i-do-not-believe-that-companies-should-donate-portions-of-their-revenues-to-causes mini-rant

[the_new_sjoerd]

okay, so i am subscribed to The Nation's email newsletter. i hardly ever read it, so sometimes i wonder why i am even still subscribed, but today i opened their email. it turned out they had an offer for me: if i would get a contract with this certain phone company, they would throw in a one-year subscription to The Nation for free. they thought

Comments

[the_new_sjoerd]

ha! twas dus niet geheel gek van me gedacht!

[bsting]

Actually ... that makes a whole lot of sense. Then again, why would *you* donate money to a good cause and not get activel involved instead? I guess it's the same for companies. It's easier to sponsor something financially then to clim on the barricades. That would be interesting to see tho. Hordes of political demonstrators up on barricades, facing hordes of ME while they are waving flags of a phone company and wearing t-shirts of a cola-brand sponsor. \m/

[the_new_sjoerd]

well, it is perfectly normal to pay others for jobs that you can't or don't want to do. companies do it too. but in the case of good causes, the companies would spend money that i give them for their products, on things that play no role in the production process of said products. in effect, i pay for good causes they choose. hmm.

anyway, that idea of corporate protests is quite hilarious.

(?)

[piratequeentoby]

I know this doesn't quite go with your post but I haven't logged on to LJ in ages (not that I have one, really) and somehow I or LJ fucked up your comments-- really sorry...

Re: (?)

[the_new_sjoerd]

? i don't see anything wrong with the comments.

anyhoo, i don't have much of an LJ left myself.

so mail me more about your honeymoon already! sheesh ;)

[risalien]

I don't agree with this.

I'd like a company to be upfront on where they spend their money, so by telling me that this is where they contribute at least I know.

Many companies donate to a variety of causes. In particular, a large company like Exxon spends huge money lobbying the US government on policies, for example the Kyoto Protocol. Exxon worked hard to make sure that there was a negative climate (pun not intended) surrounding America's decision on ratifying it. Exxon does not tell their customers that they do this because there would be a huge outcry.

Other companies can promote themselves by appealing to sympathetic customers by saying where they contribute.

Either way we can not control what the companies do with their revenue anymore than my work can tell me how to spend my paycheck.

ps. I do actively support a long distance company that donates a portion of my money to promoting civil rights.

[the_new_sjoerd]

it's not so much that i mind them giving money to good causes. what i most mind is them using it as a way to attract customers. i wouldn't have thought of this if they hadn't sent me an email, asking me to support them.

what if all companies gave to good causes? would i have to go out of my way to find the company with the best causes? and what if they all gave to the same causes? and if they all did, would they start a 'good cause war', like the price wars they have? and what if they gave money to good causes while treating their own employees poorly? how would i find out about that?

just give me the damn product! and i'll support a good cause myself.

as a principle, companies are about making money, not giving it away. they shouldn't make it seem otherwise.

(this does not mean that i think it is wrong to support companies that in turn support good causes.)