If you won the lottery...
on the subject of charity ads I did like this year's Christian Aid adverts - the "you add, we multiply" ones. They were something that caught your eye and actually engaged the viewer unlike the normal gawk at the camera with flies in your eyes rubbish.
"He has to be larger than bacon"
-
Spencer For Hire
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue 24 Aug, 2004 17.47
- Location: From The North
Are charity TV ads not broadcast on a PI (per inquiry) basis? In other words, the broadcaster schedules them at their own discretion as fillers at off-peak times, and the advertiser pays the broadcaster for every enquiry that they get as a result, rather than paying per showing of the ad.
I know a lot of the ambulance-chasing claims companies and 'get out of debt by taking out a loan' companies advertise on this basis - hence why there are so many ads like this during daytime and on satellite.
I know a lot of the ambulance-chasing claims companies and 'get out of debt by taking out a loan' companies advertise on this basis - hence why there are so many ads like this during daytime and on satellite.
Speaking of those -- don't you love the various extended metaphor used in these ads? Norton Finance uses a tightrope, a safety net and a heavy load (your humongous debt). People, people, people -- don't get into debt in the first place and you don't have to drop whatever dignity your stupid name has by filing in for one of these sleazy companies!
-
Spencer For Hire
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue 24 Aug, 2004 17.47
- Location: From The North
I really love the woman in the advert for Norton Finance (I think?) who looks like Jabba the Hutt. If you've seen her you'll know who I mean. At least you know they've used genuine clients in their ads, because no actors or actresses would be that ugly.
I'd forgetten about those - definetly. A real change in charity advertising! The public are now becoming resistant to the 'poor starving' images.Hymagumba wrote:on the subject of charity ads I did like this year's Christian Aid adverts - the "you add, we multiply" ones. They were something that caught your eye and actually engaged the viewer unlike the normal gawk at the camera with flies in your eyes rubbish.
You really are very bitter at business. I'd love to know where you get it from.cdd wrote:How charaities manage to afford minute-long TV ads is beyond me!
It's actually in companies economic interests to register themselves as charities, as it means that, so long as they reinvest their profits and do a bit that could be construed as charitable, they don't pay tax (or at least get a hearty reduction). I'm sure someone "in the biz" could explain it a lot better than I could, but the whole idea seems very cynical. Some companies (e.g. BA) go a step further and invite the customer to cough up for their charitable share... sickening. To think that a company "cares" is incredibly naive, as it is contrary to the basics of business. Yet people just lap it up, giving their money to companies who forward the money as if it were their own.
A huge proportion of the £300m raised for the tsunami disaster came from corporate giving - we donated £1,000 ourselves. We've never publicised it, and the vast majority of businesses who donate do not publicise it either. If there's a tragedy, many people in business can use company funds to donate to a charity, and do.
Ultimately, Chris, businesses are owned and run by your fellow human beings, who are just as capable about being upset at what goes on in the world as anyone else.
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Our company sponsor young film makers, students of the arts, as well as colleges and schools and offers placements to students. We pay them for it, even though we are not obliged to according to the school/college rules.
Nearly all of our contributions are made without fanfare, but the Directors beleive (rightly so) that what goes around comes around. The industry ultimately will be full of people we have helped in the past.
There is also a budget for other charitable matters.
Business isn't all cut throat and falseness. Companies are made up of people, not automatons.
Cynicism is a usefull skill. It stops people taking advantage. Your cynicism Chris borders on the unhelpful end of the scale, and at the risk of sounding patronising you will get more out of life if you pull if back a notch.
Nearly all of our contributions are made without fanfare, but the Directors beleive (rightly so) that what goes around comes around. The industry ultimately will be full of people we have helped in the past.
There is also a budget for other charitable matters.
Business isn't all cut throat and falseness. Companies are made up of people, not automatons.
Cynicism is a usefull skill. It stops people taking advantage. Your cynicism Chris borders on the unhelpful end of the scale, and at the risk of sounding patronising you will get more out of life if you pull if back a notch.
Hi,
I understand on a personal basis, managers care, and this makes sense with small companies. But with big companies, surely the shareholders would not allow such a "kind" gesture unless it was profitable to them, either by tax reduction or a more positive public image. Perhaps it's a combination of both - kineness, but surely prevailing resultant profit?
Obiously I could be wrong here so I'd love an explanation -- it's just, and don't take this the wrong way, if I were a shareholder in a company I wouldn't appreciate them passing on the money I invested to a charity!
-C
I understand on a personal basis, managers care, and this makes sense with small companies. But with big companies, surely the shareholders would not allow such a "kind" gesture unless it was profitable to them, either by tax reduction or a more positive public image. Perhaps it's a combination of both - kineness, but surely prevailing resultant profit?
Obiously I could be wrong here so I'd love an explanation -- it's just, and don't take this the wrong way, if I were a shareholder in a company I wouldn't appreciate them passing on the money I invested to a charity!
-C
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
If you were a shareholder you would have a choice of the company you invested in. You could choose not to invest in Nestle as they score poorly in matters of fair trade, I'm told. But they are very profitable. Others however will have a much better record and ethical policies. Many companies will transparently document their donations, and all you need do is look at their annual reports.cdd wrote:Obiously I could be wrong here so I'd love an explanation -- it's just, and don't take this the wrong way, if I were a shareholder in a company I wouldn't appreciate them passing on the money I invested to a charity!
There are many motivating factors, and it would be a lie to suggest that countervailing a large tax bill is not one of them. But whether you think its the primary factor (as you suggest it is), speaks more of your personal take on it.
My experience seems to be different from yours.
Last year was disasterous for my business. We lost about £60K and had to borrow a lot of money to stay afloat. It was a truly awful year, in many ways.
I've hocked myself up to the hilt to rescue the business - my property is on the line if I fuck up again. Fortunately, things are going well again and 2/3 of the debt will be cleared by the end of the year and we should have a healthy five-figure sum in the bank again.
On behalf of the company, I donated £1,000 on the company credit card in the first week of January - before I knew how this year was going to go. It's never been mentioned on the website, I've never spoken about it to a customer.
One customer did speak to me about it - one of his suppliers is in Thailand. I know for a fact that he gave a five figure sum to the tsunami disaster appeal - he spoke to these people every week. I doubt he was the only one who gave.
I did it because, whatever shite I was in, at least I had my family, friends and home.
I'm nothing special - I'm just a normal guy who runs a business. There are 3 million like me on this little island. And there would have been tens of thousands of people like me who were moved to give. And, like me, they would not say anything about it - I only did because, believe it or not, I actually do wierdly respect you, Chris, and I think you're dead wrong on business and people who run them. Or at least the vast majority of them.
We're not as bad/profit-motivated as you think.
Sometimes, Chris, we do things because we're human. Not because we're focused on our bottom line.
I've hocked myself up to the hilt to rescue the business - my property is on the line if I fuck up again. Fortunately, things are going well again and 2/3 of the debt will be cleared by the end of the year and we should have a healthy five-figure sum in the bank again.
On behalf of the company, I donated £1,000 on the company credit card in the first week of January - before I knew how this year was going to go. It's never been mentioned on the website, I've never spoken about it to a customer.
One customer did speak to me about it - one of his suppliers is in Thailand. I know for a fact that he gave a five figure sum to the tsunami disaster appeal - he spoke to these people every week. I doubt he was the only one who gave.
I did it because, whatever shite I was in, at least I had my family, friends and home.
I'm nothing special - I'm just a normal guy who runs a business. There are 3 million like me on this little island. And there would have been tens of thousands of people like me who were moved to give. And, like me, they would not say anything about it - I only did because, believe it or not, I actually do wierdly respect you, Chris, and I think you're dead wrong on business and people who run them. Or at least the vast majority of them.
We're not as bad/profit-motivated as you think.
Sometimes, Chris, we do things because we're human. Not because we're focused on our bottom line.
And one example testamant to that is Bill Gates' countless donations. You could argue that he wants to improve his public image (and doubtless he does) but clearly he does care as do most people.
The way I perceive business is an impersonal entity created to make money -- no more, no less. Small business grow more personal but as businesses become bigger surely making money, directly or indirectly, is the main motive? I know it sounds cynical, but, with large companies, I even denounce the "freebies" offered as ways to win the customer round to perceiving the business in a nicer way. It seems difficult to comprehend how a business, at a corporate level, so to speak, would make a donation to charity unless it was likely to reflect well on them. Surely this is the distinction between a business and a charity: Businesses make money, charities give money. It seems strange that a decision can be taken to do both, as, if the donation could not reflect well on them, it is akin to tossing money down a gutter.
I'm not saying this from a personal point of view -- Bill Gates is an ideal example of this. Individually managers are human beings with emotions like "the rest of us", and hence will make donations out of the goodness of their heart.
I want to use briefly Starbucks as an example here: on the cofee they sell, and on their "obviously" available coffee, FAIRTRADE is written everywhere. It's spelt out to the buyer, making us think "awww, aren't they nice?" Yet on their less well-known coffees, such as their espresso mix, they are not fairtrade -- unfairtrade, if you will -- and that seems to be because people just won't know. Of course companies have to strike a balance of their charitable donations, but Starbucks' example seems to be a particularly "good" example of this.
One other thing which throws a spanner into the works is companies who ask customers for donations for charity. I suppose what it comes down to is, if there is a general feeling between the "important" people in a business that it is right to make a donation with "all this money lying around", then they can effect such a donation. Yet with the continual presence of the "bean counter" in business, i.e. the person hired to cut corners wherever possible, it seems strange that a corporate desicion like this is taken for large businesses.
The way I perceive business is an impersonal entity created to make money -- no more, no less. Small business grow more personal but as businesses become bigger surely making money, directly or indirectly, is the main motive? I know it sounds cynical, but, with large companies, I even denounce the "freebies" offered as ways to win the customer round to perceiving the business in a nicer way. It seems difficult to comprehend how a business, at a corporate level, so to speak, would make a donation to charity unless it was likely to reflect well on them. Surely this is the distinction between a business and a charity: Businesses make money, charities give money. It seems strange that a decision can be taken to do both, as, if the donation could not reflect well on them, it is akin to tossing money down a gutter.
I'm not saying this from a personal point of view -- Bill Gates is an ideal example of this. Individually managers are human beings with emotions like "the rest of us", and hence will make donations out of the goodness of their heart.
I want to use briefly Starbucks as an example here: on the cofee they sell, and on their "obviously" available coffee, FAIRTRADE is written everywhere. It's spelt out to the buyer, making us think "awww, aren't they nice?" Yet on their less well-known coffees, such as their espresso mix, they are not fairtrade -- unfairtrade, if you will -- and that seems to be because people just won't know. Of course companies have to strike a balance of their charitable donations, but Starbucks' example seems to be a particularly "good" example of this.
One other thing which throws a spanner into the works is companies who ask customers for donations for charity. I suppose what it comes down to is, if there is a general feeling between the "important" people in a business that it is right to make a donation with "all this money lying around", then they can effect such a donation. Yet with the continual presence of the "bean counter" in business, i.e. the person hired to cut corners wherever possible, it seems strange that a corporate desicion like this is taken for large businesses.