jonyo

I've been seeing this all over for many years now:
1. Public is not liking thing B.
2. Company A wants to not tarnish its brand, so it cuts it's relation to thing B
3. The media cycle moves on, public discussion moves to other things
4. Company A quietly reestablishes relationship with thing B for money reasons, figuring that brand issues are less likely now that public attention is elsewhere.

I for one would like if Apple would continue to have no relationship with X at all going forward, whether it be advertising or anything else. I would love to see X starved of revenue and fall in value, and eventually become irrelevant as far as public discourse. The only way it'll happen is people vote by cutting their usage of X. That's fair market action, people are allowed to not use your goods/services for any reason they want, including things that have nothing to do with the good/service itself or it's price, you either compete in that arena that includes public sentiment, or you don't.

I'm just saying that's how it so often seems to go with companies' responses to public outcry over some non-monetary event, whether a one-time event or a change spread out over time. The world is just too complicated for people to hold their attention on a million things at once.