I don’t object to the investigation. I object to the indiscretion.
Paula Dean’s sponsors and distributors did not cut her off because she used racial slurs. They cut her off because she was allowed to answer a question that she never should have been asked: something like, “Have you ever used the N-word and what were the circumstances?” Once she answered that honestly (which is kind of had to because it was a legal deposition), she lost marketability.
The difference between an actor and a star isn’t talent, it’s marketability.
I was disputing your claim that she lost marketability. While I agree that her sponsors cutting her off hurt her, I dispute your claim that it was a business decision based on marketability, in particular her publisher’s decision to cancel her book while it’s preorder was number 1 on Amazon.
I don’t object to the investigation. I object to the indiscretion.
Paula Dean’s sponsors and distributors did not cut her off because she used racial slurs. They cut her off because she was allowed to answer a question that she never should have been asked: something like, “Have you ever used the N-word and what were the circumstances?” Once she answered that honestly (which is kind of had to because it was a legal deposition), she lost marketability.
The difference between an actor and a star isn’t talent, it’s marketability.
No she didn’t.
What she gets from book sales will be a pittance compared to what her little business empire brought in over the past few years.
Yes, she has a fall back position. And that’s fine. But it doesn’t mean she didn’t lose greater things than those book sales will ever make up for.
I was disputing your claim that she lost marketability. While I agree that her sponsors cutting her off hurt her, I dispute your claim that it was a business decision based on marketability, in particular her publisher’s decision to cancel her book while it’s preorder was number 1 on Amazon.