Regardless of one’s thoughts on the content of Limbaugh’s remarks*, there’s something interesting about gloating over the alleged fallout from a critical response to a critical response that caused fallout for a radio personality.
By which I mean, you can’t call it just desserts when you are saying that the markets are acting irrationally against Carbonite, but criticize Carbonite for acting irrationally against Rush Limbaugh.
Nor can you really call stockholders or customers that pull support due to a political statement (market-)rational while supposing that pulling ads from controversial radio personality is (market-)irrational, since they are both largely putting their money where their ideology is**. Someone who quits Carbonite because of politics is not substantively different than Carbonite pulling its advertising. If you treat them differently, I’d actually have to say that leaving Carbonite has less merit than pulling Limbaugh ads, given that the latter is a political entertainer/figure and the former is a software company.
Customers are absolutely within their rights to “punish” Carbonite for the CEO’s politics. Just as Carbonite is within its right to punish Limbaugh for what he said. There’s really not much moral high ground beyond one’s thoughts on the comments that started the dominos or shirts vs. skins.
(I have no great love or loathing for Carbonite. I’d never use their service, but their wedding commercial is awesome.)
* – And please, I am not trying to rehash where Rush’s comments themselves were unconscionable or misunderstood or whatever.
** – This assumes that Carbonite’s troubles are significantly related to the Rush incident. That’s a very, very heavy assumption, but the article makes it.