How would you answer?

[ImaginaryDay2]

So a friend of mine on Facebook "Liked" a post from a friend of his. Because he "liked" it, it showed up on my wall. His friend posted a news article from some conservative blog (which I didn't read), but it contained the following video:

The comment from my friend's friend (still following? Good.) is as follows:

NOW ... we will all watch this and be touched. SO good this gal got her tuition covered, period. THAT SAID... pause and consider... BUDWEISER gives her less than the salary of 1 of their employees. They put this out on JULY 4 - what is their 'return on investment'?? MASSES are feeling - "awe what a great thing Budweiser did - hey it's a Bud for me now on"... Cynical? Call me on it!

So, I did. I stated "Since it showed up on my Facebook wall - You're a cynic"

If all this guy got is that "MASSES are feeling... blah blah...", then that ticks me off. Sure, it's Budweiser. The message at the end is to "raise a Bud", whatever. Personally, I won't be. But what Budweiser, and the foundation this girl wrote to for the grant did, was a game changer for her and her family.

Young people don't have grants handed to them.They work for them, they apply where they can. The're in competition for them. It's not free money. I have a niece and two nephews who are military, and they worked hard to get where they are. It wasn't privilege. They didn't get hand-outs to be where they are. They earned it. I had a grandfather who was a medic in the military. He was the one who retrieved soldiers from battle before they went to the M.A.S.H units.
So, yeah. The "friend of a friend" is a cynic. I can't post the rest of how I feel.

 

[Stravinsk]

I understand the cynicism.

Budweiser is a corporation who's legal mandate is to provide profit to it's shareholders. Like any other corporation, that is it's main objective - by law.

Not charity.
Not goodwill.
Not humanitarianism or brotherly love.

Naturally, if they give a paltry sum as a grant to someone who needs it they are going to "toot their horn" about it, and let everyone know what a great corporation they are - how generous they are - what a benefit to the community they are etc. As a corporation they could be doing things 100X worse in daily operations that actually hurt scores of people in the short or long terms - but the public is supposed to remember the grant.

From a corporation's perspective, this is PR, and little else. It is like one of the local banks where I'm at making a big deal out of donating an insanely small sum of $100 to help out families of mass bush fires some years back. Most *individuals* could afford that, let alone a bank. They even held a ceremony - because of course - this wasn't for the real reasons it was pretended to be - but for good PR.

It reeks of Pharisee on the hill and I completely understand the cynicism.

---------------------

Insofar as the people who received the grant(s) - I don't think being cynical of the giver(who acts in such a way) in any way reflects badly on them. After all, if I am a victim of a bush fire and lose my home, I'm not going to scoff at any sum that is given to me, and to the individuals and/or businesses that want to do it with a parade behind them - let them - their reward is the praise of men - and we all know that favor or disfavor with men is a rather fickle thing.

That being said - the context of this ad is not a bush fire but revolves around bloody wars of aggression. Here the cynicism is not only warranted but intensified -

For America and it's allies would need far less medical staff (the receiver of the grant in the ad) to take care of wounded/handicapped soldiers if the wars of aggression hadn't happened in the first place. And who did these wars benefit?

Hint hint - it wasn't the people - but certain corporate entities, including financial ones. Budweiser? Almost certainly not - but it is owned (majority owned) by the same people and operated by the same principles of all corporations - and chief among those principles is profit - everything else being a further consideration.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Believe me, I've no illusions about the purpose of the ad itself. There's a TV program out this way called "Undercover Boss" which is basically an hour version of the Budweiser commercial. The CEO's of businesses go out in some dopey outfit that's supposed to disguise them (that any moron can see right through), but the employees supposedly are oblivious to this act. Those that act properly are given money, cars, college grants, whatever. And these CEO's are shown feeling good about the whole thing that barely dents their pocketbook. But I suppose it's in the 'spirit' in which they're giving. Some are just exploitative jerks that assume they are doing good, while showing off their mansions, arm candy, and spoiled kids, while others seem genuinely touched, and make real differences (even though, in the end analysis, it's not going to touch their profit margin).

 

[Lamb]

I see both pros and cons for points that you and Strav have pointed out. Businesses want to have a good image in the public eye and yet money given out is usually well received because grants don't have to be paid back.

 

[tango]

This reminds me very much of information about the late George Michael that came to light after his death.

Apparently he was a hugely generous man who gave millions away to a variety of causes, both large and small. Most of it was anonymous and it appears that it only came to light after his death. I'm sure he would have received great adulation had he let it be known how much he was giving while he was alive but clearly he didn't want that.

Here's a link to just one story (anyone can Google something like "George Michael charity donations" to see endless links on the topic) that details his philanthropy ---> http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...ly-donated-millions-charity-article-1.2924273

Stories like this one about Budweiser do seem to be a good way to gain a lot of cheap publicity, especially in the days leading up to July 4th.