Comments on: The Success of AFA’s Ford Boycott Is a Disney-esque Fairy Tale

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:50:28 +0000

When the AFA announced their Disney boycott, I thought “Give me a break! Disney bends over backwords to provide families with decent entertainment.” For example, their parks are geared toward families. Just compare a Disney park with a Six Flags or some other theme park. The others are all about the thrill rides and are full of teenagers there with their friends – not their families. They know their market. Disney parks, on the other hand, are full of families. The rides may not be quite as fun or thrilling, but the atmosphere is worlds different. Similarly, their animated features are clean and wholesome. They are aimed at smaller children, but usually include humoric elements that appeal to adults as well. The competitors (Shrek, et al) are geared to teenagers and young adults. They contain crude low-brow humor missing from their Disney counterparts. Consequently, even though AFA had issues with some of the things being done by Disney management, most of us felt like the good offered to families by Disney outweighed those decisions, and thereby chose not to join in the boycott. However, in this case I was appalled to see how openly and forwardly Ford was actively promoting and encouraging this “alternative lifestyle.” This isn’t about selling cars to gays, advertising in a magazine, or even offerening domestic partner benefits. This is about being the premiere sponsor of Gay-Pride festivals. The company is going out of their way to take sides in this issue. They’ve clearly decided which side they want to come down on – and it’s not in the middle. Once I learned what they were doing I decided not to buy another Ford. Consequently, when I replaced my Taurus, it was not with a Ford. When I needed a new minivan, I actually test drove a Windstar and really liked it, but I bought a Sienna. When my Contour finally gives up the ghost (which it’s about to do – it’s got a blown head gasket), it’ll be replaced with something other than a Ford. To suggest that this boycott has not had an impact, or to compare it to the Disney boycott is simply ostriching (hiding your head in the sand). You’re welcome to leave your head there as long as you’d like, but you’re not going to gain a very accurate or complete view of the world around you.

By: Howard

Howard — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:59:29 +0000

Robert makes valid points when he says that “Nearly half the kids born today are born to single mothers; kids keep Day-Timers to remember which parent they’re staying with this weekend; 14-year-old girls are being stabbed by boys in middle school.” However, Robert failed to mention that the liberals who champion the homosexual agenda are the same liberals who promoted extramarital sex, single motherhood, easy divorce, and self-esteem instead of discipline in public schools.

By: M Lewis

M Lewis — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:56:23 +0000

To compare the effectiveness of the Disney boycott to the Ford boycott is a mistake. Disney products and parks are integrated into the core of American families and as such, I believe parents had a more difficult time denying Disney products to their children. It is not easy to tell little Jonny or Jill that we are not going to see that popular movie because the people running Disney support the “Gay” agenda. “Daddy, what does Gay mean?”. “Well son….”. You get the picture. But when it comes to the next car purchase, little Jonny and Jill don’t much care. “Wow…its a new car, SUV, etc” is their typical response. Parents don’t have to justify why they made a specific purchase. Secondly, multiple decisions to boycott Disney had to be made over time; do we go to this movie, rent that video, visit Disney land, etc. The decision to boycott Ford only has to be made once over a 3 to 5 year time frame. Sorry Ford, your position is not as strong as Disney. You would do well to recognize that. So believe what you will, the Ford boycott is much more effective and consistently followed that the Disney boycott ever was.

By: Howard

Howard — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:02:57 +0000

Daniel Blatt and the responders who claim that the AFA boycott of Disney had no effect are repeating a Goebbels-style Big Lie, or at least a Big Half-Truth. While the boycott was certainly not a complete success (DP benefits and Gay Days are still there), it was a partial success. After the peak success of The Lion King in 1994, and even before the official AFA boycott began, many people began to turn away from Disney movies. Later Disney cartoon features, such as “Politically-correct-ahontas,” “Jerkules,” and “Foolan,” made far less money at the box office. Many people rejected Disney videos in favor of other videos such as Veggietales. Many families did choose alternatives to Disney theme parks. Many people who joined the boycott did not stay away from all Disney products, but were willing to buy a Disney product which had high quality WITHOUT political correctness (e.g. the Toy Story movies). Disney eventually showed the door to its longtime Chief Executive Politically-Correct Bigot, Michael Eisner, and chose a new CEO without Eisner’s gratuitous hatemongering. The new CEO began better projects, including the Chronicles of Narnia movies.

By: kelly hart

kelly hart — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:18:05 +0000

Bradley and Aaron, you leave me speechless, you have literally removed the words right out of my mouth!!! If more people would think like this, well honestly this comment page might not be here. Amen and Amen!!!
Oh ya, i signed the petition too, and you know what, i am not worried whether anyone else does or not. i know that i am trying to do the best thing for my family and our rewards in heaven and if it catches a few eyes along the way and they want to come, then i will welcome them with both arms. and if they dont i will not judge them.
God Bless All and your opinions.

By: Tom Blumer

Tom Blumer — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:59:33 +0000

Straw man, Daniel.

I said the boycott is a major factor, not THE factor.

You also overlook the fact that the Ford boycott, unlike the Disney one:

- has a broader base of support (almost certainly many more signatories than Disney’s ever had)

- is over the purchase of a big-ticket item as opposed to a bunch of relatively smaller purchases.

- is over buying something — vehicles — where there is a lot of direct competition (Disney competes for entertainment dollars, but their parks, movies, etc. are like no others)

As I stated, I don’t support the boycott. But it’s difficult to believe that there aren’t at least 200,000 – 300,000 vehicle sales being lost per year (and that the annual sales loss is growing). That’s in the neighborhood of a $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion hit to the pretax bottom line. It would only take about 1%-2% of the 12-20 million supporting the boycott not to buy ONE vehicle each year to cause that degree of loss.

Ford is being incredibly irresponsible by pretending they’re not being hurt, and hurt badly.

By: Howard

Howard — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 04:56:30 +0000

Mishu sez: “but gay people are a very affluent demographic. For the most part, they have lower personal expenses since they rarely have children. Therefore they are more able to buy things.” In other words, gays do NOT need special rights laws, they do NOT need special benefits from Big Government or Big Business, and they can pay for treating their own health care problems WITHOUT passing those costs on to all taxpayers and customers. Gays are like Muslims; they pick fights with other people and then get upset when the other people fight back.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 03:19:08 +0000

Nah, the boycott doesn’t matter to Ford.
Shoot what’s a hundred thousand potential customers here or there.
pfffft. no biggie.

That said, here is another Ford buyer who has let his dealer know that he won’t be back.
2 Taurus’, 1 Escort, 1 Galaxy (yeah, i go back a ways), 1 Bronco, 4 F-150′s.
Sorry Ford, bought my wife a Pontiac.
Oh, and she loves it.
And yes i did sign the boycott.

By: John St. Onge

John St. Onge — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:44:35 +0000

The problem with Dr. Blatt’s argument is that it’s based on a false implication about what Todd Blummer wrote. Blummer did not say that the AFA boycott is the only factor or even that it is a “primary factor.” He said it has been A factor that has contributed a “substantial portion.”

By: Zach Foreman

Zach Foreman — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:38:22 +0000

I disagree. Just because the AFA boycott didn’t have a measurable effect on Disney doesn’t mean that it isn’t having one on Ford. The analogy fails because there are plenty of good alternatives to buying a Ford, such as buying a Chevy or Toyota. But it is less clear that there is a satisfying, painless equivalent for Disney (either Disneyland/World or Disney movies or merchandise).
Also, there are far fewer buying moments to influence in the Ford boycott than the Disney boycott. An average person only buys perhaps 10 new cars in a lifetime but there are many more opportunities to go to a Disney attraction, buy a Disney product or see a Disney movie or dvd (or turn to the Disney channel).