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: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's amazing this wouldn't fly in Australia, it's completely unremarkable here. We see ourselves as consumers first, and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means.
I'm not sure what you mean by last sentence about asking google what citizens means - but amazingly though it may seem to you, this would not fly in Australia- the concept of health messages being muddied by commercial product promotion may be unremarkable in US, but I doubt it would be here.
What health message is being muddied though?
Covid vaccinations serve the public good. Krispy Kreme is using current chatter around vaccinations and offering their product as a way to 1) promote that public good and 2) get some headlines related to current vaccine publicity.
Unless the argument is that having a donut somehow cancels out the efficacy of the vaccine, I'm not sure what could possibly be muddied here.
Seems pretty obvious that the poster doesn't like the coupling of a healthy thing with an unhealthy thing even when they're not related. Mixed messages. Whether you agree or not it's clearly what's being said.
I'm sorry for being dense, but it wasn't clear to me. That's why I asked.
I can see if Krispy Kreme was tying this into some kind of healthy eating campaign, it would be potentially muddied. But these vaccines are about preventing COVID, not limiting sugar consumption.
I don't think you're being dense and I'm sorry if I came off that way. There's no tone of voice or any of that stuff on the internet. You're not the only one here puzzled as the connection that was implied. I think it's that this community is all in on the idea that there are no bad foods only bad diets, which is not universally held. A lot of people see things like doughnuts as inherently bad and unhealthy, the opposite of doing anything to improve your health.
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I can see how the thought process could be "COVID-19 is a matter of public health and obesity is a matter of public health and donuts are a cause of obesity, so giving someone a donut for getting a vaccination is mixing messages." The thing is: Americans were eating donuts way before obesity was a problem. I know you're not arguing anything different, but I think you're right that many people here don't necessarily see donuts as inherently bad in the way that, say, COVID is inherently had.
If you mean clarifying about not thinking you're being dense, then for the record I think you're pretty clever and insightful because I've been reading the stuff you've been saying.1 -
If such a campaign causes even one person to decide to get vaccinated then it will have been worth it. I could care less about whether or not people eat donuts, I care a lot whether or not people get vaccinated. I care more about the end result than I do the purity of the motive.18
-
I am wondering what form you would anticipate this objection taking? Would you anticipate protests, or a boycott, or something else? I can’t imagine anyone here getting that worked up about a free donut to bother. We have a lot of health related promos and corporate tie ins here in Canada (that do annoy me), mostly for breast cancer and such. They put those little pink ribbons on everything - it’s like an industry in itself. Do you not have that in Australia? I haven’t seen anything about the vaccine here though.
Sorry its taken me this long to get back to clarify - No I dont think there would be protests - but I think there would be backlash in media and possibly boycotting the product and I think the result would be counter productive for KK rather than promoting or selling more of their product.
Yes we have health related promos here too -I described one our surgery ran.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »There probably ARE people who object for any variety of reasons. People will find anything to gripe about.
Paperpudding at this point it seems like you are making a condescending "comment" about the American public.
People are people. Some will object. Most have more important and bigger things to worry about.
Not sure what you are finding condescending or getting defensive about.
You write " and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means - which seemed a sarcastic condescending comment to me as does 'most have bigger and better things to worry about'
Of course there are bigger things to discuss - not sure why people respond with that remark about discussion of less big things.
We would never talk about any less big topics if we waited for all the big ones to be solved first.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's amazing this wouldn't fly in Australia, it's completely unremarkable here. We see ourselves as consumers first, and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means.
I'm not sure what you mean by last sentence about asking google what citizens means - but amazingly though it may seem to you, this would not fly in Australia- the concept of health messages being muddied by commercial product promotion may be unremarkable in US, but I doubt it would be here.
What health message is being muddied though?
Covid vaccinations serve the public good. Krispy Kreme is using current chatter around vaccinations and offering their product as a way to 1) promote that public good and 2) get some headlines related to current vaccine publicity.
Unless the argument is that having a donut somehow cancels out the efficacy of the vaccine, I'm not sure what could possibly be muddied here.
No i dont think anyone would think a donut cancels out efficiency of vaccine - perhaps muddying the message wasnt quite what i meant.
But the commercialistion or profiteering from health messages with irelevant products - would be inappropriate use of advertising.
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »my debate question wasnt really about whether KK donuts are good from a weight management point of view - more about how much advertsing is allowed or acceptable to be linked to health care.
I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this.
I probably wouldn't think twice about it.
But if going by the number of people who bring those kk donuts back on home a plane (there are no kk stores in my state), I'd say a quite few would put up their hands for a freebie regardless of what it was associated with.
4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's amazing this wouldn't fly in Australia, it's completely unremarkable here. We see ourselves as consumers first, and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means.
I'm not sure what you mean by last sentence about asking google what citizens means - but amazingly though it may seem to you, this would not fly in Australia- the concept of health messages being muddied by commercial product promotion may be unremarkable in US, but I doubt it would be here.
What health message is being muddied though?
Covid vaccinations serve the public good. Krispy Kreme is using current chatter around vaccinations and offering their product as a way to 1) promote that public good and 2) get some headlines related to current vaccine publicity.
Unless the argument is that having a donut somehow cancels out the efficacy of the vaccine, I'm not sure what could possibly be muddied here.
Seems pretty obvious that the poster doesn't like the coupling of a healthy thing with an unhealthy thing even when they're not related. Mixed messages. Whether you agree or not it's clearly what's being said.
Sorry If I wasnt clear - but , no that isnt what I meant to say
It isnt about a healthy thing (vaccines) with an unhealthy thing - and I dont think donuts in moderation are unhealthy anyway, I am not arguing that
More the commercial coupling of an irelevant product with a health message
0 -
"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
No I havenst seen backlash against that - in fact I havent seen that at all, so perhaps it isnt as well known.
I think perhaps the donating profits directly to a cause is different.
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »It's amazing this wouldn't fly in Australia, it's completely unremarkable here. We see ourselves as consumers first, and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means.
I'm not sure what you mean by last sentence about asking google what citizens means - but amazingly though it may seem to you, this would not fly in Australia- the concept of health messages being muddied by commercial product promotion may be unremarkable in US, but I doubt it would be here.
What health message is being muddied though?
Covid vaccinations serve the public good. Krispy Kreme is using current chatter around vaccinations and offering their product as a way to 1) promote that public good and 2) get some headlines related to current vaccine publicity.
Unless the argument is that having a donut somehow cancels out the efficacy of the vaccine, I'm not sure what could possibly be muddied here.
Seems pretty obvious that the poster doesn't like the coupling of a healthy thing with an unhealthy thing even when they're not related. Mixed messages. Whether you agree or not it's clearly what's being said.
That's not how I read it - I thought that the OP was against a corporation taking advantage of a public health crisis in order to boost their profits - I didn't get the impression that the product (the donut) was the issue.
Well it wasnt really meant to be a discussion of what I personally am against - more what would be acceptable to society in general in different countries
But yes exactly - the donut wasnt the issue (or how healthy such foods are or are not so was surprised to see that tangent being laid at my door) ) - more the idea of a corporation blatantly using a health message t o boost their profits
0 -
That's not how I read it - I thought that the OP was against a corporation taking advantage of a public health crisis in order to boost their profits - I didn't get the impression that the product (the donut) was the issue.
I thought the same thing but then the author said this:paperpudding wrote: »my debate question wasnt really about whether KK donuts are good from a weight management point of view - more about how much advertsing is allowed or acceptable to be linked to health care.
I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this.
So it makes me wonder if the author would have said the same thing if instead of a donut it was a coffee mug or toy or something non-food related?
yes I would have posed same discussion question and I think Australia would have same reaction to those products being promoted in same way too.0 -
No idea what Canada or the UK’s stand on this would be so I’m just giving a personal reaction.
I’m not in favour of any handout at the vaccination site that isn’t connected to COVID prevention and a true charitable (non advertising) or government hand out. (ie: a choise of advised pain killer (2pk) for after effects that night/next day)
The KK ‘donation’ is an advertising and tax ploy and if one company is allowed to do this then it could end up with rows of goody bags being offered and people choosing which site to attend based on what freebies they get.
This could then devolve into company sponsored sites that could compromise quality of service and equality of distribution.
Like I said, just my reaction.
Cheers, h.4 -
paperpudding wrote: »"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
No I havenst seen backlash against that - in fact I havent seen that at all, so perhaps it isnt as well known.
I think perhaps the donating profits directly to a cause is different.
I guess I am not seeing the difference - both scenarios are large corporations who are taking advantage of a public health crisis (the pandemic or breast cancer) to promote their products, and boost their profits. The promotions are set up slightly differently, but it is the same basic concept.
And in either one, the donut give away or the breast cancer products, the corporation could make the claim that they are actually promoting public health with their actions.
You are making the assertion that that kind of thing "wouldn't fly" in Australia due to cultural differences, but it is already happening in Australia, and you haven't heard of any backlash against it (which surprises me a little because I have heard of backlash against it here in Canada - although it still happens).
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.
4 -
paperpudding wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »There probably ARE people who object for any variety of reasons. People will find anything to gripe about.
Paperpudding at this point it seems like you are making a condescending "comment" about the American public.
People are people. Some will object. Most have more important and bigger things to worry about.
Not sure what you are finding condescending or getting defensive about.
You write " and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means - which seemed a sarcastic condescending comment to me as does 'most have bigger and better things to worry about'
Of course there are bigger things to discuss - not sure why people respond with that remark about discussion of less big things.
We would never talk about any less big topics if we waited for all the big ones to be solved first.
I'm pretty sure the comment about "citizens" was an American poking fun at AMERICANS for how we sometimes seem to value our status as consumers over our status as citizens.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »There probably ARE people who object for any variety of reasons. People will find anything to gripe about.
Paperpudding at this point it seems like you are making a condescending "comment" about the American public.
People are people. Some will object. Most have more important and bigger things to worry about.
Not sure what you are finding condescending or getting defensive about.
You write " and hold on let me ask google what "citizens" means - which seemed a sarcastic condescending comment to me as does 'most have bigger and better things to worry about'
Of course there are bigger things to discuss - not sure why people respond with that remark about discussion of less big things.
We would never talk about any less big topics if we waited for all the big ones to be solved first.
I'm pretty sure the comment about "citizens" was an American poking fun at AMERICANS for how we sometimes seem to value our status as consumers over our status as citizens.
Yeah, and I wasn't the one who said it.
2 -
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.
2 -
paperpudding wrote: »"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
No I havenst seen backlash against that - in fact I havent seen that at all, so perhaps it isnt as well known.
I think perhaps the donating profits directly to a cause is different.
I guess I am not seeing the difference - both scenarios are large corporations who are taking advantage of a public health crisis (the pandemic or breast cancer) to promote their products, and boost their profits. The promotions are set up slightly differently, but it is the same basic concept.
And in either one, the donut give away or the breast cancer products, the corporation could make the claim that they are actually promoting public health with their actions.
You are making the assertion that that kind of thing "wouldn't fly" in Australia due to cultural differences, but it is already happening in Australia, and you haven't heard of any backlash against it (which surprises me a little because I have heard of backlash against it here in Canada - although it still happens).
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.
Yes McDonald's has those buy a happy meal and profit goes to charitable cause here too - I see that as different because there is a donation to charity and not a direct link to a government promotion health message1 -
middlehaitch wrote: »No idea what Canada or the UK’s stand on this would be so I’m just giving a personal reaction.
I’m not in favour of any handout at the vaccination site that isn’t connected to COVID prevention and a true charitable (non advertising) or government hand out. (ie: a choise of advised pain killer (2pk) for after effects that night/next day)
The KK ‘donation’ is an advertising and tax ploy and if one company is allowed to do this then it could end up with rows of goody bags being offered and people choosing which site to attend based on what freebies they get.
This could then devolve into company sponsored sites that could compromise quality of service and equality of distribution.
Like I said, just my reaction.
Cheers, h.
Yes that sums up my feeling on it and IMO how the Australian public would react.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »No idea what Canada or the UK’s stand on this would be so I’m just giving a personal reaction.
I’m not in favour of any handout at the vaccination site that isn’t connected to COVID prevention and a true charitable (non advertising) or government hand out. (ie: a choise of advised pain killer (2pk) for after effects that night/next day)
The KK ‘donation’ is an advertising and tax ploy and if one company is allowed to do this then it could end up with rows of goody bags being offered and people choosing which site to attend based on what freebies they get.
This could then devolve into company sponsored sites that could compromise quality of service and equality of distribution.
Like I said, just my reaction.
Cheers, h.
Yes that sums up my feeling on it and IMO how the Australian public would react.
But she's talking about AT the vaccination sites.
Krispy Kreme is just running a promotion in its stores. In a free market economy.
8 -
Yes I know that. Seems same sort of inappropriate advertising to me though
And if it is ok in free market economy of US that's fine.
I don't think it would be seen as ok here though which prompted me to post a thread for discussion about that.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes I know that. Seems same sort of inappropriate advertising to me though
And if it is ok in free market economy of US that's fine.
I don't think it would be seen as ok here though which prompted me to post a thread for discussion about that.
Do you feel the same way about a restaurant offering special deals or free meals to, say, veterans or First Responders (and making that widely known)? I think the issue is that in the US we're already used to discounts being used promotionally and as a reward for socially beneficial actions. And even if individual Americans are rubbed the wrong way by this, there is no (to my knowledge) state mechanism to stop it. It's pretty much our tradition that businesses can promote themselves in almost any way they please, the government pretty much only steps in when there is a perceived danger or when children are being specifically targeted. And you only really see consumers get upset when they perceive that their "values" are being targeted (like when Cheerios got the backlash in 2013 for having an interracial family in a cereal ad).4 -
paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
No I havenst seen backlash against that - in fact I havent seen that at all, so perhaps it isnt as well known.
I think perhaps the donating profits directly to a cause is different.
I guess I am not seeing the difference - both scenarios are large corporations who are taking advantage of a public health crisis (the pandemic or breast cancer) to promote their products, and boost their profits. The promotions are set up slightly differently, but it is the same basic concept.
And in either one, the donut give away or the breast cancer products, the corporation could make the claim that they are actually promoting public health with their actions.
You are making the assertion that that kind of thing "wouldn't fly" in Australia due to cultural differences, but it is already happening in Australia, and you haven't heard of any backlash against it (which surprises me a little because I have heard of backlash against it here in Canada - although it still happens).
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.
Yes McDonald's has those buy a happy meal and profit goes to charitable cause here too - I see that as different because there is a donation to charity and not a direct link to a government promotion health message
Ok well since I am seeing both as linking a corporate product to a health message, and you are seeing it as two different things, there isn't much point in debating it.
You are basically saying that Australians would not accept this one specific scenario for a product promotion/public health link - while there is evidence they accept many other forms of it. I can't imagine how such a major cultural difference would manifest itself in such a narrowly specific way.
I guess unless this exact promo makes it's way to Australia we will never know and will have to take your word for it.6 -
paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
No I havenst seen backlash against that - in fact I havent seen that at all, so perhaps it isnt as well known.
I think perhaps the donating profits directly to a cause is different.
I guess I am not seeing the difference - both scenarios are large corporations who are taking advantage of a public health crisis (the pandemic or breast cancer) to promote their products, and boost their profits. The promotions are set up slightly differently, but it is the same basic concept.
And in either one, the donut give away or the breast cancer products, the corporation could make the claim that they are actually promoting public health with their actions.
You are making the assertion that that kind of thing "wouldn't fly" in Australia due to cultural differences, but it is already happening in Australia, and you haven't heard of any backlash against it (which surprises me a little because I have heard of backlash against it here in Canada - although it still happens).
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.
Yes McDonald's has those buy a happy meal and profit goes to charitable cause here too - I see that as different because there is a donation to charity and not a direct link to a government promotion health message
Ok well since I am seeing both as linking a corporate product to a health message, and you are seeing it as two different things, there isn't much point in debating it.
You are basically saying that Australians would not accept this one specific scenario for a product promotion/public health link - while there is evidence they accept many other forms of it. I can't imagine how such a major cultural difference would manifest itself in such a narrowly specific way.
I guess unless this exact promo makes it's way to Australia we will never know and will have to take your word for it.
What government health promotion is mchappy day linked to?
It is raising money for charity but no link to a government health promotion here
No I am not saying Australians wouldn't accept the one specific scenario of Krispy Kreme , I am saying I believe they wouldn't accept this sort of corporate advertising linked to a health promotion, not this specific one only
True - unless Kk tries such a promotion here we will not know.
KK are here in Australia - it is possible they are not trying it here because they know it would not be accepted.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes I know that. Seems same sort of inappropriate advertising to me though
And if it is ok in free market economy of US that's fine.
I don't think it would be seen as ok here though which prompted me to post a thread for discussion about that.
Do you feel the same way about a restaurant offering special deals or free meals to, say, veterans or First Responders (and making that widely known)? I think the issue is that in the US we're already used to discounts being used promotionally and as a reward for socially beneficial actions. And even if individual Americans are rubbed the wrong way by this, there is no (to my knowledge) state mechanism to stop it. It's pretty much our tradition that businesses can promote themselves in almost any way they please, the government pretty much only steps in when there is a perceived danger or when children are being specifically targeted. And you only really see consumers get upset when they perceive that their "values" are being targeted (like when Cheerios got the backlash in 2013 for having an interracial family in a cereal ad).
I am not aware of special deals for veterans or first responders here. Closest I can recall was free McDonald's coffee for health professionals during lockdown last year.
No I don't feel same way about that - it isn't linked to a government public health promotion
It is more like the soft approach I mentioned earlier of Kk donating trays to staff rooms of hospitals/ clinics during lockdown.
(As an aside, I find it worrying that as late as 2013, people objected to an inter racial family appearing in an advertisement.)
I m not sure there would be a state mechanism to stop it here either- meaning I'm not sure it would be illegal - but I think there would be backlash against it.
1 -
middlehaitch wrote: »No idea what Canada or the UK’s stand on this would be so I’m just giving a personal reaction.
I’m not in favour of any handout at the vaccination site that isn’t connected to COVID prevention and a true charitable (non advertising) or government hand out. (ie: a choise of advised pain killer (2pk) for after effects that night/next day)
The KK ‘donation’ is an advertising and tax ploy and if one company is allowed to do this then it could end up with rows of goody bags being offered and people choosing which site to attend based on what freebies they get.
This could then devolve into company sponsored sites that could compromise quality of service and equality of distribution.
Like I said, just my reaction.
Cheers, h.
I think it's rather significant that there's no "tax ploy" or "donation" here -- I'm sure it would be considered like any other promotion -- and it doesn't affect where people get vaccinated as it has nothing to do with the vaccination site. It's KK offering a free donut at their own location.
No one responded to my other hypothetical -- maybe it was boring and no one was interested but (optimistically) maybe everyone was responding to other posts and missed it, so I will try again in the next post!0 -
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.3 -
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?
2 -
paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »"I dont think Australia would be ok with any product advertising via a promotion like this."
Idk they have this in Australia - I think this is worse than giving away something free tbh. I think a lot of corporations are making an awful lot of profits off the cancer industry. I would find it odd if people would accept this kind of thing, but not a free donut. Or is there backlash against this in Australia?
https://nbcf.org.au/partners/pink-products/
No I havenst seen backlash against that - in fact I havent seen that at all, so perhaps it isnt as well known.
I think perhaps the donating profits directly to a cause is different.
I guess I am not seeing the difference - both scenarios are large corporations who are taking advantage of a public health crisis (the pandemic or breast cancer) to promote their products, and boost their profits. The promotions are set up slightly differently, but it is the same basic concept.
And in either one, the donut give away or the breast cancer products, the corporation could make the claim that they are actually promoting public health with their actions.
You are making the assertion that that kind of thing "wouldn't fly" in Australia due to cultural differences, but it is already happening in Australia, and you haven't heard of any backlash against it (which surprises me a little because I have heard of backlash against it here in Canada - although it still happens).
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.
Yes McDonald's has those buy a happy meal and profit goes to charitable cause here too - I see that as different because there is a donation to charity and not a direct link to a government promotion health message
Ok well since I am seeing both as linking a corporate product to a health message, and you are seeing it as two different things, there isn't much point in debating it.
You are basically saying that Australians would not accept this one specific scenario for a product promotion/public health link - while there is evidence they accept many other forms of it. I can't imagine how such a major cultural difference would manifest itself in such a narrowly specific way.
I guess unless this exact promo makes it's way to Australia we will never know and will have to take your word for it.
What government health promotion is mchappy day linked to?
It is raising money for charity but no link to a government health promotion here
No I am not saying Australians wouldn't accept the one specific scenario of Krispy Kreme , I am saying I believe they wouldn't accept this sort of corporate advertising linked to a health promotion, not this specific one only
True - unless Kk tries such a promotion here we will not know.
KK are here in Australia - it is possible they are not trying it here because they know it would not be accepted.
But the corporation is not even (technically) making money off of the donut one. You can literally get a donut without buying something.
So you are saying that Australian culture is such that people will readily accept corporations profiting off of charitable organizations, but they would draw the line at government health initiatives?
Again that seems like a weird flex to me - but I'll have to take your word for it.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?
Well yes - because I could easily skip the corporation and donate directly to sending kids to camp, or donate to the charity of my choice without padding a corporate bottom line in the process.
If the corporation wants to donate to charities that's all well and good, tying it to something I purchase is the BS part. IMO
3 -
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.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?
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.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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