Posted on 08/30/2002 12:27:55 PM PDT by GeneD
Augusta National Golf Club is putting its money where its mouth is in its fight with a women's group pressuring the club to admit a female member.
Club chairman Hootie Johnson announced Friday that because corporate sponsors of the Masters' telecast are being pressured by the National Council of Women's Organizations, the 2003 tournament will be shown without sponsors or commercials.
At least golf fans will benefit from the fight. The 2003 telecast would have contained its normal four commerical minutes per hour. With 12 1/2 hours of live programming, that's 50 minutes of commericials that will not take golf fans away from the action.
"Augusta National is NCWO's true target," Johnson said in a statement. "It is therefore unfair to put the Masters media sponsors in the position of having to deal with this pressure. Accordingly, we have told our media sponsors that we will not request their participation for the 2003 Masters."
Rather than put its sponsors in a position where boycotts or their products or services would be threatened, Johnson said the Masters will absorb the advertising fees that would have been paid by IBM, Coca-Cola and Citigroup.
Johnson said, "We are sorry, but not surprised, to see those corporations drawn into this matter, but contunue to insist that our private club should not be 'managed' by an outside group. . . There may come a day when women will be invited to join our club, but that decision must be ours. We also believe that the Masters and the club are different, and that one should not affect the other."
I would also prefer corporations, organizations and/or governments, etc. would stand up with respect to groups, when they're threaten by boycotts or law suits and the issue is basically lacking any substance; rather than just caving in. By caving in they just give the groups more incentive to pursue additional substanceless issues in the future.
I think Miller Beer, Coors ,Bud or some other beer company should make a big to-do about picking up the sponsorship and then make another big to-do about the boycott.
They could run an ad campaign and show a big fat ugly dyke-looking broad and have her say, "I'm boycotting Miller High Life as unfair to women!"
Then they show a group of guys laughing their asses off at her while drinking the cold brew.
These guys then slap each other on the back, having a big time and the announcer says:
"Sometimes you're known by the friends you keep, and sometimes by the enemies you make."
Sales would go through the roof.
Yes, but there would be more bikini wax involved if the club offered free honorary memberships to all Hooters Girls.
Your question is answered in the article itself:
Rather than put its sponsors in a position where boycotts or their products or services would be threatened, Johnson said the Masters will absorb the advertising fees that would have been paid by IBM, Coca-Cola and Citigroup.
Holly crap! 2% of the voting public! I shudder!
Really I do, it's chilly. And me sitting here without a sweater. There's a bit of fall in the air.
From FOXNEWS...
The Masters is going commercial-free, dropping its corporate sponsors to avoid pressure on them by a women's organization that challenged Augusta National's all-male membership.
Club chairman Hootie Johnson notified the tournament's three sponsors - IBM, Citigroup and Coca-Cola - on Friday that the Masters "will not request their participation" in 2003.
Those were the only companies that were allowed to run ads during the broadcast. Their logos also appeared on the Masters' Web site.
"This year's telecast will be conducted by the Masters Tournament," Johnson said in a statement. "We appreciate everything our media sponsors have done for us, but under the circumstances, we think it is important to take this step."
The Masters, which traditionally has the highest ratings in golf, will be the only commercial-free telecast in sports.
The friction began in June when Martha Burk, head of the National Council of Women's Organization, sent Johnson a letter urging him to add women to its membership.
Johnson said he canceled the one-year sponsorship contracts because the NCWO had launched a corporate campaign against the club.
Johnson has said the club has no exclusionary policies, although it has never had a female member its 69-year history, and only welcomed its first black member in 1990. In response to Burk's letter, Johnson defiantly said that Augusta National will not be "bullied, threatened or intimidated" to add female members.
Burk was at a conference in Maine on Friday. Calls to her cell phone were not immediately returned.
Coca-Cola spokesman Ben Deutsch confirmed the company did receive a letter from Burk, although he said it was not threatening.
"We had discussions with Augusta National officials and they recently informed us of their decision to conduct the tournament without sponsors," Deutsch said. "We enjoyed our one-year sponsorship of the Masters, and we wish them well."
IBM spokeswoman Deb Gotthimer would only confirm that the company received a letter from NCWO. "We respect the club's decision to hold the Masters without sponsors next year," she said.
Citigroup declined comment.
The companies also had a small chalet at Augusta National during the Masters. It was not immediately clear whether they would be able to use them next year.
"We are sorry, but not surprised, to see these corporations drawn into this matter," Johnson said. "Augusta National is NCWO's true target. It is therefore unfair to the put the Masters' media sponsors in the position of having to deal with this pressure."
The Masters already was the least commercialized tournament in golf, void of corporate tents and exhibitions at Augusta National. Its deal with CBS Sports allowed only four minutes of commercials each hour.
CBS spokeswoman Robin Brendle said the network would have no comment.
Punishment for speech is the bottomline.
Hootie's next brilliant move should be to have Augusta National apply for membership in the National Council of Women's Organizations just as it stands.
What could they do? Refuse?
What you say is true. The government accomplishes social engineering using corporations. There are fewer more oppresive environments for controlling personal behaviour than a major corporation. There code of behaviour is orchestrated by the government. They will penalize companies for not adequately controlling the speech and attitutdes of their executives and employees.
Punishment for speech is the bottomline.
This is the point which those who say this is only "free speech" and "voluntary boycotts" always miss: there is a powerful government push to break up these private associations. It's gotten to the point where you can't have a liquor license, you can't have corporate memberships, you can't do anything remotely related to government or any other outside group, without having the full force of the court system come crashing down on you. Yeah, sure, these women's groups are "within their rights" to protest these private associations right to associate with whoever they want. One side respects the others right to free speech; but the other does not respect their right to free association. And with the government marshalled against them, private clubs are hardly fighting on a level playing field against the "free speech" of the diversity-mongers. It's not as though those advocating busting private clubs really believe in freedom of assocation; they don't, and they use the government to violate freedom of association whenever they can get away with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.