Fed up of businesses aligning themselves with politics!

[thehorsehasnowbolted]

I was about to grab a turkey and cranberry sandwich yesterday at a major retailer when I noticed on the package that 5% of that purchase would go to Shelter.

Why are we being increasingly forced nowadays to contribute to causes we may not necessarily agree with in this way? Why don't businesses stick to selling goods? Why the constant virtue signalling? It's annoying

I do not intend to comment on this charity in particular, but I have seen my fair share of pensioners being out of pocket to evict problem tenants who were in a position to pay the rent and look after properties but simply didn't want to and just played the system.

The results of charities activities are not always 100% positive, so customers shouldn't be forced to contribute in this way.

Why do businesses assume that their customers agree with the charities they pick? The constant virtue signalling is patronising and insulting.

have sophisticated systems for tracking the profitability of various decisions

😂

capitalism has spoken @Paracetamol The reason brands support charities is because it encourages the majority of consumers to choose spend with them. If it didn’t many wouldn’t bother. (From my previous career in PR and marketing I know it works)

Some brands, their whole ethos of the brand is charity, which is fabulous, others choose to support charities because it will work with their customer base. I don’t care which way they get to supporting charities, I only care that they do, especially with the current government being some hellish Dickensian nightmare.

How do you think they make multi-million (billion?) profits year in, year out? Guess work?

The supermarket giving out free recipe cards is tracking any increase in sales of the ingredients they list.

The sandwich shop donating 5% to a charity is tracking whether that increases sales.

The supermarket giving out free recipe cards is tracking any increase in sales of the ingredients they list.

The sandwich shop donating 5% to a charity is tracking whether that increases sales.

It's quite easy to track the first one but the second one is virtually impossible

A small thread on middle class Mumsnet doesn't represent the majority of the country I'm afraid.

No they don't lose money - they inflate their prices.

They're not though, you're still buying so it makes no difference.

A private business is free to do as they wish, and it's socially responsible for individuals and businesses with impact to not be spineless.

There has been a lot of positive change in the world on the back of businesses doing the right thing.

I don't think the fact that a few wound up women on Mumsnet moan about it makes a difference.

It's a pretty fundamental aspect of Christianity though. Surely any Christian could not argue with that?!

There's a lot of Christians who I'm positive would deride Jesus as a wokey "virtue signaller" (the most dense phrase I've ever heard btw) if he walked amongst us today...

Really? They can't compare sales against those of other sandwiches that cost the same but don't have the charity or Xmas association?

This might be news to you but the customer isn't always right. If anything, most of the time they're clueless and just like complaining.

Or an increase in sales in the period of the donation being added Vs before (and after).

Really? They can't compare sales against those of other sandwiches that cost the same but don't have the charity or Xmas association?

Well, obviously they can. Barcodes and all that. Then a simple database and a bit of analysis. But OP knows better.

Oh I agree, MN isn't necessarily representative.

But then, so many profit making businesses do charity tie-ins they are all either deluded, or find it increases profits.

Which is your guess?

It must be very hard work being this miserable

You know, it's funny when so many are criticising Big Business for being too profit-at-all-costs focussed and the huge salaries/bonuses of the senior managers, @Paracetamol and @thehorsehasnowbolted are claiming that they are not sufficiently focussed on profits 😂

The reason behind brands/supermarkets affiliation with charities is irrelevant, the thread is about whether it's morally right to force customers to contribute to certain charities when the customers might not necessarily align with that charity's practices (and inflated prices in the face of the CoL crisis)

No-one is 'forced' to shop anywhere...

Don’t like it- don’t shop there.

❤

Shelter do fantastic work. I worked in homelessness prevention for 10 years, and the training I got from Shelter, and subsequent advice in complex cases, enabled me to prevent more evictions than I could begin to count.

Which supermarket doesn't have charity policies?

Then shop at your local corner shop. Support a local small business. You'll pay more, but then they probably won't support a cause you don't agree with.

Or take advantage of a larger supermarket's bulk buying power and have cheaper products, but accept they are supporting something you don't want to support.

You have choices. You don't have the choice to demand cheaper prices AND that a supermarket aligns with your values. They prioritise profit (as does the corner shop)

When it comes down to it, it is the same as democracy. Businesses go where the majority demand is.

I thought it was about prioritising profit? How do you keep deciding that you're the majority?

The majority is where the profit is... more people will buy if it meets their wants regarding price, convenience, values etc

So the businesses that support charities do it because it gives them an advantage, which results in profits. In the case of mass sales, that is appealing to the majority.

Some businesses trade on being expensive and exclusive, of course. But that's not M&S sandwiches.

Do you really not understand capitalism?

I would think M&S sandwiches aim at a customer base that will pay a little bit extra for 'value' and 'quality'. They are not the cheapest, which is more a Lidl/Greggs market segment. But people who can afford a little bit more - not huge amounts more - and will get a warm, fuzzy feeling from knowing that they have supported a charity.

So a charity tie-in would increase their sales and profits.

Lidl/Greggs are less likely to do a charity tie-in because their selling point is price. A charity tie-in would not appeal to their target market.

Yeah that's all well and good but the OPs post is about the moral aspect of obligatory charity giving. You can argue "capitalism" and "shop elsewhere" (which isn't feasible or affordable for most people) but it's really just derailing the OPs original point.