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.
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions