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.

Charities have in recent yrs been tarnished by sex scandals, using funds for prostitution. Due diligence should always be present and an ongoing process rather than assuming consumer confidence and support is a given.
Although I think supporting shelter and similar charities is quite benign.
There is a broader argument to be had on marketing, driving sales yet poisoning consumers via junk food for instance.

@RedAppleGirl I agree that due diligience is key - I think that what happened with Oxfam and those workers involved in the sex trade shocked a lot of people and hopefully made them more cautious. But that doesn't mean charity affiliation is all bad and that it all turns customers off, as the OP seems to want to believe.

Indirect support for charities is a great strategy for large brands. People generally do not like direct marketing, chuggers, and the like.
It would be interesting to see the stats on how many people were aware of these indirect marketing strategies.

You really can't accept you're wrong? Everyone is disagreeing with you.

What weird delusion do you have this time, did you not read the comments on this thread?

There's nothing to be proud of if you're a bigot. And it doesn't matter if some other people are bigots too, it's not some kind of safety in numbers game.

I think you should really seek therapy for your many issues, best of luck.

Besides sentiment changes for one particular charity, there is another problem with trying to gauge which affiliations are 'safe'

Let's suppose a retailer decides to support a 'plant a tree' charity or something of that sort. Fairly innocuous, right?

But customers may think, ok, this is within the 'climate change' umbrella. So it must be linked to people who block roads, prevent me from getting me to work on time, etc

Not so 'safe' anymore. All of a sudden you are landed with another upset customer as you cannot control the associations that people will make in their heads

If charities are so confident that they will receive support, they can let the public donate intentionally and freely.

There's no need for marketing agencies to utilise businesses as disposable political vehicles

Two things can be true at once.

Marketing research is not biased. Most agencies just wouldn't work with a client who is openly homophobic, misogynist, racist, etc.

You have very little idea of how these partnerships work.

Everyone is disagreeing with you

Who is 'everyone'? Are you again speaking on behalf of 'the world'?

Have you ever considered that most people aren't unhinged and don't make up random associations in their heads that don't make sense, based on zero knowledge or experience?

Therefore it doesn't matter if 1 in 1000 turns out to be some kind of lunatic looking to be offended at every corner by things they made up.

Literally read the thread and count yourself.

That's reliable data for you. You can count the number of responses clearly disagreeing with what you're saying.

Hope this helps, although you did seem to not grasp basic math so let me know if you'd like help with the calculations.

Oh, and also reddit! Congratulations, you've made it there where the comments are mocking you too, in a bit less civil way than here.

Let's suppose a retailer decides to support a 'plant a tree' charity or something of that sort. Fairly innocuous, right?

But customers may think, ok, this is within the 'climate change' umbrella. So it must be linked to people who block roads, prevent me from getting me to work on time, etc

No, 99.9% of customers would not make that ridiculous leap.

No, 99.9% of customers would not make that ridiculous leap

Many do

Do they? Prove it.

Re your 'plant a tree' analogy I reckon most people would think 'ah yes, planting trees. What a good idea, far better than those nutters who glue themselves to roads. I'll buy that sandwich. Bugger, they've moved stuff round again, which aisle are the eggs in?'.

The bottom line is still that if charity affiliations lost retailers money, they wouldn't have them. But they do. And it's not a grand plot to get on OP's nerves.

"And it's not a grand plot to get on OP's nerves."

I don't think you can categorically say that. It's possible market researchers have collaborated to deny the Op a turkey cranberry sandwich, get on her nerves AND simultaneously bring down pensioner landlords and their own clients.

I don't have any facts or figures to back that up but you've got to admit it's a compelling argument.

😂😂😂😂

😂

@Notonthestairs you're right, it is every bit as compelling, fact based and valid as OP's arguments have been.

Maybe more compelling. Suddenly it all makes sense...😮why have I been so blind?

@Notonthestairs I now feel very left out because there's no retail conspiracy against me.

Maybe there is... you just haven't noticed yet...

By Jove, I think she’s nearly got it! Now try to figure out, why Marketing agencies drive businesses to team up with charities. I’ll give you a hint; the answer has been covered repeatedly upthread by people who know what they’re talking about.

What a silly thread. The OP writes like she has some unique and original insight into the minds of the public, as if no-one else has ever considered these things before.

But, of course, both the marketing industry and charity sectors ask themselves exactly these sorts of questions all the time. They also know about research bias and the value of data science. They debate brand purpose and reputational management. They study buying patterns and income generation.

And they come to very different conclusions to the OP.

The OP might like to compare her assumptions with the example of a brand like Nike, whose strong support for a potentially divisive cause - the Black Lives Matter movement - led to increases in sales, share price and brand reputation.

What a silly thread.

There are over 500 posts on the thread. Even you have commented. So people must enjoy engaging on the subject and feel strongly about it. Surely if it was just silly, people wouldn't comment and you wouldn't waste your time to write 4 paragraphs on it?

You’re right. The thread isn’t silly. The attitude of the OP is silly.