Um, given that all three are married, have multiple children, have sold over 20 million records and have made more money than anyone on this site, I think its a fair guess that they weren't really looking for an extended career into their mid 30's. They have setteld down and want a family life.
Half their fan base was young girls anyway. This "boycott" nonsense consists mostly of people who didn't listen to them/like them in the first place and a small portion of their fan base. I doubt they care what anyone here thinks.
Oh yeah? Well...I am so mad I will...uh...stop leering at pictures of them on the web...and will start using Lipton products to clean my toilet...
I happen to have a fair amount of experience with celebrity branding, and I can tell you why you're mistaken.
This isn't about the Dixie Chicks. They became irrelevant when the story broke.
Lipton and The Dixie Chicks have a co-branding arrangement. Someone at Lipton, or one of their agencies, recognized the base that the Dixie Chicks appeal to as under-represented on Lipton's desired range of demographic. This might be southerners, middle income women, country music listeners, it doesn't matter. Lipton 'bought' the Chicks, much as they'd buy radio time.
As such, Lipton contracted with the Chicks such that Lipton would be well represented and both would prosper. Lawyers write contracts to cover unseen but later-litigable circumstances as 'other considerations of value'. Contracts are written with 'performance clauses' and 'good faith' clauses too. More on that in a moment.
Lipton's contributions to the tour may not have been cash. It may have been the underwriting of expenses or promotional consideration, ie. tradebacks with TV, radio, venues, or newspaper ads. In any case they viewed their association with the Chicks as an opportunity to have their brand favorably presented in a market they might otherwise not have access to. Branding is all about favorable, reinforceable perceptions.
I will tell you from experience this is very hard to establish, but once in place, not so difficult to maintain (if you're competent, that is).
To use the industry parlance, the Chicks are, at the moment, 'toxic'. No sponsor will consider them going forward until this 'problem' is fixed, and maybe not even then.
Even if that were the only case, it might not be enough to sink them. Their 'brand' among their fans remains intact and some people will buy their music no matter what.
However, Lipton may be able to prove that the Chicks, by drawing negative attention to themselves and thus to Lipton, have inalterbly severed the contractual bond. Lipton may well be able to sue and recover all monies paid to date, as well as damages. This is of no small concern. Such contracts can run in excess of a few million dollars, and if you add damages to that, it ain't chump change.
Every email and phone call, every dismissive remark and boycott by a radio station puts leverage in the hands of Lipton, and takes away the Dixie Chicks' leverage.
I would encourage each and every one of us to continue to press Lipton.
One last thing. If you think that these women have the right to prance around the world and speak ill of the US, I suppose that's an argument. But I would opine that going on foreign soil and criticizing your government in a time of crisis gives aid and comfort to our enemies, and emboldens the enemy to foment more such unrest. This is of no small consequence to me as I have close friends and family either overseas or ready to go. In my view the Chicks' "free speech" is treasonous.
And Tally, these are not 'ladies' in any sense of the word I've ever heard used.
I hope you're right, but here's where I think you're wrong: after the success they've had over the past several years, there's more than just themselves to worry about. They've got managers and support staff who have joined the gravy train, and they're not likely to want the train to stop.
Although they've sold millions of records, I truly think that their net assets are not that substantial, to the point where they can maintain their current lifestyle for more than a few years.
We all know how hard it is to amass a net worth when your average tax burden is in excess of 40% or more.
The Blixie Chicks have screwed the pooch on this one. I don't think there would have been such an outcry if they made their remarks at a concert in California. However, to say such things on foreign soil is a different matter. Americans are far less forgiving after 9/11/01, which IMHO, is not a bad thing at all.