Some companies build their entire brand off of these kinds of things. When I was in my 20's I would have told people they were crazy if someone were to have told me this, but we should be about that cynical. They are systems mostly designed to make money and almost all communications are oriented to this goal.
I think most people accept capitalism, or accept that companies might act in self interest. The harder part is accepting how manipulative they can be with the power of their brand especially.
If you 'feel' a certain way about a brand, and that feeling has anything to do with a morality, then be doubly concerned.
I don’t know what dislike means, but it’s obviously attracting enough eyeballs from someone to create multi billion dollar cash flow at Facebook and other social media companies.
Anecdotally, all the people who keep their head down and stay modest don’t advance politically. Tooting your own horn is basically a requirement.
Yes, we're all keyed into morality, which is why it's such a powerful lever for companies to pull.
Whether it's water, shoes, or software, they're keen on 'using the right language to make us happy' and how that lines up with actual practices if often a different thing.
Also - it's used internally at companies as well. Everyone wants to think they are doing some kind of 'good'.
It's a weird artifact of a few modern companies in countries where culture is variable or the rules are less established by society, so you see this more in the 'New World'. Or rather, I should say, it's just more apparent there. 'Old World' companies do this but in much more traditional ways.
It's complicated and also easy for young people to get 'too skeptical' - I find this happens when at the age we start learning the world isn't as nice as we were taught growing up and then flip to cynicism. The reality is that it's always grey and it takes actual insight to try to make any sense of it.
They actually do. Charities often hire external fund raising agencies to try to solicit more donations (essentially call centres phoning up people who've donated before). Return on investment might be 2x spend.
I've had friends work in the charity fundraising sector - its a bit eye opening how much money the big name charities spend on overheads in high cost of living major cities.
Along with the externalities of much less of your money actually going to the charity, and of being regularly solicited/harassed on the street by the same people wearing whatever vest related to the charity they're promoting on that day; they're akin to popup ads that everyone despised.
Yes, if the charity is geting 2x the spending with the fundraiser, that means the fundraiser is getting 1/3 of the funds. Pretty gross, IMHO, but if the charity needs (or can reasonably use) 2x the funds, it's kind of hard to argue against the results.
I disagree. First, because there's some evidence that most people will give a fixed amount to charity (I'm too lazy to find a source), so they're playing a zero-sum game and any fundraising overhead just takes away from money being given to people who need it.
Second, because that money doesn't come from a vaccuum. People who spent it on charitable causes could have spent it on other things; some of these things might be a new smartphone or fancy food; but some of them might have been an electric car or a college fund or whatever.
So super-expensive fundraising takes money away from other parts of society, some of which might be productive, to sink it into the giant resource-wasting game that it advertising.
Personally speaking, I donate to the Global Fund. They do relatively little advertising, but they get shit done.
First, if it were an abstract situation of "Generic Company spends...", I feel that's the wrong way round of thinking about it. All $6.5M came from Generic Company's marketing budget, complaining about only a relatively small % going to charity should be addressed equally at any other company buying a Superbowl ad who didn't spend any of their Superbowl marketing budget on charitable donations. Obviously there are plenty of bigger conversations to be had about the world at large, wealth equality, poverty, areas that charities address that as a species we should be able to just end as problems, etc. but it's not like this case in as example of a company which was expected to do $6.5M worth of good and wasted $5.5M on advertising. DoorDash never claimed to be a charity, nor (as far as I know) suggested they would give more money to charity to any of their funding sources. Unless we get rid of all marketing, or solve all problems so that no charities need donations, shouldn't we encourage companies to donate more even if it's for promotional motives?
The second point is about DoorDash specifically and their business doings/ethics. Maybe the fact that it's them, not an unnamed random company, means they should be criticised for being hypocritical in their marketing messaging vs. their actions? But that would be equally true or not had they made a charitable donation and only done very cheap, basic marcom around it. But that makes for a less exciting headline.
Donating in order to make a nice video. Sounds like corporate equivalent of influencer streaming while giving things to homeless people.
Charity is a good thing. Trying to benefit from charity is trashy. I have more respect for companies not playing this game.
People have a disgust response to corporations attempting to subvert our human-focused emotional responses towards their companies. It’s abusive in a sense, the same reason why people get incredibly upset when corporations try and capitalize on children, or martyrs, or movements.
It’s because fundamentally they are playing a trick, and they know it. They’re trying to take a far bigger, greater thing than them, and capitalize it. The capitalization of our most dear values is, really, quite disgusting and a very modern phenomenon. While they were figuring out ways to do it all the way back in the 60s, there’s a certain shamelessness to it now that is maddening. Probably because they way they do it today, like in this case, it’s easy to believe that entire ad teams have been raised in such a corrupted moral environment that that actually do not even understand why what they’re doing is reprehensible, and that blindness/greed combo is especially icky (cheapening/devaluing core cultural values for a quick buck, and not even able acknowledge it as such).
FYI, the CEO’s salary, including all bonuses, is $650k. Charity navigator says only 17% of donations to this specific charity (sesame workshop) would go to administration. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/132655731
Sounds appalling at first, but then I realized there are so many companies these days that will say “for every pair of shoes bought, we will give a pair to someone in need”, etc. It’s just more charity/feel good marketing.
I’m not surprised they would do this for PR attention. The entire DD business model is fascinating. I don’t know their economics well enough to understand if it’s sustainable, but apparently I can get a Big Mac and fries delivered to my home for about $22, over 2x the cost of buying from McD directly.
The idea of a four party transaction just for me to eat a sandwich is nuts — me, McD, DoorDash, and the driver. I suppose it’s convenient if you’re willing to spend that much dime. The fact that they’re in business tells me people are even lazier than I imagined.
23 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 57.6 ms ] threadI think most people accept capitalism, or accept that companies might act in self interest. The harder part is accepting how manipulative they can be with the power of their brand especially.
If you 'feel' a certain way about a brand, and that feeling has anything to do with a morality, then be doubly concerned.
Individuals do it just as much, most easily visible on Facebook and Instagram, but also in other non-Internet interactions.
Anecdotally, all the people who keep their head down and stay modest don’t advance politically. Tooting your own horn is basically a requirement.
Whether it's water, shoes, or software, they're keen on 'using the right language to make us happy' and how that lines up with actual practices if often a different thing.
Also - it's used internally at companies as well. Everyone wants to think they are doing some kind of 'good'.
It's a weird artifact of a few modern companies in countries where culture is variable or the rules are less established by society, so you see this more in the 'New World'. Or rather, I should say, it's just more apparent there. 'Old World' companies do this but in much more traditional ways.
It's complicated and also easy for young people to get 'too skeptical' - I find this happens when at the age we start learning the world isn't as nice as we were taught growing up and then flip to cynicism. The reality is that it's always grey and it takes actual insight to try to make any sense of it.
Slippery slope, but might be the reasonable thing for effective altruism.
I've had friends work in the charity fundraising sector - its a bit eye opening how much money the big name charities spend on overheads in high cost of living major cities.
Second, because that money doesn't come from a vaccuum. People who spent it on charitable causes could have spent it on other things; some of these things might be a new smartphone or fancy food; but some of them might have been an electric car or a college fund or whatever.
So super-expensive fundraising takes money away from other parts of society, some of which might be productive, to sink it into the giant resource-wasting game that it advertising.
Personally speaking, I donate to the Global Fund. They do relatively little advertising, but they get shit done.
Seems to me there's two separate issues.
First, if it were an abstract situation of "Generic Company spends...", I feel that's the wrong way round of thinking about it. All $6.5M came from Generic Company's marketing budget, complaining about only a relatively small % going to charity should be addressed equally at any other company buying a Superbowl ad who didn't spend any of their Superbowl marketing budget on charitable donations. Obviously there are plenty of bigger conversations to be had about the world at large, wealth equality, poverty, areas that charities address that as a species we should be able to just end as problems, etc. but it's not like this case in as example of a company which was expected to do $6.5M worth of good and wasted $5.5M on advertising. DoorDash never claimed to be a charity, nor (as far as I know) suggested they would give more money to charity to any of their funding sources. Unless we get rid of all marketing, or solve all problems so that no charities need donations, shouldn't we encourage companies to donate more even if it's for promotional motives?
The second point is about DoorDash specifically and their business doings/ethics. Maybe the fact that it's them, not an unnamed random company, means they should be criticised for being hypocritical in their marketing messaging vs. their actions? But that would be equally true or not had they made a charitable donation and only done very cheap, basic marcom around it. But that makes for a less exciting headline.
[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kArvLb...
It’s because fundamentally they are playing a trick, and they know it. They’re trying to take a far bigger, greater thing than them, and capitalize it. The capitalization of our most dear values is, really, quite disgusting and a very modern phenomenon. While they were figuring out ways to do it all the way back in the 60s, there’s a certain shamelessness to it now that is maddening. Probably because they way they do it today, like in this case, it’s easy to believe that entire ad teams have been raised in such a corrupted moral environment that that actually do not even understand why what they’re doing is reprehensible, and that blindness/greed combo is especially icky (cheapening/devaluing core cultural values for a quick buck, and not even able acknowledge it as such).
Call it an administrative fee. And this is why charities are bullshit.
Bonus points: If you’re rich, then start a charity, so that your Doordash buddies can donate to you.
The idea of a four party transaction just for me to eat a sandwich is nuts — me, McD, DoorDash, and the driver. I suppose it’s convenient if you’re willing to spend that much dime. The fact that they’re in business tells me people are even lazier than I imagined.