[seven_stones]

By analogy, imagine someone wearing an Abercrombie & Fitch shirt.

They are trying to associate themselves with a well-known brand in order to gain some kind of status or legitimacy.

But when you do that, you are also at risk of people associating you with things like Jersey Shore and sweatshops, employment discrimination, superficiality, and so on.

(A&F was so concerned that it has offered to pay Jersey Shore cast members to STOP wearing their brand.)

Large corporations tend to avoid issues seen as "controversial". It's not necessarily about right or wrong, it's about anything divisive enough to possibly be a significant detriment to their brand image.

When the NUMBER ONE Google result for "world's most evil company" has your name on it, you are PR kyrptonite.

The only person to blame is the flabbergastingly unaware CEO of Cloudant.

This is on par with "YC robotics startup chosen as #1 supplier of automated puppy-gassing chambers by animal control!"

[baddox]

There seems to be two similar but fundamentally different arguments here. The first is that this press release was unwise, because many people will be upset that Cloudant would do business with Monsanto. The second is that actually doing business with Monsanto is unwise/immoral/unethical.

PR is a fuzzy science at best, and I'm no expert, so I won't claim to know how wise the press release is. I'm sure that Cloudant was excited to acquire a large customer (rightfully so), and that issuing a press release can impress investors, other potential customers, and the start-up community.

It's the second argument that I vehemently disagree with. If some corporation feels that it would be unethical to do business with Monsanto, then by all means refuse to do so. But to argue for an embargo against Monsanto, and imply that any company that does business with Monsanto is in the wrong, is wildly inappropriate and unfair. No doubt countless other corporations do business with Monsanto: PC manufacturers, construction teams, office suppliers, not to mention utility companies that keep Monsanto running, shipping companies that deliver to and from Monsanto, etc. I agree with pg that to argue for an embargo against Monsanto is quite extreme, and it's unfair to hold Cloudant to such a standard.

[seven_stones]

> and imply that any company that does business with Monsanto is in the wrong, is wildly inappropriate and unfair.

First, if this applies to any company partnering with Monsanto, they are receiving equal treatment.

Secondly, your value judgment of it being "wildly inappropriate" rings hollow. Who determines what's "appropriate"? Usually that terminology is employed when referring to social convention, and social convention is determined by majority opinion.

Quoting PG:

But the best thing of all is when people call what you're doing inappropriate. I've been hearing this word all my life and I only recently realized that it is, in fact, the sound of the homing beacon. "Inappropriate" is the null criticism. It's merely the adjective form of "I don't like it."

http://www.paulgraham.com/marginal.html

Ironically, majority opinion here is clearly on the opposing side from where you stand, which seems to inform your "wildly" modifier, being revealing of being upset that your view isn't the prevailing one.

As for "unfair", if you read Monsanto's Wikipedia page you'll find out that what it has done to the planet and people fits that description better by ORDERS of magnitude than people deciding not to use some web service or other.

Perspective, please.