BDS movement lied about TIAA-CREF selling Sodastream

Earlier this month I reported how the BDS movement said that pension fund giant TIAA-CREF had sold their holdings in Israeli company Sodastream, and how the Israel-haters claimed this was a victory for their cause - even if they didn't know the reasons for the sale of the stock.

I noted that it was clear from TIAA-CREF's own statements that any Israeli stock they sell was not because of the BDS movement.

My mistake was that I assumed that the BDSers weren't lying about the sale to begin with!

I just received two PDF documents, showing TIAA-CREF's holdings in their CREF Stock Account and in the TIAA-CREF Growth and Income Fund as of June 30, 2013. They detail their holdings in these funds in full detail, and the documents were generated on July 23.

Why does anyone still give these guys any validity?

(h/t Adam Levick)

Read More

#BDSFail-ures admit they will claim victory even if it isn't true

I had missed this story two weeks ago at the BDSMovement site:

Victory! US pension fund giant TIAA-CREF drops SodaStream stock

Pension fund giant TIAA-CREF has removed the increasingly controversial Israeli company SodaStream (NASD: SODA) from its portfolio. As of March 2013, financial data posted on TIAA-CREF’s website valued shares in SodaStream at $9,444,292. According to financial data available today, it is zero.

But did TIAA-CREF say they sold the stock because they intend to divest? Of course not. There could be many reasons for them to sell.

Even the BDSers are tacitly admitting that they will claim victory no matter the reality:

“No matter the reason TIAA-CREF dropped SodaStream, we view this as a conscientious decision.” said Sydney Levy of the We Divest Campaign.

Hater Anna Baltzer says something similar:

Well, we cannot be sure of the reasons why TIAA-CREF divested from SodaStream. We do know that SodaStream has performed very well over the last 12 months, market-wise; well above average. And yet TIAA-CREF decided to divest.

Regardless of TIAA-CREF’s reasons, I think what we’re seeing is that it is increasingly unacceptable to associate in any way, to invest in, to sell products that are produced in illegal Israeli settlements. And we’re seeing this as part of that trend.

Perhaps the age old financial advice of "buy low, sell high" is too difficult for BDSers to fathom.

It is nice to see that even the BDSers admit that they are more than willing to lie and declare victory when the evidence is lacking.

One thing that is very certain is that the sale of SodaStream stock was not because they are divesting from Israel. As noted recently in a linkdump:

For the fourth year in a row, the TIAA-CREF Board refused to put divestment from Israel to a vote at its annual share holders’ meeting. TIAA-CREF, the leading provider of retirement services in the academic, research, medical, and cultural fields and a Fortune 100 financial services organization was supported by a recent ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission in choosing not to plunge its four million investors into the controversial geopolitical issue of sovereignty of disputed areas in the West Bank/ Judea Samaria.

(h/t Lianne)

Read More

CBS bans SodaStream ad from Super Bowl. Will BDS claim credit?

From Forbes:

CBS banned SodaStream’s Super Bowl spot because, apparently, it was too much of a direct hit to two of its biggest sponsors, Coke and Pepsi.

Please pause and read that sentence again.

I am shocked that CBS would ban a spot for being too competitive. But I’m even more shocked that the advertising world isn’t up in arms about it.

SodaStream has a product that could be wildly disruptive to the soda industry, if successful. As in, the “automobile” to the soda industry’s “buggy whip.” If SodaStream takes off, Coke and Pepsi would have a lot to worry about, for sure. But isn’t that what progress is all about?

CBS is protecting its relationship with Coke and Pepsi. Those two brands spend big bucks on the Super Bowl and on the network, in general. I get it. But all CBS would have to do, if Coke and Pepsi put the pressure on, is say, “Hey, we’re just the unbiased middle man here. It’s not up to us what competitors of yours say about you.” There’s no need for the medium to have a say in the message.

Competitive battles should be fought in the marketplace.

If the SodaStream product is a better “soda idea” than Coke and Pepsi, then shouldn’t it be given a fair shot within any medium it decides to risk its dollars? If it’s not a better idea, the market will decide its fate, not CBS. But even beyond that obvious argument, it’s in CBS’s, and all media’s, interest to encourage unbridled competition. The more threatened a Coke and Pepsi feel, in this case, the more likely they are to launch new campaigns specifically targeting the threat. And that’s more money pouring into the media, not less. But Coke and Pepsi won’t do that now (or are less likely to), because CBS intervened, took the pressure off, and effectively sided with Coke and Pepsi.

Advertising Age adds:

So what's the issue? The content of its planned commercial seemed to have concerned CBS because it was a direct hit at two other Super Bowl sponsors and heavy network TV advertisers: Coke and Pepsi.

SodaStream, which sells home soda-making machines, has already run afoul of authorities in the U.K. for a Bogusky-crafted spot indicating its product is more environmentally friendly than established sodas; the spot shows branded bottles and cans of soft drinks exploding into thin air. For the Super Bowl, it hoped to up the ante with a spot depicting truck drivers clad in clothing with Coca-Cola and Pepsi marks on them, according to Ilan Nacasch, SodaStream's chief marketing officer.

"We really tried to comply with the standards" set by CBS, he said. At the same time, he added, "We were taking it to a new level, and that's the level where they apparently judged to be going too far."

Interestingly enough, Pepsi has scored big points with viewers over the years by showing Super Bowl ads with Coke deliverymen abandoning their employer wholesale for a sip of a Pepsi drink.

Here's the ad, which has already gained over 2 million views since yesterday:



The BDS movement has been freaking out about the ad since it was announced, to no avail. (SodaStream is Israeli.) I'm sure they will attempt to claim credit here. The controversy will probably help SodaStream in the end, though, with more people watching the ad on YouTube than would have on CBS.

However, it seems likely that the earlier British Sodastream ad, that had been banned in the UK for even dumber reasons, is being retooled for the Super Bowl without mentioning the big guys:



If you really want to make the Israel-haters' heads explode like the plastic bottles in these ads, read this:

SodaStream International Ltd. (SODA) is poised for its biggest gain in seven months as the Israeli maker of home soda machines seeks to expand sales in the U.S. by airing its first Super Bowl commercial.

Shares have posted a 13 percent gain this month after dropping 0.3 percent to $50.53 in New York yesterday.

...SodaStream will probably say on Feb. 28 that sales rose 37 percent last year to $425 million, according to the mean estimate of eight analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. The company last year expanded into U.S. retail outlets including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) The U.S. represents more than 90 percent of SodaStream’s Americas sales, which also include Canada and Brazil, Lloyd said.

There's one other aspect of this I enjoy: watching pseudo-liberals fight against a company that helps the environment and instead side with big soda makers. All because it was created by smart Jewish Israelis.

(h/t D)

Read More

UK pulls Sodastream ad - because of Pepsi or BDS?

From Globes:

SodaStream International Ltd. (Nasdaq: SODA) insists that the ban of its new global advertising campaign in the UK is absurd, and censors the company for trying to save the environment.

Clearcast, the organization that pre-approves UK television advertising and is jointly funded by the UK's major broadcasters, notified SodaStream that the ad campaign would not be allowed to air in the UK. The decision was made just before the commercial's premier in the UK on November 22. Although the ad is already aired in the US, Sweden and Australia, Clearcast deemed it inappropriate for UK audiences.

The ad shows different scenes of soda bottles disappearing instantaneously as people use the SodaStream soda maker, delivering a powerful message about waste and sustainability. The spot closes with commentary of 'with SodaStream you can save 1000 bottles per year.'

Clearcast said, "The majority decided that the ad could be seen to tell people not to go to supermarkets and buy soft drinks, instead help to save the environment by buying a SodaStream. We thought it was denigration of the bottled drinks market."

"This decision is absurd, and the explanation given is totally unreasonable," said SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum. "Are we really being censored for helping to save the environment? This might be the first time in the world when an environmental approach has been shut down by the media to protect a traditional industry. Of course we're competing with bottled beverages, but why is offering a game-changing approach denigrating? It is like saying that iPod ads denigrate the Walkman or that car ads denigrated the horse and buggy. Clearcast's decision is disappointing and disturbing for any democratic society."

The reasons given are nothing short of ridiculous. Would Clearcast say that ads for electric cars denigrate gas guzzlers?

But I'm sure that some BDS idiots will regard this as a victory since Sodastream is an Israeli company they constantly call to boycott, with manufacturing in a Jerusalem suburb that Arabs claim is theirs.

The joke is on them, because the publicity is worth more than the ad itself.

The timing for SodaStream could hardly be better. The Israeli company has dramatically improved distribution over the past year with a series of high profile retail partnerships. The holidays are upon us, and the company is promoting a new, easier to use carbonator – the SodaStream Source. While the SodaStream ad campaign is not running in the UK, an appeal could put it back on the air next week, and it’s already running globally. Media attention over the clumsy UK move will only help SodaStream build awareness.

Of course it’s difficult to argue that a product whose entire existence is based on the premise that traditional soft drinks create unnecessary waste is not denigrating to the existing industry. But that’s hardly the kind of denigration that deserves censorship. And in any case, the unintended consequence of this ban will be to give little SodaStream another injection of PR adrenaline to power through the holidays.

Read More