesses want to make contracts with groups which fulfill them, not get left holding their dicks because someone went “harrumph.”
But it is going to start hurting their bottom line a bit as demand for advertising through them goes down. Businesses want to make contracts with groups which fulfill them, not get left holding their dicks because someone went “harrumph.”
Posted on 4/10/24 at 12:45 pm to teke184
quote:
Business is business.
No, it isn't. Business is people with opinions and personalities.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News