Facebook "Likes" for Japanese Relief Offer Sparks Outrage
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
The only outrage I have is for facebook. I hate facebook with every tired muscle in my confederate body.
Actually, while a gimmick, doesn't really seem all that bad. I really do hate that facebook is in everything like some kind of infectious disease, but that's popularity I guess.
Actually, while a gimmick, doesn't really seem all that bad. I really do hate that facebook is in everything like some kind of infectious disease, but that's popularity I guess.
Using a tragic event for promotion and holding your charity for ransom is pretty sleazy. But they are giving a lot of money away so for that they should be praised.
I think it's only an issue because of the special place Japan has in the hearts of nerds. This is no differant than any other situation where businesses donate to charity, and make a big deal out of doing so for the publicity. Like it or not, humans are pretty base creatures, and even with charity the people giving it typically want something, even if minor, in return.
Is it tasteless in an absolute, moral sense? Well yes, it is. But then again this is how charity has been for a long time. Some people DO give anonymous charitable donations, but when it comes to businesses they might care about the issue in a real sense, but they are going to take whatever publicity they can get as a result.
Is it tasteless in an absolute, moral sense? Well yes, it is. But then again this is how charity has been for a long time. Some people DO give anonymous charitable donations, but when it comes to businesses they might care about the issue in a real sense, but they are going to take whatever publicity they can get as a result.
The way I see it, the people in Japan need money now. They also need food now. I would rather not like it if a company said, "Yeah, I'll donate 25,000 more when I get around to it. *picks teeth* Let's wait and see how many people like me first."
The funny thing is that if they just said they gave the money on facebook with no strings attached, I'm sure they would've already received a ton of likes.
The funny thing is that if they just said they gave the money on facebook with no strings attached, I'm sure they would've already received a ton of likes.
Asking people to like their facebook page is NOT that big of a deal people. Yeesh!
I'll like them and then unlike them once the deadline is over. You could do the same in the amount of time it takes to read this post.
I'll like them and then unlike them once the deadline is over. You could do the same in the amount of time it takes to read this post.
If they never sold any Happy Meals, I doubt they could afford to help. Or at least, they couldn't afford to help as much. Designating a percentage of profits from a product they're going to be selling anyway is one of the better ways for companies to support charities. Better still would be designating a percentage of all profits; worse would be if it were a product that's only available for a limited time and/or clearly only exists because of the charity angle.HappyDD said:
What Mastiff did here, offered to donate a fixed figure only if enough people give them free advertising, is just a dick move. Either that or the result of not thinking it through, but I don't see anything in the article about Mastiff saying "whoops, our bad", so it looks like they meant to do what they did exactly the way they did it.
companies use the veil of "charity" to garner publicity all the time, i don't get why this company is getting all the flak
What the Hell is wrong with everyone? From our perspective, this is a pretty awesome deal. Go over there right now and Like their damn Facebook page like there's no tomorrow.
From their perspective, this is also pretty awesome. Most companies have different budgets for different departments, for instance, money available for charitable giving (which they already used to donate to Japan) and marketing. They've found a subtle way to use their marketing funds in a charitable way. Why are we not encouraging this?
From their perspective, this is also pretty awesome. Most companies have different budgets for different departments, for instance, money available for charitable giving (which they already used to donate to Japan) and marketing. They've found a subtle way to use their marketing funds in a charitable way. Why are we not encouraging this?
Your "shoulds" are wholly irrelevant. What I said still stands.Phlakes said:
EDIT - In case you're too lazy and/or angry to scroll up:
Carlos Alexandre said:
I think it's perfectly fair, if people stop to think of it from a more balanced perspective.Andy Chalk said:
A company's very ability to have money to donate is based on, put simply, how many people like them. That determines how many people buy its products, as well as how much others are willing to invest in the company's efforts.
Think of it this way: If I came out and said, "I've made 100 giant foam hats, which I'm selling for $5 each. If I sell all of them, I will donate $1000 to the relief efforts."
The cynics will say, "This is just your way of plugging those stupid hats."
But I say the following:
1. I'm selling the hats in order to get the money that will be donated. If I don't sell any hats, I won't have that money.
2. Let's say it costs me $1 to make each hat. That means I'd only have $100 to donate. That could potentially become $500 now.
3. Even still, my donation exceeds any proceeds I'm getting from the hat sale.
Bottom line: Tactics like this aren't used by companies who aren't interested in donating. They're used by companies to get people involved who otherwise wouldn't.
Out of curiosity, how much have you donated to the cause, oh outraged masses?
A dollar from somebody who actually cares buys exactly the same amount of rice as a dollar from somebody who's just trying to look good. And the people who are trying to look good generally throw more dollars.
A dollar from somebody who actually cares buys exactly the same amount of rice as a dollar from somebody who's just trying to look good. And the people who are trying to look good generally throw more dollars.
But Mastiff already has donated money, and Swartz made a personal donation as well. So this is pretty much exactly what the company is doing: kicking in extra money in exchange for mouse clicks. You could go so far as to say it's giving people a chance to donate without having to actually fork over any money.Phlakes said:
Does that make it more palatable?
so...? they are still donating the money, im sure they would reach the like count in little to no time, im sure most people woulnt even bother to look at them and just press like so they can feel like they did good,
its not like this is a new method, but in this contxt the 'consumer' only has to press a button, not actually pay (the whole2p goes to charity thing) so whats people problem
its not like this is a new method, but in this contxt the 'consumer' only has to press a button, not actually pay (the whole2p goes to charity thing) so whats people problem
How dare they offer to donate $25,000 dollars in exchange for a bunch of clicks. Heartless bastards, prepared to pony up money on the condition that people click a button on their page and then summarily ignore all of their posts. HANG THEM ALL, THIS IS CLEARLY THE CYNICAL EXPLOITATION OF A TRAGEDY.
The outrage here is so pointless it's not even funny. These are EXTRA donations, people. EXTRA. As in, MORE THAN THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE. It's like tweeting to help Haiti, except in this case, it doesn't cost you(the liker) jack. Come on, everybody wins with this.