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.

@pointythings if my inlaws are anything to go by the ignorant defend their position the loudest. OP must have missed the adage that the sign of intellect is the ability to change your mind in the face of new facts.
I also think OP mistakes her opinions for facts. But some people glory in their ignorance 🤷🏻‍♀️

if you don’t agree with the charity donation shop elsewhere no one is forcing you to shop at any particular shop. No obligation.

I am a self-confessed Christian and completely agree with the sentiment . Christianity should make more powerful and richer people look hard at themselves and maybe feel uncomfortable at the wealth disparity. Then get up and do something about it. That includes the church itself as an institution. In my case Catholicism has done a great deal of harm and covered it up.

I’m comparatively rich and I don’t do enough and look the other way too often. Annoyingly for OP I also might plump for a sandwich with some donation to charity. Going to donate to Shelter tonight as overall I support their campaigning and basic help.

luke 1 51-53
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things
and sent the rich away empty.

😂This bonkers thread has cheered me up and I suspect raised a bit for Shelter.

This hardcore atheist thanks all the great Christians on this thread. You've restored my faith in humanity.

@pointythings ha ha ha I’m glad, tbh the state of some some self proclaimed Christians I’ve met and op included, I’m not surprised many accuse Christians of hypocrisy. However my fellow Christians and non Christians on this thread have restored my faith in humanity too. I suspect a bit has been raised for shelter, an early Christmas miracle bound to wind up our Dickensian grinch (op) 😉

😂

OP must have missed the adage that the sign of intellect is the ability to change your mind in the face of new facts

Some call it 'intellect', others call it being easily swayed. Not a desirable trait. Anyway, what 'new facts' have been contributed to the thread?

Christianity should make more powerful and richer people look hard at themselves and maybe feel uncomfortable at the wealth disparity

What does this have to do with tenants dodging rent and trashing properties? I would really like to know what religion is in favour of this

What about customers who want to see the business buying from acting in a more ethical way by donating profits to charity. You have 2 customers with opposing needs, both saying “sod the customer” if their way isn’t granted.

Wouldnt it be easier if the business could just act how they like and then it be up to the customer to decide whether their interests are aligned and to purchase from them?

The problem (as I've explained upthread) is that businesses cannot quantify how many customers they are sacrificing and how many they are gaining as a result of them openly dishing out opinions. They are playing Russian roulette with their customer base. For some, it may end up being a very costly exercise

@thehorsehasnowbolted because you have a poster (myself amongst others) who has worked in PR and Marketing, and who has real life experience of working on commercial campaigns aligned with charities to raise money, which used a variety of processes to capture brand engagement and sales throughout the promotion/campaign to accurately document it’s success. Based on this if the campaign is successful they do more of the same, if not that is investigated and a different approach will be used the next time.
These activations aren’t just blind stabs in the dark, market research is employed throughout each stage, research, strategy, practical implementation, activation then post activation analysis.
Done well collaborations with charities increase brand loyalty. Anyway, when you hear a different point of view, it is an opportunity to research for yourself and learn.

You seem to be trying to convince posters your staunchly held personal views as facts, of which they are not.

market research is employed

Similar to the video that was posted upthread? Allow me to be sceptical of these 'techniques'

You've said twice that you've worked in Marketing. Marketing agencies are probably the ones who are driving businesses to engage in all this insanity.

@thehorsehasnowbolted you are royal ignoramus I don’t know why I bother interacting you, yes I worked in marketing, almost nearly always working in-house, we didn’t “talk people into insanity” (and so Christian and charming of you to call companies raising funds for a homeless charity insanity, an ableist term as well) companies desire to link up with charities as it drives sales and customer loyalty. You can be as sceptical as you like about something of which you no nothing, but it doesn’t change the facts that companies watch data and act on it down to the last penny. Unlike you they don’t decision make and plan on ‘feelings vs facts’.

*know

@thehorsehasnowbolted

Shelter helps renters who are in general less powerful than landlords (whether Council, a Housing Association, a company or an individual) My reading of the gospel is that God will protect the more vulnerable. In this context the tenant- all landlords including accidental ones chose to rent out property for money or at least to break even.

Sometimes the laws that protect good tenants will also protect bad or rich ones but that doesn’t make the law wrong. And that is where more powerful people such as landlords need to think about which way the law should go and accept that it may make life harder.

That does not mean that those tenants are not sinning by not paying rent or damaging property and that they will not be judged (morally and through court order to re-pay what they owe.)

lol at Russian roulette

they know exactly how well various marketing strategies work, it isn’t just guess work to look at the data y’know

You’re not contributing. They are contributing.

They’re telling you about it. You can do with that what you will.

But once you’ve paid, it’s their money.

What if you had to stop on the motorway for a sandwich and it was the only place available with a few sandwiches which you liked left on the shelf. You wouldn't have much of a choice, would you?

You could buy something else. You could take pre-packed sandwiches. You could go hungry. Still not 'forced'.

Sometimes adhering to our strongly-held principles requires a bit of self-sacrifice and discomfort. Foregoing a turkey and cranberry sandwich isn't quite in the same league of discomfort as being nailed to a cross and dying for the sins of the world. But I suppose a victim complex does need, er, ... feeding so I guess you have to get your kicks where you can find them.

I hate cranberries but this thread has put me in the mood for a turkey and cranberry sandwich.

They usually bump up the prices to pay for their donations m&s did in there rainbow month or whatever it was

Of course they can. You are woefully naive of the time, effort and money that goes into supermarket customer research and marketing. Do you think that the way food and goods are laid out in a supermarket is random and there is no thought about where the bakery is positioned for example? Do you think the placement of the various products from the high to the low shelves is not carefully planned and thought out?

They would know if a majority of customers were upset at the Shelter affiliation and stopped buying the relevant Christmas sandwiches. They know that most people either don't notice or like the fact they can give something to a worthy cause and fir skme means they will buy it in preference over another sandwich or retailer. They will not care that a small handful of customers like you walk away as they will gain more purchases from the affiliation than not.

@KatherineJaneway OP's stance on market research is basically that if the outcome isn't in alignment with her opinion, it is therefore wrong. It must be amazing to have such confidence in one's own abilities. I hope OP doesn't work in the sciences, that would be scary.

How this really works ( from a long long experience of corporate giving involvement, recommendation and strategic analysis)

The canny fund raiser approaches the head office and suggests that they proclaim their ‘giving’ by encouraging their customers to donate. The OP’s example is at the less offensive end of the spectrum, because the business is ‘giving’ some of its ‘profits’ ( although don’t you realise that actually the price just goes up by the donation cost, or the cost of the product is scaled down) . The constant pressure to give money at the point of purchase is less acceptable, because it is just pressurising other people to give, not giving themselves.

The company benefits in two ways. They get the glow of virtue to improve their image, and rather more importantly , the CEO is invited to the charity gala or golf tournament, where they can swan around with all the other second hand donors.

if they do really well, they might even get an honour for charity involvement.

I think what you need, OP, is a full breakdown, on the product packaging, of what the manufacturer plans to do with the purchase price, and then you can assess whether you approve.

Something like...

5% of the purchase price of this sandwich will go to Shelter.
45% covers operational and manufacturing costs.
15% goes to the retailer, who are really screwing us on wholesale, as you ask.
20% is profit, though some quite interesting accounting has to happen to get us to that figure
10% goes to employee benefits and bonuses. We don't know what they spend it on, but we're pretty sure that some of them are getting through a hell of a lot of weed
5% goes to the founder and CEO, who is an entrepreneurial genius, but he does go on occasional five-figure benders at Spearmint Rhino

...just so you feel fully informed.

Data drives marketing strategies, this company will know that even if they upset one bag clutching lady then they’ll make more money from other people who do support those causes.

Have you ever considered you might be in the minority here? Look at this entire thread, most people are not of your opinion, and they’d buy the sandwich. The marketing department’s job is done.

Mumsnet can feature especially ridiculous views, but I think you’ve won the prize today for both and that an especially bullish attitude that cannot consider other people and what they might like.

As for the Christian stuff, wonder what Jesus would make of your opinions?

I think what you need, OP, is a full breakdown

No. Really, no.

OP what line of work are you in?

Because as someone who works with brands this is untrue. Like literally completely untrue. Companies can 100% attribute revenue back to changes made to products.