Wendy's is in fact a legal person. That is what a corporation is. While the way the corporation creates an opinion is different than a natural born person, they do take positions. Further, as they are a response based upon an amalgamation of people, they ted to be more predictable than natural born person opinions."Wendy's" is not a single person who can be pleased or displeased. It's a bunch of people who I'm quite sure will have varying reactions. If you are saying that Wendy's as a company probably would refuse being a CR sponsor again in the foreseeable future, I'd say you are very likely correct. But I'm pretty sure CR feel the same way, so I'm not sure what this observation is salient to.
I get your point that certain people working for the corporation may not have a problem with Critical Role's rsponse, but the entity, as a whole, is likely to respond negatively. This could result in a legal response for breech of contract, etc... depending upon the terms of the agreement. Matt's response was pretty quick, so Iam doubtful it was vetted by his attorne to make sure it was not in breech.
Again, as corporations form opinions by having a group of people come together to make decisions, they tend to be more predictable, not less predictabe, than natural born persons.Well, that certainly sounds ominous (and, as far as it goes, obviously true), but "potential sponsors" are an even less homogeneous group than "Wendy's".
You seem to be trying to imply, without saying it explicitly, that some (or maybe all?) potential sponsors will now be more reticent (or completely opposed?) to sponsoring CR. Ok, probably you could find some, but it's only interesting if some are sponsors that CR would want considering what they've learned from this little debacle.This list would include potential sponsers that know they have something bad that CR might advertise in a negative light and any entity that is not sure whether it has such problems.
And no large corporation is sure they do not have bedbugs under the rug. It is just the nature of these gigantic beasts.
When you constantly reference what I clearly meant, it is a bit odd to attack me for being unclear.I'm not saying it's impossible, but to me it seems like it's going to be a corner case. Would you care to make an explicit assertion that we could actually discuss?
Yes, Matt's response embarasses Wendy's as an organization. Yes, other large potential sponsors will have peope working for them that have job responsibilities that include vetting whether a marketing partner is a risk for the company image (including people in marketing, compliance (to an extent), risk management, executive management and legal divisions). Yes, a lot of those entities will now consider CR too much of a risk and refuse to let the company work with them.
No, I can't go out and cite specific examples - I don't have unlimited resources or access, but I've worked in Corporate America - with legal, marketing, risk management, compliance and executive management groups from several fortune 500 firms - and this is a very real thing. Marketing money is tightly managed, risk (especially reputation risk - Google it) is carefull assessed, and companies are generally risk adverse. These are pretty basic truths of corporate America.
There is a reason we are cautioned not to bite the hand that feeds us. Given all the talk of selling out on the podcast, clearly there was some reasonably felt feeding going on here. They need to be careful about how they navigate those waters. Bigger campanies than CR have been destroyed by making decisions with the heart instead of the head.