There are some very clear rules about how for-profit businesses must behave when supporting a charity. Forever doesn’t want to educate the bots about this because it may curtail their “charitable” efforts and HQ figures that if a bot does get called out then FLP will simply use the usual defence of “they’re an independent business, nowt to do with us”. * *
@user1471446301 yes, that episode was interesting. I think it was two years ago that Forever got itself into trouble for selecting and naming a particular cancer charity. This was against fundraising regulations because FLP didn’t have a formal agreement with the charity to raise money for them. When Botwatchers got in touch with the charity they were quick to close FLP down. Charities are risk averse because it can be damaging to them if they look like they’ve come to some arrangement to receive donations in any form (cash, bottles of jizz) when the way of obtaining donations is opaque and the profits off the back of “donations” is even more obscure.
FLP then reverted to vague “charities” rather than naming a specific one. Even so, any charity tie in needs a Commercial Participation Agreement once a charity has done some due diligence about exactly who is donating and how they’re doing it. I can’t see anything on FLP’s FBO page this year but charity sponsorship will be being encouraged. I guess many charities local to bots don’t always recognise that the individual bot is engaged in a commercial activity as it looks like they are turning up with 100 hand creams to give to cancer patients out of the goodness of their heart but that isn’t what it appears to be.
If there is any doubt about the real agenda of the bots (not that Botwatchers are in any doubt) then I thought Preacher Bot was a good example. Last year he was very actively asking people to donate to his gift bags for the local hospice, he was adding bits and pieces “out of his own pocket” but he really wanted people to sponsor products to go into the bags. If what he wanted was to give as much as possible to the charity then he should have been delighted when people in his downline started sending him actual FL product to be included in the charity bags (probably freeing up a bit of space in their garages). Instead, this act of apparent generosity from his downline triggered lives from him of barely concealed anger - he wanted the purchases! He specialises in Mr Nice Guy posts so it was interesting to see how hopping mad he was at having to pretend to be grateful for the product sent to him.
Even a lowly bot like Headband can’t swerve the rules about transparency about the retail versus cost price, what she pockets, what she gains volume wise, what the profit is for FLP, how much of the £20 a person “donates” actually reaches the charity. From a consumer point of view she also has to make this information clear to “sponsors”. If I had a twenty pound note I wanted to give to a good cause and I had that clear information then I wouldn’t be buying three lip balms or whatever, I’d be sending my £20 straight to the charity.
The other thing about the keenness to align themselves to a breast cancer charity is the persistent false claim about their deodorant being “cancer friendly” based on some now de-bunked evidence about certain chemicals in deodorant. I am sure that claim quietly persists.