Main Forums > Living With HIV

Go to Starbucks this Saturday!

<< < (9/9)

harleymc:
This is nice as far as it goes, but the reality is that is simply a marketing gimic.
If a corporation is serious about social obligations then it will donate anyway. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from advertising the fact.

To make the donation conditional on sales figures is cynical and reflects badly on this firm.

Starbucks coincidentally is currently facing an international storm about tax-minimisation schemes.

jkinatl2:

--- Quote from: harleymc on December 09, 2012, 12:18:45 AM ---This is nice as far as it goes, but the reality is that is simply a marketing gimic.
If a corporation is serious about social obligations then it will donate anyway. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from advertising the fact.

To make the donation conditional on sales figures is cynical and reflects badly on this firm.

Starbucks coincidentally is currently facing an international storm about tax-minimisation schemes.

--- End quote ---

As much as I both understand and agree with the sentiments, I still notice that cynical money spends just like regular money.

I think it speaks volumes for the state of HIV in the US when we have the capacity to complain about the motives of corporations that help to stem the pandemic. I know when I was running an outreach organization in the late 90s I would have cheerfully taken this money, given lavish tossed salads to the PR department, and sent a few thousand condoms out into the world.

RED is a global initiative. It's not just throwing condoms from parade floats in big US cities, it's also spending that money in developing (and not-developing) nations to prevent HIV mother-to-child transmission, encourage condom usage and decrease stigma associated with women carrying them, among other lofty goals. It's for someone more patient than I to determine if this particular charity is legit or not.

Thing is, I honestly don't get the backlash.

Mrmojorisin:

--- Quote from: jkinatl2 on December 09, 2012, 01:06:41 AM --- Thing is, I honestly don't get the backlash.

--- End quote ---

Neither do I. It seems they are damned if the do and damned if they don't.. On person says they did not advertise enough and another says it was a marketing gimic. The bottom line is they donated. They could have donate that money to one of several thousand other worthy cause, If ya don't like it, then do not drink their coffee

Souledout:
What with the millions they've saved by tax avoidance in the UK I reckon they could have donated a tad more. Not one to look a gift horse in the mouth though, it's better than nothing.

Fisher:
Upon further reflection, my doubt about Starbucks motives . . . my opinion is, in almost all cases there are “selfish” motives and intentions behind almost any action, corporate, or in fact, personal.  Rare is altruism, not as a disguise for perhaps convoluted but selfish motives and intentions, rather, being true altruism.

With this in mind, more appropriate than applause with one hand perhaps should be a mutual handshake, a win-win situation for all.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version