Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
vaccinations/health care and product promotions.
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »YellowD0gs wrote: »
Umm, excuse me, but WOW!! Corporations making donations to send underpriviledged and ill kids to summer camp is now BS??
We don't have the donut promo here, but we do have Tim Hortons "camp day". So you buy a cookie that day and they donate the profits to send underprivileged kids to summer camp. McDonalds sometimes has those things too - McHappy Day or some such thing for sick kids. It's all the same BS. I would be surprised if those types of promos didn't happen in Australia. The donut thing is more innocuous to me because you don't even have to buy anything.paperpudding wrote: »
Really?
IMO, all corporate charity is for promotion or tax benefits. It's not to actually help anyone other then the corporations bottom line. I don't think the author was saying helping kids is bad, just the use of helping kids to sell more product is bad. If the corporation really wanted to help it wouldn't advertise the fact it's helping.
I agree that these tie-ins have a motive beyond pure altruism, but I disagree that one MUST keep a donation secret if one really wants to help. One can imagine a situation where the people involved in the decisions about charitable donations wanted to help bring attention to an issue and encourage others to become involved.
An example would be the work that Wendy's (American fast food company) used to do to promote adoption and foster care placements for children. As someone who was adopted, I don't think there was any doubt that that Dave Thomas (founder of Wendy's) felt passionately about the issue and hoped to get others to also help. Another example would be Patagonia's work with environmental issues. It's helpful branding for them, but I think it would be really cynical to assume that their work would somehow be more heartfelt if they did all their donations in secret.
This work benefits companies, but I also think that individuals within a corporation can think there is legitimate value in getting other people aware of the issues and maybe motivating them to get involved either financially or with direct action.
(I have no idea what is motivating Krispy Kreme, this may be purely cynical on their part).
Edit:
Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
Dave Thomas made a foundation that his company gave money to. That's a tax shelter if I've ever heard of one but legal (I think). That doesn't mean DT can't still be passionate about it and when asked to come up with a tax shelter make it a personal one. And if I remember correctly Dave Thomas himself talked more about it then Wendy's ever did in advertising while he was still alive.
Also Wendy's exploits it now (if it didn't back then): "Wendy's Gives Back to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption through Frosty Key Tag fundraiser and special in-app drink offer"
Edit: I think my thoughts about this come from the fact that the best charities don't really advertise, example Red Cross. Where the ones that spend most of the money on themselves and advertising, and only do a minimum of charity work, advertise like crazy. An example, Cancer Fund of America that only manages to find it in its heart to give 2.5% of its donations to support the families of cancer victims and fund cancer research. (I'm not saying I disagree with any charities causes, just the amount of money they spend on themselves before helping the cause they should be helping.)1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »YellowD0gs wrote: »
Umm, excuse me, but WOW!! Corporations making donations to send underpriviledged and ill kids to summer camp is now BS??
We don't have the donut promo here, but we do have Tim Hortons "camp day". So you buy a cookie that day and they donate the profits to send underprivileged kids to summer camp. McDonalds sometimes has those things too - McHappy Day or some such thing for sick kids. It's all the same BS. I would be surprised if those types of promos didn't happen in Australia. The donut thing is more innocuous to me because you don't even have to buy anything.paperpudding wrote: »
Really?
IMO, all corporate charity is for promotion or tax benefits. It's not to actually help anyone other then the corporations bottom line. I don't think the author was saying helping kids is bad, just the use of helping kids to sell more product is bad. If the corporation really wanted to help it wouldn't advertise the fact it's helping.
I agree that these tie-ins have a motive beyond pure altruism, but I disagree that one MUST keep a donation secret if one really wants to help. One can imagine a situation where the people involved in the decisions about charitable donations wanted to help bring attention to an issue and encourage others to become involved.
An example would be the work that Wendy's (American fast food company) used to do to promote adoption and foster care placements for children. As someone who was adopted, I don't think there was any doubt that that Dave Thomas (founder of Wendy's) felt passionately about the issue and hoped to get others to also help. Another example would be Patagonia's work with environmental issues. It's helpful branding for them, but I think it would be really cynical to assume that their work would somehow be more heartfelt if they did all their donations in secret.
This work benefits companies, but I also think that individuals within a corporation can think there is legitimate value in getting other people aware of the issues and maybe motivating them to get involved either financially or with direct action.
(I have no idea what is motivating Krispy Kreme, this may be purely cynical on their part).
Edit:
Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
Dave Thomas made a foundation that his company gave money to. That's a tax shelter if I've ever heard of one but legal (I think). That doesn't mean DT can't still be passionate about it and when asked to come up with a tax shelter make it a personal one. And if I remember correctly Dave Thomas himself talked more about it then Wendy's ever did in advertising while he was still alive.
Also Wendy's exploits it now (if it didn't back then): "Wendy's Gives Back to the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption through Frosty Key Tag fundraiser and special in-app drink offer"
Edit: I think my thoughts about this come from the fact that the best charities don't really advertise, example Red Cross. Where the ones that spend most of the money on themselves and advertising, and only do a minimum of charity work, advertise like crazy. An example, Cancer Fund of America that only manages to find it in its heart to give 2.5% of its donations to support the families of cancer victims and fund cancer research. (I'm not saying I disagree with any charities causes, just the amount of money they spend on themselves before helping the cause they should be helping.)
The Red Cross does advertise. They have campaigns to encourage donations and those campaigns contain details of the work that they've done.
That said, I think comparing the marketing strategies of a non-profit and the marketing strategies of a for-profit organization that also makes contributions to charities isn't necessarily the most fruitful way to look at this.
I'm not arguing that an individual or corporation would never be motivated by the tax benefits of donating money. I'm saying that the fact that they publicize their involvement may not be 100% cynical and self-motivated. They could still believe in the benefit of what they're doing and one could argue that there may be a benefit towards getting the public more aware of a cause. I myself have looked up more information about an issue after hearing about an individual or corporation's involvement with it and sometimes then become involved with it myself.
A whole separate issue is so-called "charities" that don't put much of their money towards their purported cause. That's obviously quite gross and, IMO, unethical.4 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »
Umm, excuse me, but WOW!! Corporations making donations to send underpriviledged and ill kids to summer camp is now BS??
We don't have the donut promo here, but we do have Tim Hortons "camp day". So you buy a cookie that day and they donate the profits to send underprivileged kids to summer camp. McDonalds sometimes has those things too - McHappy Day or some such thing for sick kids. It's all the same BS. I would be surprised if those types of promos didn't happen in Australia. The donut thing is more innocuous to me because you don't even have to buy anything.paperpudding wrote: »
Really?
IMO, all corporate charity is for promotion or tax benefits. It's not to actually help anyone other then the corporations bottom line. I don't think the author was saying helping kids is bad, just the use of helping kids to sell more product is bad. If the corporation really wanted to help it wouldn't advertise the fact it's helping.
I think that's unnecessarily and unrealistically cynical, personally.
I think corporations' reasons vary, in practice. Corporations, in one sense, are just groups of people (stockholders, employees, etc.).
Corporations have cultures, and those function in a way somewhat analogous to personality in individual. Some corporate cultures include a genuine inclination to be good citizens, help their community thrive, and that sort of thing. (Sure, they benefit from living in a thriving community in diverse ways, but it doesn't negate their corporate intentions, any more than my desire to live in a world with healthy, well-educated children (that leads me to contribute to relevant charities to foster a better society), is a reason for me not to take any tax deductions that flow from my donations.)
There are also corporations (and individuals) that are cynical exploiters, and will twist the intent of regulations to get benefits for themselves, with that as their only motivation.
Clearly, most corporations aren't going to do things that literally undercut their business goals, or that create a deep hit on profits with no benefit to the corporation (unless that's part of their corporate charter). They have obligations to their stockholders - accountability generally, but also legal obligations in some instances to manage the stockholders' investments responsibly.
I'd argue that individuals vary in much the same way as corporations, attitudinally and behaviorally. You have some individuals who create non-profit charitable organizations (some foundations, for example, that have been in the news in the last few years), give those foundations tax-deductible donations, then (because they control the foundation) turn around and require the foundation to make purchases, sponsor events, and otherwise make outlays that benefit the individual who set the whole thing up. It may be illegal, or just barely legal, but some non-decent, non-moral individuals do things like that. So do some corporations.
Other individuals may make some of the same motions (set up a foundation, donate to it, take tax deductions), but truly want and expect that foundation to go forth and do good in the world. Might they appreciate the glow of getting credit? Sure, why not. Corporations, again, sometimes do the analogous things.
It isn't just rich folks and foundations, either. Some modest-means individuals choose charitable donations for basically selfish reasons (maybe give to their church's building fund when the church wants to build a gymnasium, because they want to play basketball indoors in Winter, to pull a plausible example out of thin air). Others just give to things they think are "good" because it seems like the right thing to do, to support their community. Many of us choose charities to give to based on interests/relationship to our lives: I give more contributions to cancer-related organizations than I did before I/mom/husband had cancer, because I better understand what good they do. All of the above individuals likely take any tax deductions that come along with these donations (I know I do). Some accept public credit in the forms offered to them (being listed in a publication, or sponsor a memorial brick in a walkway, or whatever). It's not that much different.
Corporations, IMO are not universally special evil. Some are good citizens, some are nefarious manipulators to benefit themselves, many are somewhere in between.5 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »
Umm, excuse me, but WOW!! Corporations making donations to send underpriviledged and ill kids to summer camp is now BS??
We don't have the donut promo here, but we do have Tim Hortons "camp day". So you buy a cookie that day and they donate the profits to send underprivileged kids to summer camp. McDonalds sometimes has those things too - McHappy Day or some such thing for sick kids. It's all the same BS. I would be surprised if those types of promos didn't happen in Australia. The donut thing is more innocuous to me because you don't even have to buy anything.paperpudding wrote: »
Really?
It would be even better to live in a world where corporations just paid their workers enough to be able to send their own kids to summer camp without having to rely on charity.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.4 -
paperpudding wrote: »Riverside, no you didn't, I see I mixed you up with another poster - I posted that I didn't know what it meant and poster did not clarify.
Sorry. There are a lot of posts in this thread and it's easy to miss one.
We have a phrase, vote with your dollars, which translates to consumerism has replaced civic participation.
It's unfathomable that most Americans would have a problem with a large company giving things away for a good cause and to promote themselves. As you've seen in this thread, those of us who complain at all complain about how this "discriminates against" people who choose not to get vaccinated.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
I would totally agree with this assertion. We have local businesses (not giant corporations but profit driven businesses none the less) that will have 'charity' nights. The purpose of these nights are to support local charities - homeless shelters, food banks, etc - and the way that the events are normally run is that all PROCEEDS (not profits but proceeds) that are taken in during the event are passed on to the charities. The business pays for all overhead (salaries, food, rent, etc) associated with the event. I have a hard time trying to link any of these type of events to some 'cynical' reasoning on the part of the local businesses.2 -
So here's my hypothetical from above again. I'm really curious how those bothered by the KK thing would respond, as I think it's basically the same except the promoted product is considered healthy:
Well, let's say Kroger or Safeway offered a free $10 certificate for fruits and veg for anyone who showed they got their annual check up, to encourage that. Would that be bad? I don't think there would be any backlash in the US although there might well be complaints from some groups who would claim it was classist, etc, since we don't have universal health care. If there would be a backlash in AU, then that's definitely a difference. (And I see nothing wrong with such a promotion personally.)
Or, for vaccine-focused, how about Starbucks giving out a free waters in containers that say "I'm Vaccinated, Are You?" -- I might not want one since it seems snotty given that it's still hard to get appointments, but let's say this is in May.
I would have no problem with either of those, and see them as basically the same as the KK example.
I can't imagine such a voucher thing working here, logistics of enforcing fruit veg purchase at the shop end - but no, probably not same level of backlash - it is soft approach at point of sale, not an widely advertised campaign irelevant to the health promotion.
Like when we gave away free apples in a Bowel Health promotion - the basket did say donated by WW, and they were free to anyone coming in to the surgery, no strings attached and the give away product was relevant to the health promotion - ie eating more fibre.
Water - not sure about the I'm vaccinated, are you? message - but water given away to people whilst in waiting room - yes i think that would be ok.
Is basically same as drinks and food given to people after blood donating - the juice boxes etc have labels, so advertising their brand - but soft point of sale appraoch and relevant to the the health activity - ie rehydrating after blood donation.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
I would totally agree with this assertion. We have local businesses (not giant corporations but profit driven businesses none the less) that will have 'charity' nights. The purpose of these nights are to support local charities - homeless shelters, food banks, etc - and the way that the events are normally run is that all PROCEEDS (not profits but proceeds) that are taken in during the event are passed on to the charities. The business pays for all overhead (salaries, food, rent, etc) associated with the event. I have a hard time trying to link any of these type of events to some 'cynical' reasoning on the part of the local businesses.
Businesses do gain, potentially: People who support the charitable cause may come to the event, decide they like the products/foods, and become patrons. Good will is created. There is extra publicity (either paid publicity or social media shared stuff) that mentions the business and perhaps creates positive feelings about it in those who see the advertising even if they don't attend.
I'm still not arguing that businesses do this for cynical reasons, or that they get more out of it than they put in. But they can be getting benefits from doing it, beyond the gratification of doing something generous. (And I think that's totally fine!) It's kind of unavoidable that they benefit *somewhat*, unless they support something deeply unpopular (or similar odd cases).
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
In the interest of terminological clarity, or perhaps pedantry (pick one 😉), I'd observe that a lot of charities (in the US) actually *are* corporations. Not all corporations are profit-making, not all have shareholders, etc.
Not all charities are corporations, but it's not an unusual form for them to take.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »So here's my hypothetical from above again. I'm really curious how those bothered by the KK thing would respond, as I think it's basically the same except the promoted product is considered healthy:
Well, let's say Kroger or Safeway offered a free $10 certificate for fruits and veg for anyone who showed they got their annual check up, to encourage that. Would that be bad? I don't think there would be any backlash in the US although there might well be complaints from some groups who would claim it was classist, etc, since we don't have universal health care. If there would be a backlash in AU, then that's definitely a difference. (And I see nothing wrong with such a promotion personally.)
Or, for vaccine-focused, how about Starbucks giving out a free waters in containers that say "I'm Vaccinated, Are You?" -- I might not want one since it seems snotty given that it's still hard to get appointments, but let's say this is in May.
I would have no problem with either of those, and see them as basically the same as the KK example.
I can't imagine such a voucher thing working here, logistics of enforcing fruit veg purchase at the shop end - but no, probably not same level of backlash - it is soft approach at point of sale, not an widely advertised campaign irelevant to the health promotion.
Like when we gave away free apples in a Bowel Health promotion - the basket did say donated by WW, and they were free to anyone coming in to the surgery, no strings attached and the give away product was relevant to the health promotion - ie eating more fibre.
I can't claim to know what the US public would think, but that seems *more* objectionable, to me personally: They're marketing right there in the health care facility, and the health care facility is allowing the provider's "advertising". (I wouldn't complain about it in practice - does me no harm - but I might eye-roll a little.)
In the KK instance, it has nothing to do with the health care initiative directly, it's strictly a deal between KK and the KK customer. The health care facility or initiative isn't directly involved at all. I do think it's more similar to giving free meals (or other products) to veterans on Veterans' Day, which is super common here; huge numbers of businesses do it.
Water - not sure about the I'm vaccinated, are you? message - but water given away to people whilst in waiting room - yes i think that would be ok.
Is basically same as drinks and food given to people after blood donating - the juice boxes etc have labels, so advertising their brand - but soft point of sale appraoch and relevant to the the health activity - ie rehydrating after blood donation.
2 -
paperpudding wrote: »So here's my hypothetical from above again. I'm really curious how those bothered by the KK thing would respond, as I think it's basically the same except the promoted product is considered healthy:
Well, let's say Kroger or Safeway offered a free $10 certificate for fruits and veg for anyone who showed they got their annual check up, to encourage that. Would that be bad? I don't think there would be any backlash in the US although there might well be complaints from some groups who would claim it was classist, etc, since we don't have universal health care. If there would be a backlash in AU, then that's definitely a difference. (And I see nothing wrong with such a promotion personally.)
Or, for vaccine-focused, how about Starbucks giving out a free waters in containers that say "I'm Vaccinated, Are You?" -- I might not want one since it seems snotty given that it's still hard to get appointments, but let's say this is in May.
I would have no problem with either of those, and see them as basically the same as the KK example.
I can't imagine such a voucher thing working here, logistics of enforcing fruit veg purchase at the shop end - but no, probably not same level of backlash - it is soft approach at point of sale, not an widely advertised campaign irelevant to the health promotion.
Like when we gave away free apples in a Bowel Health promotion - the basket did say donated by WW, and they were free to anyone coming in to the surgery, no strings attached and the give away product was relevant to the health promotion - ie eating more fibre.
Water - not sure about the I'm vaccinated, are you? message - but water given away to people whilst in waiting room - yes i think that would be ok.
Is basically same as drinks and food given to people after blood donating - the juice boxes etc have labels, so advertising their brand - but soft point of sale appraoch and relevant to the the health activity - ie rehydrating after blood donation.
Just to be clear, both of the examples I gave here (the grocery store and the Starbucks) were at point of sale (the stores) and not where the vaccinations are given, because that's what the Krispy Kreme thing is -- no one is giving out donuts at vaccine sites (at least, no national chain, and no one I've heard of). Instead, you can go to a KK store that is participating and they give you a donut. At least, that's what I've read.3 -
Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
Bottled water and juice boxes are given out at blood donation sites though _ which neither I nor anyone else objects to - it isn't explicit or media advertising and is relevant to the health activity.
No I wouldn't say our apples give away was Ww marketing right there in the surgery although was indirect promotion by saying apples were donated by WW
Also WW did not initiate it - we were running a promotion and asked if they would contribute.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Clarification: Corporations have no feelings on an issue. I believe that *individuals* within a corporation, those making specific donation decisions, can have genuine feelings on an issue and that a case can be made that public positions and actions on an issue by a corporation can sometimes serve a positive purpose.
It's also true that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. Henry Ford tried to increase his workers' pay, was sued by shareholders, and lost. It's more complicated now and there are corps who's stated purpose extends beyond profit. And I'm not disputing your point about corporations not having feelings, but they do have interests they are obliged to pursue and act with purpose. And that purpose is generally not altruism.
With all that said, I enjoyed my time at Microsoft working to improve the lives of people with disabilities, for a company that changed from being the devil to leading its industry to more ethical practices.
Absolutely -- I wasn't at all trying to argue that a corporation doesn't have those obligations. Any corporation that had altruism as a primary motivation would be a terrible investment. We have other organizational structures for that type of activity.
I was just arguing that within that structure, a corporation that also attempts actions that go beyond pure profit motive aren't necessarily acting completely cynically.
In the interest of terminological clarity, or perhaps pedantry (pick one 😉), I'd observe that a lot of charities (in the US) actually *are* corporations. Not all corporations are profit-making, not all have shareholders, etc.
Not all charities are corporations, but it's not an unusual form for them to take.
Yes, great point. Thanks!0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.
This specific type of giveaway is illegal in the U.S. (for federal elections), although it happens anyway and I don't think the laws are often enforced.
https://www.eater.com/2016/11/8/13561804/election-day-free-food-for-voting-illegal
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.
This specific type of giveaway is illegal in the U.S. (for federal elections), although it happens anyway and I don't think the laws are often enforced.
https://www.eater.com/2016/11/8/13561804/election-day-free-food-for-voting-illegal
Interesting. I do think I've seen it less than I used to, but didn't think to check the status. It makes sense.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.
Ok, I misunderstood the hypothetical free water scenario then.
I was thinking more like the free drinks one gets on site after blood donation
I think Starbucks offering free water with a vaccine slogan would be same as the real Kk scenario , not sure what we are suppossed to see differently - and like the Kk one it isn't just to get positive press and name awareness , it is, like most freebie promotions, to get more sales. Ie you buy other things plus take the free thing.
I see sponsoring a race or donating to an auction as different - there is no direct increase in sales and usually the organisation has approached the company and the organisation receives something tangible, and doesn't put themselves as the mouthpiece of a govt health message.
I don't see how free food for voting ( just voting, not endorsing any candidate) is any different to free food for vaccinating- yet interestingly that is illegal.
Why would you accept one and not the other - both are companies giving freebies piggy-backed to a govt social or health message
( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)1 -
paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes I understand what Kk is doing.
No one is giving out water at vaccination sites here either - but that was your hypothetical, wasn't it?
No, my hypothetical was Starbucks giving away free water bottles with some kind of vaccine-related slogan to people who showed proof of vaccination at their stores. Both hypotheticals were designed to be basically the same but for the product given away (and in the grocery store example, the specific health care action that is being encouraged).
In the US, I would compare this to, say, KK giving a free donut on election day (again, at their stores) or the day after to anyone who showed their "I voted" sticker, and just as I have no issue with this, I would have no issue with that, although donuts have 0 to do with voting.
Yes, the point on KK's part would probably be to get their name associated with public spiritedness, as well as to get people to come to the store for the free thing, but as others have said, I don't see the effort to get positive press/social capital by associating their name with encouraging voting or a public health campaign any different than sponsoring a race for some kind of cancer or donating stuff to a charity auction or a million other such things that are common.
Ok, I misunderstood the hypothetical free water scenario then.
I was thinking more like the free drinks one gets on site after blood donation
I think Starbucks offering free water with a vaccine slogan would be same as the real Kk scenario , not sure what we are suppossed to see differently - and like the Kk one it isn't just to get positive press and name awareness , it is, like most freebie promotions, to get more sales. Ie you buy other things plus take the free thing.
I see sponsoring a race or donating to an auction as different - there is no direct increase in sales and usually the organisation has approached the company and the organisation receives something tangible, and doesn't put themselves as the mouthpiece of a govt health message.
I don't see how free food for voting ( just voting, not endorsing any candidate) is any different to free food for vaccinating- yet interestingly that is illegal.
Why would you accept one and not the other - both are companies giving freebies piggy-backed to a govt social or health message
( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)
In US history, there is a historical tradition of electoral corruption involving expansive food and alcohol giveaways for voters. Although it has been years and years since such things have been a feature of American life, I imagine these laws are a reaction to that history. I don't think the average American would think it inappropriate for a Starbucks to give someone a coffee for wearing an "I voted" sticker, but when looking at US laws it's important to recognize that they don't always represent the average sentiments of the American people on a particular issue.
Although the corruption is a thing of the past, there is a current issue of a state making it illegal to even give water to someone who is waiting in a long line to vote (Georgia). I personally don't believe that this law is much a response to legitimate fears of corruption as it is an attempt to make it unpleasant for people in certain districts to vote . . . but that's a whole other issue.
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »Ok, I misunderstood the hypothetical free water scenario then.
I was thinking more like the free drinks one gets on site after blood donation
I think Starbucks offering free water with a vaccine slogan would be same as the real Kk scenario , not sure what we are suppossed to see differently - and like the Kk one it isn't just to get positive press and name awareness , it is, like most freebie promotions, to get more sales. Ie you buy other things plus take the free thing.
Yes, I also think it is the same, which was my point, and expected you would see it similarly. Some people were suggesting the issue was that donuts were "not healthy" so I wanted to take that aspect out of it.
I wouldn't see anything wrong with Starbucks having a promotion that also encouraged vaccination in that way. I don't really even understand what is supposed to be bad about it, despite your explanations, other than if it's perceived to be unfair to those unable to be vaccinated. It doesn't seem bad to me for a company to encourage positive health behaviors, even if they (of course) also expect some benefit as a result.I see sponsoring a race or donating to an auction as different - there is no direct increase in sales and usually the organisation has approached the company and the organisation receives something tangible, and doesn't put themselves as the mouthpiece of a govt health message.
I see this as not meaningfully different -- the company hopes additional sales will come out of it (it's not uncommon for coupons or such to be included, in fact) -- and there's no organization in the vaccine/KK example to receive something tangible (the entity responsible for the vaccines is ultimately the gov't).I don't see how free food for voting ( just voting, not endorsing any candidate) is any different to free food for vaccinating- yet interestingly that is illegal.
Why would you accept one and not the other - both are companies giving freebies piggy-backed to a govt social or health message
The problem with the free stuff for voting (which is federally illegal, it is legal in many state/local elections) is that it's essentially paying people for voting which is too closely tied to paying people for voting in a certain way (which was a common form of corruption at one time). I don't really have a personal problem with it so long as it is rigidly non partisan and there's no hint of it being associated with one campaign or another, but I can accept an argument that that's hard to do as by group or location one can easily predict what candidate is likely to benefit (so companies doing it in big cities are in essence acting to benefit one candidate, and those doing it in rural areas are acting to benefit another, and same with the type of product in question in many cases).0 -
paperpudding wrote: »( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)
I'm just curious... how on earth do you force people to vote?
0 -
This thread is pretty sad and when my turn to be vaccinated came up I could not get to the centre for mine quick enough. I was just grateful to have it.
And I can report to any and all conspiracy theorists that while my reception of 5G may have improved I am not yet dead.
I do not need to be bribed to vote either.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)
I'm just curious... how on earth do you force people to vote?
People are fined for not voting. There are exemptions eg ill on the day, religious reasons.
0 -
You don't think it is a sorry state of affairs that in a country where people are entitled to a free vaccination, one that is being shown to be both safe and effective, they are having to be bribed with donuts to take it?0 -
paperpudding wrote: »( cannot do direct comparison to here because voting is a compulsory responsibility here not an optional thing people get enticements for)
I'm just curious... how on earth do you force people to vote?
The same way you force people to wear seat belts etc - you promote the message that it is a community responsibility and you fine people if they do not comply.1 -
You don't think it is a sorry state of affairs that in some countries where people are entitled to a free vaccination, one that is being shown to be both safe and effective, they are having to be bribed with donuts to take it?
The offer of a KK doughnut makes no difference in anyone's decision to get the shot.
NOT ONE PERSON!!!3 -
You don't think it is a sorry state of affairs that in a country where people are entitled to a free vaccination, one that is being shown to be both safe and effective, they are having to be bribed with donuts to take it?
I highly, HIGHLY doubt a donut influences anyone to get the vaccine or not. It’s just an advertising promotion. The debate is about whether it is appropriate or not.6 -
paperpudding wrote: »Ok, I misunderstood the hypothetical free water scenario then.
I was thinking more like the free drinks one gets on site after blood donation
I think Starbucks offering free water with a vaccine slogan would be same as the real Kk scenario , not sure what we are suppossed to see differently - and like the Kk one it isn't just to get positive press and name awareness , it is, like most freebie promotions, to get more sales. Ie you buy other things plus take the free thing.
Yes, I also think it is the same, which was my point, and expected you would see it similarly. Some people were suggesting the issue was that donuts were "not healthy" so I wanted to take that aspect out of it.
I wouldn't see anything wrong with Starbucks having a promotion that also encouraged vaccination in that way. I don't really even understand what is supposed to be bad about it, despite your explanations, other than if it's perceived to be unfair to those unable to be vaccinated. It doesn't seem bad to me for a company to encourage positive health behaviors, even if they (of course) also expect some benefit as a result.I see sponsoring a race or donating to an auction as different - there is no direct increase in sales and usually the organisation has approached the company and the organisation receives something tangible, and doesn't put themselves as the mouthpiece of a govt health message.
I see this as not meaningfully different -- the company hopes additional sales will come out of it (it's not uncommon for coupons or such to be included, in fact) -- and there's no organization in the vaccine/KK example to receive something tangible (the entity responsible for the vaccines is ultimately the gov't).I don't see how free food for voting ( just voting, not endorsing any candidate) is any different to free food for vaccinating- yet interestingly that is illegal.
Why would you accept one and not the other - both are companies giving freebies piggy-backed to a govt social or health message
The problem with the free stuff for voting (which is federally illegal, it is legal in many state/local elections) is that it's essentially paying people for voting which is too closely tied to paying people for voting in a certain way (which was a common form of corruption at one time). I don't really have a personal problem with it so long as it is rigidly non partisan and there's no hint of it being associated with one campaign or another, but I can accept an argument that that's hard to do as by group or location one can easily predict what candidate is likely to benefit (so companies doing it in big cities are in essence acting to benefit one candidate, and those doing it in rural areas are acting to benefit another, and same with the type of product in question in many cases).
Picking up a couple of points.
Yes, my issue and what i believe would be the australian public's issue with the KK donuts was nothing to do with them being healthy or not - was surprised to see thread take that tangent as that was not my point at all
No the issue isnt that it is perceived to be unfair to those unable to be vaccinated (although I suppose there is that too) - but that it is inappropriate commercialisation/advertising piggy backing on to a health message.
By something tangible in the donating to auctions. sponsorship scenario - I mean the reciprient organisation -eg Childrens Cancer Fund, the local football club or whoever, receives the prizes or catering or whatever is donated or covered by sponsorship.
It is done at the request of the reciprient organisation and the donor does not become the mouthpiece of the Cancer Fund
Not sure if I explained that clearly.
Interestingly here I dont think there would be any issue with a group offering no strings, no electoral slogan free water or basic food at a voting venue - and indeed BBQ's selling food at voting venues to raise money for local sports clubs, local charities and such like is very common -so much so that the colloquial term "democracy sausage" refers to exactly that - sausage sandwiches sold at voting venues.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions