Cantor Fitzgerald tells its stories in new ad campaign
May 29, 2002 6:37 PM Subscribe
Cantor Fitzgerald tells its stories in new ad campaign...the brokerage house that lost 658 employees from the 9/11 attacks on the WTC is telling its story in some nationally released television spots. The ads can also be found at Cantor Fitzgerald's site under the "View our stories" link (flash and quicktime required).
One anticipates the business geniuses who came up with this Cantor Fitzgerald ad campaign contacting Israeli shopping malls about the possibility of hawking "blow-out sales."
Loathsome and typical corporate behavior.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 8:50 PM on May 29, 2002
Loathsome and typical corporate behavior.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 8:50 PM on May 29, 2002
Even your attempts to be funny are shrill, Fold.
The ads seem a bit crass, but a "business as usual" ad from Cantor Fitzgerald that didn't mention the tragedy would seem odd also, since the company is so closely associated with it.
posted by rcade at 9:17 PM on May 29, 2002
The ads seem a bit crass, but a "business as usual" ad from Cantor Fitzgerald that didn't mention the tragedy would seem odd also, since the company is so closely associated with it.
posted by rcade at 9:17 PM on May 29, 2002
Even your attempts to be funny are shrill, Fold.
I wasn't being funny. I was being as serious as a heart attack, but if you found humor there I'm not surprised.
Too bad Cantor Fitzgerald and their corporate sycophants also don't see the seriousness in the tragedy. The "bottom-line" trumps decency, as usual.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:33 PM on May 29, 2002
I wasn't being funny. I was being as serious as a heart attack, but if you found humor there I'm not surprised.
Too bad Cantor Fitzgerald and their corporate sycophants also don't see the seriousness in the tragedy. The "bottom-line" trumps decency, as usual.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:33 PM on May 29, 2002
The worst that can be said about these spots is that they're tacky. I mean, really, if you call these "loathsome" then what are you going to call, oh, flying planes into buildings?
posted by kindall at 9:41 PM on May 29, 2002
posted by kindall at 9:41 PM on May 29, 2002
Sigh. What a loathsome and typical response. The story here is not an ad campaign - that will run a couple of months and end. It is a small paragraph on the front page:
"For a period of five years, Cantor Fitzgerald will share 25% of it's profits with the families of the Cantor, eSpeed, and TradeSpark colleagues that we lost on September 11, 2001. These are profits that would have otherwise been distributable to the partners. These distributions will cover 10 years of health insurance costs for all families and provide each of those families with an additional minimum payment of $100,000 each".
Yep, that's "Loathsome and typical corporate behavior" all right. For anyone that doesn't desire to simply smash a badly hurting company - I've got to say that I'm personally awed at their corporate response. for a couple of weeks after the disaster, I let a couple of my own employees (from a competing firm) go to Cantor to help them (because we all knew people there, and they volunteered). Not only that - but they met people from a half dozen other Wall Street firms that had done the same thing ... quietly, with no press. The stories are heart wrenching ... the entire Cantor staff was in the middle of planning funerals - over 600 of them - for their dear friends and co-workers. People were collapsing in tears all day long - and they still would not go home ... from the mail clerks to the executives that run Cantor - who to the person were worried about the survival of the firm, but considered their first and foremost duty to be to the families of those they lost, and the employees that survived. And five years from now - when 9/11 will simply be small, hour long remembrances of a receding event, the Cantor partners will still be making sure those families are being taken care of. Cantor was always a highly competent firm that operated with high ethics and genuine concern for it's employees. It is - in a word - exactly what the fold-and-mutilates of the world continually claim doesn't exist. But they do. There is not a single employee, or family member that would have any objection to those ads. And if they work - and increase corporate profits ... a good chunk of those profits will go to those families.
Fold-and-mutilate, unless you're ready to give a quarter of your income over the next five years to anyone other than yourself - I'd like to politely suggest that you shut your fucking mouth.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:50 PM on May 29, 2002
"For a period of five years, Cantor Fitzgerald will share 25% of it's profits with the families of the Cantor, eSpeed, and TradeSpark colleagues that we lost on September 11, 2001. These are profits that would have otherwise been distributable to the partners. These distributions will cover 10 years of health insurance costs for all families and provide each of those families with an additional minimum payment of $100,000 each".
Yep, that's "Loathsome and typical corporate behavior" all right. For anyone that doesn't desire to simply smash a badly hurting company - I've got to say that I'm personally awed at their corporate response. for a couple of weeks after the disaster, I let a couple of my own employees (from a competing firm) go to Cantor to help them (because we all knew people there, and they volunteered). Not only that - but they met people from a half dozen other Wall Street firms that had done the same thing ... quietly, with no press. The stories are heart wrenching ... the entire Cantor staff was in the middle of planning funerals - over 600 of them - for their dear friends and co-workers. People were collapsing in tears all day long - and they still would not go home ... from the mail clerks to the executives that run Cantor - who to the person were worried about the survival of the firm, but considered their first and foremost duty to be to the families of those they lost, and the employees that survived. And five years from now - when 9/11 will simply be small, hour long remembrances of a receding event, the Cantor partners will still be making sure those families are being taken care of. Cantor was always a highly competent firm that operated with high ethics and genuine concern for it's employees. It is - in a word - exactly what the fold-and-mutilates of the world continually claim doesn't exist. But they do. There is not a single employee, or family member that would have any objection to those ads. And if they work - and increase corporate profits ... a good chunk of those profits will go to those families.
Fold-and-mutilate, unless you're ready to give a quarter of your income over the next five years to anyone other than yourself - I'd like to politely suggest that you shut your fucking mouth.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:50 PM on May 29, 2002
Midas: I agree with you. Although I don't know anyone who works for them or whatever, I did see the CEO break down into tears on Lary king a couple days after. It almost made me want to cry. And I am an extreemly cynical guy.
And lets not forget that in order to help pay the families of the people who died there, they still need to make money.
(back to cyncism mode)
Btw, it's probably a nice place to work. There probably isn't a lot of that bullshit 'corporate culture', (as featured in the popular movie office space) which is so annoying. 9/11 probably shocked the schlock right out of them, so to speak.
posted by delmoi at 10:12 PM on May 29, 2002
And lets not forget that in order to help pay the families of the people who died there, they still need to make money.
(back to cyncism mode)
Btw, it's probably a nice place to work. There probably isn't a lot of that bullshit 'corporate culture', (as featured in the popular movie office space) which is so annoying. 9/11 probably shocked the schlock right out of them, so to speak.
posted by delmoi at 10:12 PM on May 29, 2002
I did see the CEO break down into tears on Lary king a couple days after
I know the guy - for most of the two or three weeks afterwards he was working virtually non-stop - including more than one 24 hour stretch ... and a lot of his effort was spent on his people. The families he visited, the funerals he attended (and in more than one instance arranged and paid for) ... well, I should not go on, and do not want to even reflect too much on those days myself right now - but most of the Cantor partners are extraordinary people, lead by a CEO who approaches something close to nobility.
And fold - on second thought, please do go on ... the stark contrast between the intentions and actions of the Cantor leaders, and the sentiments arising out of your soul ought to be most illuminating.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:24 PM on May 29, 2002
I know the guy - for most of the two or three weeks afterwards he was working virtually non-stop - including more than one 24 hour stretch ... and a lot of his effort was spent on his people. The families he visited, the funerals he attended (and in more than one instance arranged and paid for) ... well, I should not go on, and do not want to even reflect too much on those days myself right now - but most of the Cantor partners are extraordinary people, lead by a CEO who approaches something close to nobility.
And fold - on second thought, please do go on ... the stark contrast between the intentions and actions of the Cantor leaders, and the sentiments arising out of your soul ought to be most illuminating.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:24 PM on May 29, 2002
I wasn't being funny. I was being as serious as a heart attack, but if you found humor there I'm not surprised.
I'm not even going to try puzzling through the insult you're trying to imply with your lack of surprise -- but I'm sure it's exceptionally biting.
The shrill attempt at humor I referred to was your comment about Israeli shopping malls and "blow-out sales." Dennis Miller you ain't.
posted by rcade at 10:57 PM on May 29, 2002
I'm not even going to try puzzling through the insult you're trying to imply with your lack of surprise -- but I'm sure it's exceptionally biting.
The shrill attempt at humor I referred to was your comment about Israeli shopping malls and "blow-out sales." Dennis Miller you ain't.
posted by rcade at 10:57 PM on May 29, 2002
Spot-on, Midas.
But foldy will never stop, or see anthing is any other way than his own. He's as flexible as a two-day-dead cat and, for those of you not familiar with the parlance of rural Pennsylvania, that's not very flexible. Ideological flexibility is a sign of good mental health, so draw your own conclusions.
As for Cantor, I think they hit the right note with this. I am surprised that they made it through the disaster at all, and I hope that their behavior serves as a positive model for corporate responsibility to their employees- sort of the anti-Enron.
posted by evanizer at 10:57 PM on May 29, 2002
But foldy will never stop, or see anthing is any other way than his own. He's as flexible as a two-day-dead cat and, for those of you not familiar with the parlance of rural Pennsylvania, that's not very flexible. Ideological flexibility is a sign of good mental health, so draw your own conclusions.
As for Cantor, I think they hit the right note with this. I am surprised that they made it through the disaster at all, and I hope that their behavior serves as a positive model for corporate responsibility to their employees- sort of the anti-Enron.
posted by evanizer at 10:57 PM on May 29, 2002
Howard Lutnick (CEO), got a lot of bad press following the attacks, as he cut off the paychecks of the dead only 4 days afterwards. He makes a strong case for his decision, and his actions since then (including this 25% contribution plan) have been very considerate. As noted in another article, the company mentioned that avoiding any reference to the events would be akin to ignoring an elephant in the room. I agree, and don't feel the least bit skeptical about any ulterior motives behind this ad campaign. Yes, it's intended to strengthen Cantor Fitzgerald as a company and financially. But is that a bad thing? Wasn't one of the fundamental goals in the attacks to disrupt our economy and impair capitalism? I don't like "corporate america" any more than the next guy, but I think there are a lot of other shady companies to whine about (ClearChannel/Ticketmaster) than Cantor Fitzgerald and their desire to simply be able to work again. The ads are respectful, and they communicate a sense of strength that is important for people both within and outside of the company to maintain.
posted by Hankins at 11:11 PM on May 29, 2002
posted by Hankins at 11:11 PM on May 29, 2002
evanizer: Actualy it isn't suprizing that they made it though. The government required financial companies to have 'emergency preperation plans' in case of events just like these.
posted by delmoi at 12:36 AM on May 30, 2002
posted by delmoi at 12:36 AM on May 30, 2002
The government required financial companies to have 'emergency preperation plans' in case of events just like these.
Well ... two things - first, in no contingency planning meeting held at any financial firm (and I had been at a few of my own firm's planning sessions) did anyone even remotely conceive of a disaster of this magnitude hitting the very center of the Manhattan financial district. And no matter how well one does plan - it doesn't necessarily mean anything (the most bizarre contingency story I've ever heard was about a big bank - I think it was Citi - who in the mid 90's decided to really move to the forefront. The built an entire operations center in London ... huge floor of desks, computers, systems and network wired - and maintained it empty ... i.e., they considered that even given a large disaster at any of their European operations, they'd be able to almost immediately move operations to that location, and simply (basically) turn the power on to have a fully functioning center. Shortly after it was completed, in an event of profound - if inadvertant- irony, an IRA bomb blew up a pub next door to it, and destroyed most of the contingency center itself ...).
The bigger point is, however, that you can do all the planning you want - but you can only back up systems - data, hardware, etc., etc. To lose over 600 people - including some very high level and specialized financial talent ... well, there really is no way they can replace that. A lot of people actually didn't think Cantor would survive.
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:06 AM on May 30, 2002
Well ... two things - first, in no contingency planning meeting held at any financial firm (and I had been at a few of my own firm's planning sessions) did anyone even remotely conceive of a disaster of this magnitude hitting the very center of the Manhattan financial district. And no matter how well one does plan - it doesn't necessarily mean anything (the most bizarre contingency story I've ever heard was about a big bank - I think it was Citi - who in the mid 90's decided to really move to the forefront. The built an entire operations center in London ... huge floor of desks, computers, systems and network wired - and maintained it empty ... i.e., they considered that even given a large disaster at any of their European operations, they'd be able to almost immediately move operations to that location, and simply (basically) turn the power on to have a fully functioning center. Shortly after it was completed, in an event of profound - if inadvertant- irony, an IRA bomb blew up a pub next door to it, and destroyed most of the contingency center itself ...).
The bigger point is, however, that you can do all the planning you want - but you can only back up systems - data, hardware, etc., etc. To lose over 600 people - including some very high level and specialized financial talent ... well, there really is no way they can replace that. A lot of people actually didn't think Cantor would survive.
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:06 AM on May 30, 2002
Too bad Cantor Fitzgerald and their corporate sycophants also don't see the seriousness in the tragedy. The "bottom-line" trumps decency, as usual.
just out of curiosity, foldy, how would *you* have handled it? what's your 'better' solution?
i had to attend a Cantor funeral as well and am probably more hypersensitive than most about the exploitation of 9/11. i also happen to work in finance and Midas isn't kidding when he says that people didn't think cantor would survive. they really had to address the issue directly and publicly or people would think the company was doomed and they'd lose their remaining business. i'm not sure what else they could have done.
as fashionable as it is to hate The Man, i don't think it's automatically tasteless to portray corporate America as having a human side. you've obviously never worked for a company where you actually *liked* your job and felt like you were building something. rare, i know, but it does occasionally happen. the guy i knew that worked at Cantor loved it.
posted by lizs at 2:36 AM on May 30, 2002
just out of curiosity, foldy, how would *you* have handled it? what's your 'better' solution?
i had to attend a Cantor funeral as well and am probably more hypersensitive than most about the exploitation of 9/11. i also happen to work in finance and Midas isn't kidding when he says that people didn't think cantor would survive. they really had to address the issue directly and publicly or people would think the company was doomed and they'd lose their remaining business. i'm not sure what else they could have done.
as fashionable as it is to hate The Man, i don't think it's automatically tasteless to portray corporate America as having a human side. you've obviously never worked for a company where you actually *liked* your job and felt like you were building something. rare, i know, but it does occasionally happen. the guy i knew that worked at Cantor loved it.
posted by lizs at 2:36 AM on May 30, 2002
Hey, Midas, thanks for an informed, considerate response. Nice.
posted by Mo Nickels at 4:25 AM on May 30, 2002
posted by Mo Nickels at 4:25 AM on May 30, 2002
if foldy is shrill, the rest of you are just tired cliches. the ads suck out loud - they clearly exploit the tragedy for the opportunity to stick the logos in your face for 15 seconds. if it was important as a matter of recovery, to these people or to us, to hear these stories (and i happen to think it is very important) the corp could have funded the spots without the pitch. ("to work with us visit www.greedyfuckmeisters.com" is a pitch.) foldy is right, and y'all just jumping on the hate foldy bandwagon. what a circle jerk.
posted by quonsar at 6:00 AM on May 30, 2002
posted by quonsar at 6:00 AM on May 30, 2002
OK, the ads are pretty sappy--"we're staying in business as a tribute to those who died." Pretty lame. BUT--Cantor sounds like a good place to work, and the ads reinforce that. I did the corporate thing (at Ernst & Young), and, overall, my experiences were very positive. The place was supportive, friendly, encouraging, maybe just because it was good business, sure, but nearly all of my co-workers loved it there, too. Corporate America !=evil, in my experience, and, it sounds like, in the experiences of those who work (and worked) for Cantor.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:10 AM on May 30, 2002
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:10 AM on May 30, 2002
We're just walking talking cliches, quonsar. Tell us more about how you come up with fresh and original comments like "what a circle jerk."
posted by rcade at 7:53 AM on May 30, 2002
posted by rcade at 7:53 AM on May 30, 2002
So to try something besides ad hominem attacks, let me try to get back to what i think is the underlying question:
If there is a pitch (and I have to agree with quonsar on one point, if there is a logo sitting there for 15+ seconds, it is a pitch/ad), is that exploitive?
Follow up would be, "if the people it is "exploiting" are the victim's families, and it benefits them/they are OK with it...are they being exploited?"
posted by das_2099 at 8:31 AM on May 30, 2002
If there is a pitch (and I have to agree with quonsar on one point, if there is a logo sitting there for 15+ seconds, it is a pitch/ad), is that exploitive?
Follow up would be, "if the people it is "exploiting" are the victim's families, and it benefits them/they are OK with it...are they being exploited?"
posted by das_2099 at 8:31 AM on May 30, 2002
Ok...5. Would you say the nike logo in the last 5 seconds of some of their ads is a sales pitch? I mean, it has to be , by definition. I am not placing the content of the rest of the "spots" in comparison to a "just do it" piece...just saying that brand identification and logo placement are definite advertisements (sales pitches)..and that adding the logo serves no other purpose.
Hell, I am not even saying it is wrong. I personally think that - (to provide my answer to the follow up question i posed) - if the families are ok with it, and it benefits them, who am I to say whether it is right or not.
I am saying that it is an advertisement. I was hoping to discuss the ethics of it.
posted by das_2099 at 11:11 AM on May 30, 2002
Hell, I am not even saying it is wrong. I personally think that - (to provide my answer to the follow up question i posed) - if the families are ok with it, and it benefits them, who am I to say whether it is right or not.
I am saying that it is an advertisement. I was hoping to discuss the ethics of it.
posted by das_2099 at 11:11 AM on May 30, 2002
I'm not exactly sure what I think of the adverts. But everyone who's so enthusiastic about them because of the 25% thing should give some consideration to the fact that we don't all think that giving lots of money to these particular victims' families is the most laudably charitable thing in the world. I would agree that their colleagues have an obligation to help out, and that they've been doing so makes me think that it's a pretty nice company as banking firms go.
But do we really think it's acceptable to tell the public that buying Cantor Fitzgerald products is such a virtuous thing to do? I mean, whatever company you shop from you're helping somebody's family - are these families particularly destitute? Certainly not in terms of the world, and not in American terms either. I think it's tacky and wrong, but if the families want to beg in this way that's fine. It doesn't work for me, but I suppose others dole out their sympathy in a different way.
In general the problem of how much sympathy it is appropriate to have for the once well-off who hit on bad times is not an easy one. I just wish people wouldn't be so shrill in condemning those who they disagree with as ungenerous or selfish.
posted by Gaz at 11:45 AM on May 30, 2002
But do we really think it's acceptable to tell the public that buying Cantor Fitzgerald products is such a virtuous thing to do? I mean, whatever company you shop from you're helping somebody's family - are these families particularly destitute? Certainly not in terms of the world, and not in American terms either. I think it's tacky and wrong, but if the families want to beg in this way that's fine. It doesn't work for me, but I suppose others dole out their sympathy in a different way.
In general the problem of how much sympathy it is appropriate to have for the once well-off who hit on bad times is not an easy one. I just wish people wouldn't be so shrill in condemning those who they disagree with as ungenerous or selfish.
posted by Gaz at 11:45 AM on May 30, 2002
Right. And with the level of ethical thinking espoused by our typical corporate fluff girls...let's see...one assumes we can get a hearty Skoal! for the profit-making potential of "Holocaust" brand kosher food, "Dresden" brand fire extinguishers, "Columbine" brand bulletproof desks, and "Lockerbie" brand flight insurance.
So it's really not surprising that some are now tearful and fawning and defensive over "World Trade Towers Disaster" brand bond traders. The natural evolution of advertising, don't you know. Tragedy sells.
One's heart leaps at the wherewithal for whoring. Is there any way our corporate flunkies can get Daniel Pearl's widow to hawk The Wall Street Journal? I mean, we'll give her a nickel for every paper she sells. That's fair, right? Of course everyone wants to help the grieving widow. Tragedy sells. Unfortunately, a hell of a lot of opportunity for profit has already been missed, dammit. Where were the potentially profitable few words from Yoko Ono on behalf of The Dakota, and Ethel Kennedy pitching for Hotel Ambassador? Or gee, maybe Cantor-Fitzgerald's ad crew could get the grieving families of Firestone tire victims on the air for Goodyear at $25 dollars a tire. It helps the victims, so that makes it ok...get it?. Why, the families of various postal workers would be naturals in ad campaigns targeting Federal Express.
Get on the phone to Cantor-Fitzgerald on some of these ideas. There's a mint out there, I'm telling you. Tragedy sells.
Oh, and 25% of "profits" are going to "the employees'" families. How nice. Excellent public relations ploy/cover for the ad campaign -- so reminiscent of Philip Morris "getting involved in the community." Of course Philip Morris just cares about the community. Of course Cantor-Fitzgerald just wants to do the right thing for the families.
Bullshit and swill, swallowed whole as usual by those whose ethical sensibilities end at the bottom line.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:51 PM on May 30, 2002
So it's really not surprising that some are now tearful and fawning and defensive over "World Trade Towers Disaster" brand bond traders. The natural evolution of advertising, don't you know. Tragedy sells.
One's heart leaps at the wherewithal for whoring. Is there any way our corporate flunkies can get Daniel Pearl's widow to hawk The Wall Street Journal? I mean, we'll give her a nickel for every paper she sells. That's fair, right? Of course everyone wants to help the grieving widow. Tragedy sells. Unfortunately, a hell of a lot of opportunity for profit has already been missed, dammit. Where were the potentially profitable few words from Yoko Ono on behalf of The Dakota, and Ethel Kennedy pitching for Hotel Ambassador? Or gee, maybe Cantor-Fitzgerald's ad crew could get the grieving families of Firestone tire victims on the air for Goodyear at $25 dollars a tire. It helps the victims, so that makes it ok...get it?. Why, the families of various postal workers would be naturals in ad campaigns targeting Federal Express.
Get on the phone to Cantor-Fitzgerald on some of these ideas. There's a mint out there, I'm telling you. Tragedy sells.
Oh, and 25% of "profits" are going to "the employees'" families. How nice. Excellent public relations ploy/cover for the ad campaign -- so reminiscent of Philip Morris "getting involved in the community." Of course Philip Morris just cares about the community. Of course Cantor-Fitzgerald just wants to do the right thing for the families.
Bullshit and swill, swallowed whole as usual by those whose ethical sensibilities end at the bottom line.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:51 PM on May 30, 2002
Tragedy sells.
I'm sorry, come again?
The cinematic sweep of your rhetoric is, unfortunately, only available on Beta.
(Note that fold's argument is about as useful an idea as insisting that "sex sells." Maybe, but so what? We're talking about--or trying to--the relative ethics of a particular circumstance.)
posted by Skot at 1:11 PM on May 30, 2002
I'm sorry, come again?
The cinematic sweep of your rhetoric is, unfortunately, only available on Beta.
(Note that fold's argument is about as useful an idea as insisting that "sex sells." Maybe, but so what? We're talking about--or trying to--the relative ethics of a particular circumstance.)
posted by Skot at 1:11 PM on May 30, 2002
Let's summarize:
Bleating pablum-swallowing sheep! Only I possess the Truth! The rest of you are all moneygrubbing whores.
posted by darukaru at 1:26 PM on May 30, 2002
Bleating pablum-swallowing sheep! Only I possess the Truth! The rest of you are all moneygrubbing whores.
posted by darukaru at 1:26 PM on May 30, 2002
(Note that fold's argument is about as useful an idea as insisting that "sex sells." Maybe, but so what? We're talking about--or trying to--the relative ethics of a particular circumstance.)
Cha-cha-cha-ching. Bingo.
Well, golly, you sure hit that one right on the head. Sex sells too. Couldn't agree with you more.
Let us know when the advertisers and corporate apologists think it's ok and ethical to show nude spreads of Cantor Fitzgerald widows to improve their bottom line. We'll give the widows 25% of all profits, ok?
Similarly, tragedy sells. It IS what is being shamelessly peddled here in the "relative ethics of a particular circumstance." Got it?
So, come again? I'm sure many will be interested in how "sex selling" is any more deplorable than "tragedy selling".
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:44 PM on May 30, 2002
Cha-cha-cha-ching. Bingo.
Well, golly, you sure hit that one right on the head. Sex sells too. Couldn't agree with you more.
Let us know when the advertisers and corporate apologists think it's ok and ethical to show nude spreads of Cantor Fitzgerald widows to improve their bottom line. We'll give the widows 25% of all profits, ok?
Similarly, tragedy sells. It IS what is being shamelessly peddled here in the "relative ethics of a particular circumstance." Got it?
So, come again? I'm sure many will be interested in how "sex selling" is any more deplorable than "tragedy selling".
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 1:44 PM on May 30, 2002
If our corporations are so bad, fold, why do you have to make up grandiose examples like "Dresden brand fire extinguishers" when you rage against the machine?
posted by rcade at 1:48 PM on May 30, 2002
posted by rcade at 1:48 PM on May 30, 2002
I have to agree, in cases of tragedy a corporation can do no wrong. Ethics in these instances can be quaintly summed up as whatever by default a corporation does to capitalize on their adversity. Whether it be selling coins, neckties, curios, bonds, funds, or just a good ol somthin' somewhere on the packaging that says "United We Stand", this is all fine and well. As we all know, in order for one to gauge the gravity of any tragedy one must turn to corporate entities, much like Burger King cups determine the quality of a summer movie and depending on how long they keep up the patriot/tragedy campaign we can safely know as citizens/consumers just how important all of it really was. Until the day it becomes more difficult to see the outward signs of patriotic consumerist groupthink (slogans, national colors, flags draped anywhere and everywhere etc.) we can be safely assured that we still live in a land rife with sentiments of solemnity.
I'm personally more attracted to a product by a company that has had to endure horror and death. Why shouldn't a company sell itself as anything less if it can? I would have forgotten by now that September 11th ever happened were it not for the brave adverts. I really look for the one year anniversary to help drive home the fact that it's actually been one year already since September 11, 2001. That whole week will be a sight to behold. I betcha Wal-Mart's got something real selfless up their sleeve to celebrate it with.
I also agree that the US Postal service might do well with a dramatic anthrax stamp campaign.
posted by crasspastor at 2:11 PM on May 30, 2002
I'm personally more attracted to a product by a company that has had to endure horror and death. Why shouldn't a company sell itself as anything less if it can? I would have forgotten by now that September 11th ever happened were it not for the brave adverts. I really look for the one year anniversary to help drive home the fact that it's actually been one year already since September 11, 2001. That whole week will be a sight to behold. I betcha Wal-Mart's got something real selfless up their sleeve to celebrate it with.
I also agree that the US Postal service might do well with a dramatic anthrax stamp campaign.
posted by crasspastor at 2:11 PM on May 30, 2002
Excuse me:
Wal-Mart's got something real selfless to observe it with.
posted by crasspastor at 2:16 PM on May 30, 2002
Wal-Mart's got something real selfless to observe it with.
posted by crasspastor at 2:16 PM on May 30, 2002
I've told you all before, don't bother arguing with fold_and_mutilate, he's not a real person!
posted by evanizer at 3:50 PM on May 30, 2002
posted by evanizer at 3:50 PM on May 30, 2002
Fold, is there any justification in your world for the existence of any corporation ever? When I was self-employed and incorporated, was I oppressing myself as an employee and taking advantage of my customers through my greed?
I'm just wondering.
posted by anildash at 5:10 PM on May 30, 2002
I'm just wondering.
posted by anildash at 5:10 PM on May 30, 2002
Exploit 9/11 all we can...
posted by {savg*pncl} at 6:29 PM on May 30, 2002
posted by {savg*pncl} at 6:29 PM on May 30, 2002
anil, when you told potential customers that you could do projects for them more quickly and cheaply than anyone else, you were denying yourself as an employee a living wage and pocketing the profits. Why, you!
posted by dhartung at 7:12 PM on May 30, 2002
posted by dhartung at 7:12 PM on May 30, 2002
I can't think of any metaphor for a corporation which could create a symbol sympathetic enough to excuse for-profit exploitation of the September Eleventh tragedy...
...except for the one Cantor Fitzgerald uses - 'grieving, decimated family'.
Lutnick stumbled all over himself in The Tragedy's early aftermath (I shudder to think what might have happened had he not rushed out to hire a PR firm). Sure...he was under incredible strain...his brother died, for crissake...still...
"Lutnick is regarded as aggressive, ambitious, ruthless and willing to step on or over anyone in order to get what he wants," said Jaffe, who covered Lutnick's takeover of the company from his dying mentor, Bernie Cantor, and his subsequent court battle with Cantor's window over control of the company. --abc news
Midas claims to know the guy, and seems to hold him in high esteem. I remain unpersuaded, but I sure don't have any first-hand insight.
So what are Lutnick's motivations...how should we figure hypocrisy's probability?
How 'bout this:
In the history of Cantor Fitzgerald, has any employee's family ever received death benefits equal to those guaranteed to the WTC victims' families? Have those benefits ever been bragged so publicly? Have they ever been so garishly, publicly, and directly tied to corporate profit?
No? Then the probability that WTC emotion is being manipulated for corporate gain is pretty forkin' high, and the company earns negative redemption for publicly tying death benefits to that gain.
Note that I said 'corporate gain'. Some might argue that Cantor should be extended some moral leeway on the grounds that it is attempting to parlay September Eleventh sympathy into corporate survival...
Before the attacks, Cantor had about one-quarter of the daily $250 billion market in interdealer trading of U.S. Treasuries. It resumed trading through eSpeed two days after the attack and has maintained "a dominant share" of the U.S. Treasuries markets, Lutnick told analysts yesterday.
Their survival has never really been in question.
posted by Opus Dark at 10:41 PM on May 30, 2002
...except for the one Cantor Fitzgerald uses - 'grieving, decimated family'.
Lutnick stumbled all over himself in The Tragedy's early aftermath (I shudder to think what might have happened had he not rushed out to hire a PR firm). Sure...he was under incredible strain...his brother died, for crissake...still...
"Lutnick is regarded as aggressive, ambitious, ruthless and willing to step on or over anyone in order to get what he wants," said Jaffe, who covered Lutnick's takeover of the company from his dying mentor, Bernie Cantor, and his subsequent court battle with Cantor's window over control of the company. --abc news
Midas claims to know the guy, and seems to hold him in high esteem. I remain unpersuaded, but I sure don't have any first-hand insight.
So what are Lutnick's motivations...how should we figure hypocrisy's probability?
How 'bout this:
In the history of Cantor Fitzgerald, has any employee's family ever received death benefits equal to those guaranteed to the WTC victims' families? Have those benefits ever been bragged so publicly? Have they ever been so garishly, publicly, and directly tied to corporate profit?
No? Then the probability that WTC emotion is being manipulated for corporate gain is pretty forkin' high, and the company earns negative redemption for publicly tying death benefits to that gain.
Note that I said 'corporate gain'. Some might argue that Cantor should be extended some moral leeway on the grounds that it is attempting to parlay September Eleventh sympathy into corporate survival...
Before the attacks, Cantor had about one-quarter of the daily $250 billion market in interdealer trading of U.S. Treasuries. It resumed trading through eSpeed two days after the attack and has maintained "a dominant share" of the U.S. Treasuries markets, Lutnick told analysts yesterday.
Their survival has never really been in question.
posted by Opus Dark at 10:41 PM on May 30, 2002
When I previously said ...
"on second thought, please do go on ... the stark contrast between the intentions and actions of the Cantor leaders, and the sentiments arising out of your soul ought to be most illuminating."
... I had no idea the contrast would wind up being as perfect and clear as it wound up being. What is clear is that more than one person - while accusing Cantor of exploiting 9/11 - are themeselves using ... "exploiting" ... Cantor's response to 9/11 for their usual purposes. Cantor's intention is to survive, make money ... and ... it is committed to supporting the families of those that were lost. What are the intentions of those who are spewing bitterness in this thread? The same as usual - destructive. They are not commenting on this situation, they are merely using this situation, as they use virtually every other one that even remotely involves a corporation, to mouth the same rubbish they always mouth.
In this instance, however - it is pleasing to see them so thoroughly expose themselves for what they are. They do not even need to be answered ... the mere fact that they have become so visible is valuable ... (as the fact that they will not even understand what I'm talking about is humorous).
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:26 AM on May 31, 2002
"on second thought, please do go on ... the stark contrast between the intentions and actions of the Cantor leaders, and the sentiments arising out of your soul ought to be most illuminating."
... I had no idea the contrast would wind up being as perfect and clear as it wound up being. What is clear is that more than one person - while accusing Cantor of exploiting 9/11 - are themeselves using ... "exploiting" ... Cantor's response to 9/11 for their usual purposes. Cantor's intention is to survive, make money ... and ... it is committed to supporting the families of those that were lost. What are the intentions of those who are spewing bitterness in this thread? The same as usual - destructive. They are not commenting on this situation, they are merely using this situation, as they use virtually every other one that even remotely involves a corporation, to mouth the same rubbish they always mouth.
In this instance, however - it is pleasing to see them so thoroughly expose themselves for what they are. They do not even need to be answered ... the mere fact that they have become so visible is valuable ... (as the fact that they will not even understand what I'm talking about is humorous).
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:26 AM on May 31, 2002
[...](as the fact that they will not even understand what I'm talking about is humorous).
Page 27, The Obfuscator's Handbook
One can, to some extent, protect an obfuscation from puzzled enquiry by explicitly suggesting that failure to understand said obfuscation betrays a chuckle-worthy lack of intelligence.
posted by Opus Dark at 1:12 AM on May 31, 2002
Page 27, The Obfuscator's Handbook
One can, to some extent, protect an obfuscation from puzzled enquiry by explicitly suggesting that failure to understand said obfuscation betrays a chuckle-worthy lack of intelligence.
posted by Opus Dark at 1:12 AM on May 31, 2002
In the history of Cantor Fitzgerald, has any employee's family ever received death benefits equal to those guaranteed to the WTC victims' families?
In the history of Cantor Fitzgerald, has any employee died solely because he had the misfortune of working at CF at their WTC location? (Did they lose anyone in '93?)
These deaths are not like any others in CF (or American) history. We are not availed of any reference points for what is and is not acceptable behaviour following an incident such as this.
posted by Dreama at 2:38 AM on May 31, 2002
In the history of Cantor Fitzgerald, has any employee died solely because he had the misfortune of working at CF at their WTC location? (Did they lose anyone in '93?)
These deaths are not like any others in CF (or American) history. We are not availed of any reference points for what is and is not acceptable behaviour following an incident such as this.
posted by Dreama at 2:38 AM on May 31, 2002
MidasMulligan: What are the intentions of those who are spewing bitterness in this thread? The same as usual - destructive. They are not commenting on this situation, they are merely using this situation, as they use virtually every other one that even remotely involves a corporation, to mouth the same rubbish they always mouth.
Well, it's true that the same arguments occur again and again, the same points are made on each side, events cited as examples of theories. And it's certainly a shame that the debate does not move on. But that's the point of ideology, isn't it? People are attached to their positions by more than just logic - also by self-interest, and class and indoctrination. But it's just ridiculous to say that the solution to all this is to avoid seeing indidual events as part of the bigger picture, to eschew making the connections that make sense of politics and economics.
The point here, and it's a pretty basic one, is that corporations like to market themselves as charities. They figure that people are more willing to spend their money if they think that it will serve a good cause, or if the company they are buying from is generally virtuous and admirable. And so corporations exaggerate the degree of their virtue, and the examples of companies that spend much more on boasting about how much they give to charity than they actually do give are now commonplace. And we should expect no better - marketing is a fundamentally dishonest business, because it is based on tricking people into irrationality about their self-interest.
It would be nice to believe that all corporations are equally good, that it doesn't matter which one succeeds. Certainly shareholders would like to believe that the choice of who to invest in is ethically neutral, that the expansion of the economy is an automatic indefeasible good, that human suffering thereby created can be disregarded. And as shareholding becomes more universal there is a greater class of people who want (and are encouraged) to see the stock markets as simply a potential way to enrich themselves, blind to its social consequences. It is in precisely these circumstances that the message of ethical responsibility has to be repeated over and over again, because people want to ignore it and discount it and discredit it, to dismiss it as the same rubbish, because it would be more convenient for them to do so.
And as a move in this game, the marketing of corporations as charities is a stroke of genius, because it enables the market to defuse whatever social conscience consumers and investors may have had. It is the height of hypocrisy, becaue those doing it typically believe in untrammelled market freedom, in the inherent virtue of the market. But they mouth the language of corporate responsibility, they play the game.
Now, is it really so outrageous when we object to this, when we show it up for what it is, when we say "this is cynical and manipulative and ethically distorting"? If we are serious about the responsibility of consumers and investors to make ethical choices, then we have to expose those companies that try to distort and deceive in order to thwart those choices. Who will scrutinise them if the public do not?
In this case a company pretends that giving hundreds of thousands of dollars each to particular families (riches out of reach of very many Americans, not to mention the rest of the world) is a demonstration of virtue. And lets not forget: it is the company's responsibility to provide for these families, but it tries to pass off that responsibility to the consumers, trying to compensate itself for being charitable, making sure that doing the right thing doesn't affect the bottom line. Is it really anyone's duty to buy their products? Is it even good for people to spend their money in that way? As opposed to what - to other investment spending, to other charitable spending? One danger of companies falsely telling consumers that they are charities is that people don't think they have to give to charities any more - it's an easy balm for the conscience.
In this instance, however - it is pleasing to see them so thoroughly expose themselves for what they are. They do not even need to be answered ... the mere fact that they have become so visible is valuable
And is this meant to be some kind of threat - that we're being marked down in a little notebook - "they never would be missed"? Has it suddenly become a crime to scrutinise the discourse of the market and marketing, to engage in critical thinking? Is the blinkered and self-serving ideology, which ignores whatever arguments it is inconvenient to face, now something to be proud of? Is it no longer acceptable to connect one thing with another, to see how it fits together, to see society and the world as a whole?
"Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer. Only connect, and the beast and the monk, robbed of the isolation that is life to either, will die."
E. M. Forster, Howard's End
posted by Gaz at 4:42 AM on May 31, 2002
Well, it's true that the same arguments occur again and again, the same points are made on each side, events cited as examples of theories. And it's certainly a shame that the debate does not move on. But that's the point of ideology, isn't it? People are attached to their positions by more than just logic - also by self-interest, and class and indoctrination. But it's just ridiculous to say that the solution to all this is to avoid seeing indidual events as part of the bigger picture, to eschew making the connections that make sense of politics and economics.
The point here, and it's a pretty basic one, is that corporations like to market themselves as charities. They figure that people are more willing to spend their money if they think that it will serve a good cause, or if the company they are buying from is generally virtuous and admirable. And so corporations exaggerate the degree of their virtue, and the examples of companies that spend much more on boasting about how much they give to charity than they actually do give are now commonplace. And we should expect no better - marketing is a fundamentally dishonest business, because it is based on tricking people into irrationality about their self-interest.
It would be nice to believe that all corporations are equally good, that it doesn't matter which one succeeds. Certainly shareholders would like to believe that the choice of who to invest in is ethically neutral, that the expansion of the economy is an automatic indefeasible good, that human suffering thereby created can be disregarded. And as shareholding becomes more universal there is a greater class of people who want (and are encouraged) to see the stock markets as simply a potential way to enrich themselves, blind to its social consequences. It is in precisely these circumstances that the message of ethical responsibility has to be repeated over and over again, because people want to ignore it and discount it and discredit it, to dismiss it as the same rubbish, because it would be more convenient for them to do so.
And as a move in this game, the marketing of corporations as charities is a stroke of genius, because it enables the market to defuse whatever social conscience consumers and investors may have had. It is the height of hypocrisy, becaue those doing it typically believe in untrammelled market freedom, in the inherent virtue of the market. But they mouth the language of corporate responsibility, they play the game.
Now, is it really so outrageous when we object to this, when we show it up for what it is, when we say "this is cynical and manipulative and ethically distorting"? If we are serious about the responsibility of consumers and investors to make ethical choices, then we have to expose those companies that try to distort and deceive in order to thwart those choices. Who will scrutinise them if the public do not?
In this case a company pretends that giving hundreds of thousands of dollars each to particular families (riches out of reach of very many Americans, not to mention the rest of the world) is a demonstration of virtue. And lets not forget: it is the company's responsibility to provide for these families, but it tries to pass off that responsibility to the consumers, trying to compensate itself for being charitable, making sure that doing the right thing doesn't affect the bottom line. Is it really anyone's duty to buy their products? Is it even good for people to spend their money in that way? As opposed to what - to other investment spending, to other charitable spending? One danger of companies falsely telling consumers that they are charities is that people don't think they have to give to charities any more - it's an easy balm for the conscience.
In this instance, however - it is pleasing to see them so thoroughly expose themselves for what they are. They do not even need to be answered ... the mere fact that they have become so visible is valuable
And is this meant to be some kind of threat - that we're being marked down in a little notebook - "they never would be missed"? Has it suddenly become a crime to scrutinise the discourse of the market and marketing, to engage in critical thinking? Is the blinkered and self-serving ideology, which ignores whatever arguments it is inconvenient to face, now something to be proud of? Is it no longer acceptable to connect one thing with another, to see how it fits together, to see society and the world as a whole?
"Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer. Only connect, and the beast and the monk, robbed of the isolation that is life to either, will die."
E. M. Forster, Howard's End
posted by Gaz at 4:42 AM on May 31, 2002
we're just walking talking cliches, quonsar. Tell us more about how you come up with fresh and original comments like "what a circle jerk"
way to avoid the point, rcade.
another nifty avoidance:
"If our corporations are so bad, fold, why do you have to make up grandiose examples like "Dresden brand fire extinguishers" when you rage against the machine?
so, a practice is acceptable so long as it isn't the most egregrious example you can think of? that's as ridiculous as if i'd said "gee rcade, if corporations are so great, why haven't they brought about peace on earth?"
posted by quonsar at 5:30 AM on May 31, 2002
way to avoid the point, rcade.
another nifty avoidance:
"If our corporations are so bad, fold, why do you have to make up grandiose examples like "Dresden brand fire extinguishers" when you rage against the machine?
so, a practice is acceptable so long as it isn't the most egregrious example you can think of? that's as ridiculous as if i'd said "gee rcade, if corporations are so great, why haven't they brought about peace on earth?"
posted by quonsar at 5:30 AM on May 31, 2002
way to avoid the point, rcade.
What was the point quonsar? In your attempt to alienate anyone who disagrees with fold, you never said anything of substance.
the rest of you are just tired cliches...foldy is right, and y'all just jumping on the hate foldy bandwagon. what a circle jerk....
How can anyone defend themselves? That's not an argument, that's yet another insult in a long line from you.
if it was important as a matter of recovery, to these people or to us, to hear these stories (and i happen to think it is very important) the corp could have funded the spots without the pitch.
Yeah, politicians often promise a lot of crap involve themselves in projects that go against their IDEALS because they need to be re-elected. Corporations are not inherently evil, although some execs are.
In this case, this corporation was devastated by this tragedy and need to recover. In order to do so, they needed to create an ad campaign worth listening to. The fact that it involves the tragedy sounds wrong, but this corporation cannot erase its past. Fact remains, if this ad campaign continues, (assuming over a year or two), then I agree that they're milking it. However, at this point, I see very little to bitch about.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:42 AM on May 31, 2002
What was the point quonsar? In your attempt to alienate anyone who disagrees with fold, you never said anything of substance.
the rest of you are just tired cliches...foldy is right, and y'all just jumping on the hate foldy bandwagon. what a circle jerk....
How can anyone defend themselves? That's not an argument, that's yet another insult in a long line from you.
if it was important as a matter of recovery, to these people or to us, to hear these stories (and i happen to think it is very important) the corp could have funded the spots without the pitch.
Yeah, politicians often promise a lot of crap involve themselves in projects that go against their IDEALS because they need to be re-elected. Corporations are not inherently evil, although some execs are.
In this case, this corporation was devastated by this tragedy and need to recover. In order to do so, they needed to create an ad campaign worth listening to. The fact that it involves the tragedy sounds wrong, but this corporation cannot erase its past. Fact remains, if this ad campaign continues, (assuming over a year or two), then I agree that they're milking it. However, at this point, I see very little to bitch about.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:42 AM on May 31, 2002
People are attached to their positions by more than just logic - also by self-interest, and class and indoctrination. But it's just ridiculous to say that the solution to all this is to avoid seeing individual events as part of the bigger picture, to eschew making the connections that make sense of politics and economics. The point here, and it's a pretty basic one, is that corporations like to market themselves as charities.
That is the point of the foldy gang. The point I was making is that that perspective also should be made to withstand the same scrutiny they claim the right to turn on corporations. Without fail, they will imply that they hold some high moral ground, from which they look down on, and judge corporations as being immoral, corrupt, and having nearly universally bad intentions. Is it wrong, then, to say ok, let's also look at the intentions and moral standing of those who accuse? If someone feels they have the right to say "Loathsome and typical corporate behavior.", is not their "typical behavior" fair game for examination as well?
Do you understand fully what you just said above? "People are attached to their positions by more than just logic - also by self-interest, and class and indoctrination." If you replace the word "people" with the word "corporations", you'll have a precise statement of what those people accuse corporations of. It is seriously flawed ethical reasoning to say that if a company acts out of self-interest, class, and indoctrination, it is immoral and corrupt, while when foldy acts out on the identical foundation, he is somehow a high-minded ethical crusader that has some sort of compelling moral stance. When you say ...
It is in precisely these circumstances that the message of ethical responsibility has to be repeated over and over again, because people want to ignore it and discount it and discredit it, to dismiss it as the same rubbish, because it would be more convenient for them to do so.
... I'll counter with the same thing: if someone wants to repeat - over and over again - the premise that all corporations are corrupt, and will use any excuse to make that point, and, they speak as though they have the right to judge ... implying that they are being "ethically responsible" - then it is quite right and proper to turn the spotlight on them, and judge their behavior for it's "ethical responsibility".
Corporations, like people, are nearly always a mixed bag ... a few extremely good, a few extremely bad, but most of them a wide and complicated mixture. If someone - out of personal self-interest or bitterness - simply takes anything any corporation does (good or bad), and attempts to twist it prove a preconceived idea they hold ... well, that is NOT a moral foundation from which to judge a corporation. That is NOT an ethical crusader speaking on behalf of "the people" (who they also, curiously, generally claim are either selfish, or sheep-like and easily fooled) to provide some sort of check on the power of companies.
Now, is it really so outrageous when we object to this, when we show it up for what it is, when we say "this is cynical and manipulative and ethically distorting"?
Exactly my point. That is exactly what I am doing. If the self-appointed judges, that believe, and imply that they act on behalf of "the public", and imply that corporations only act to harm the public ... if they are being simply "cynical, manipulative, and ethically distorting" ... is it so outrageous to show that up for "what it is ..."?
If we are serious about the responsibility of consumers and investors to make ethical choices, then we have to expose those companies that try to distort and deceive in order to thwart those choices. Who will scrutinize them if the public do not?
If you claim to speak on behalf of "the public", and your intention is to provide full information so that "consumers and investors" can make ethical choices, then simply trashing everything a company does, and portraying all corporate behavior in it's worst possible light is as immoral as you claim companies are. And this particular situation exposes the "exposers" in a stark and glaring way. Cantor's partners are donating a full quarter of their personal profits for five full years. Do you know what it means - the full scope of what it means, the cost - of providing health insurance to the families of over 600 employees for a full decade? Long after there is any PR value in it, long after the event has receeded, they will still be taking care of those families. And I happen to know personally, in this instance, that there was no thought of whether this would be the biggest marketing ploy for the buck. The partners did this with pure intentions - because they personally thought it was right. It is way more than most other companies did, way more than anyone conceivably expected. This was an act of profound good.
Is it your belief that consumers and investors should only see the worst of companies ... and if a company does something good, that it should be twisted in a cynical way to make it seem bad? Are you claiming that this is informing the public in an "ethical and responsible" way? As a consumer and investor, I am happy to know they are doing what they are doing. It does matter to me. And I will - because of it - steer any business I can to that company. I'll encourage others to as well. If you want to try to claim that the serious commitment the Cantor partners made for the next decade was done with the motive of "marketing itself as a charity" to "defuse whatever social conscience consumers have" ... then you are, in fact, guilty of attempting to "thwart" precisely the behavior you claim to want to encourage.
Has it suddenly become a crime to scrutinize the discourse of the market and marketing, to engage in critical thinking?
Is it a crime to scrutinize those who claim the right to judge? To examine just how much of their opinions are "critical thinking", and how much self-interest and bitterness? You want to claim that every bit of marketing from companies should be analyzed and dissected - but we should just blindly accept what you say as a true portrayal?
Is the blinkered and self-serving ideology, which ignores whatever arguments it is inconvenient to face, now something to be proud of?
I don't know ... IS IT? you have just described yourself and foldy.
Is it no longer acceptable to connect one thing with another, to see how it fits together, to see society and the world as a whole?
Nice words. Tell, me how is the cynical bitterness that could spew something like "One anticipates the business geniuses who came up with this Cantor Fitzgerald ad campaign contacting Israeli shopping malls about the possibility of hawking "blow-out sales". Loathsome and typical corporate behavior." even remotely related to what you are trying to portray?
No, in saying "In this instance, however - it is pleasing to see them so thoroughly expose themselves for what they are. They do not even need to be answered ... the mere fact that they have become so visible is valuable" I am not referring to some "secret book" ... but to the fact that it has become clearly apparent in this thread that ethical high ground from which the foldy's presume to judge doesn't exist. That they are quite clearly guilty of exactly what they accuse corporations of.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:34 AM on May 31, 2002
That is the point of the foldy gang. The point I was making is that that perspective also should be made to withstand the same scrutiny they claim the right to turn on corporations. Without fail, they will imply that they hold some high moral ground, from which they look down on, and judge corporations as being immoral, corrupt, and having nearly universally bad intentions. Is it wrong, then, to say ok, let's also look at the intentions and moral standing of those who accuse? If someone feels they have the right to say "Loathsome and typical corporate behavior.", is not their "typical behavior" fair game for examination as well?
Do you understand fully what you just said above? "People are attached to their positions by more than just logic - also by self-interest, and class and indoctrination." If you replace the word "people" with the word "corporations", you'll have a precise statement of what those people accuse corporations of. It is seriously flawed ethical reasoning to say that if a company acts out of self-interest, class, and indoctrination, it is immoral and corrupt, while when foldy acts out on the identical foundation, he is somehow a high-minded ethical crusader that has some sort of compelling moral stance. When you say ...
It is in precisely these circumstances that the message of ethical responsibility has to be repeated over and over again, because people want to ignore it and discount it and discredit it, to dismiss it as the same rubbish, because it would be more convenient for them to do so.
... I'll counter with the same thing: if someone wants to repeat - over and over again - the premise that all corporations are corrupt, and will use any excuse to make that point, and, they speak as though they have the right to judge ... implying that they are being "ethically responsible" - then it is quite right and proper to turn the spotlight on them, and judge their behavior for it's "ethical responsibility".
Corporations, like people, are nearly always a mixed bag ... a few extremely good, a few extremely bad, but most of them a wide and complicated mixture. If someone - out of personal self-interest or bitterness - simply takes anything any corporation does (good or bad), and attempts to twist it prove a preconceived idea they hold ... well, that is NOT a moral foundation from which to judge a corporation. That is NOT an ethical crusader speaking on behalf of "the people" (who they also, curiously, generally claim are either selfish, or sheep-like and easily fooled) to provide some sort of check on the power of companies.
Now, is it really so outrageous when we object to this, when we show it up for what it is, when we say "this is cynical and manipulative and ethically distorting"?
Exactly my point. That is exactly what I am doing. If the self-appointed judges, that believe, and imply that they act on behalf of "the public", and imply that corporations only act to harm the public ... if they are being simply "cynical, manipulative, and ethically distorting" ... is it so outrageous to show that up for "what it is ..."?
If we are serious about the responsibility of consumers and investors to make ethical choices, then we have to expose those companies that try to distort and deceive in order to thwart those choices. Who will scrutinize them if the public do not?
If you claim to speak on behalf of "the public", and your intention is to provide full information so that "consumers and investors" can make ethical choices, then simply trashing everything a company does, and portraying all corporate behavior in it's worst possible light is as immoral as you claim companies are. And this particular situation exposes the "exposers" in a stark and glaring way. Cantor's partners are donating a full quarter of their personal profits for five full years. Do you know what it means - the full scope of what it means, the cost - of providing health insurance to the families of over 600 employees for a full decade? Long after there is any PR value in it, long after the event has receeded, they will still be taking care of those families. And I happen to know personally, in this instance, that there was no thought of whether this would be the biggest marketing ploy for the buck. The partners did this with pure intentions - because they personally thought it was right. It is way more than most other companies did, way more than anyone conceivably expected. This was an act of profound good.
Is it your belief that consumers and investors should only see the worst of companies ... and if a company does something good, that it should be twisted in a cynical way to make it seem bad? Are you claiming that this is informing the public in an "ethical and responsible" way? As a consumer and investor, I am happy to know they are doing what they are doing. It does matter to me. And I will - because of it - steer any business I can to that company. I'll encourage others to as well. If you want to try to claim that the serious commitment the Cantor partners made for the next decade was done with the motive of "marketing itself as a charity" to "defuse whatever social conscience consumers have" ... then you are, in fact, guilty of attempting to "thwart" precisely the behavior you claim to want to encourage.
Has it suddenly become a crime to scrutinize the discourse of the market and marketing, to engage in critical thinking?
Is it a crime to scrutinize those who claim the right to judge? To examine just how much of their opinions are "critical thinking", and how much self-interest and bitterness? You want to claim that every bit of marketing from companies should be analyzed and dissected - but we should just blindly accept what you say as a true portrayal?
Is the blinkered and self-serving ideology, which ignores whatever arguments it is inconvenient to face, now something to be proud of?
I don't know ... IS IT? you have just described yourself and foldy.
Is it no longer acceptable to connect one thing with another, to see how it fits together, to see society and the world as a whole?
Nice words. Tell, me how is the cynical bitterness that could spew something like "One anticipates the business geniuses who came up with this Cantor Fitzgerald ad campaign contacting Israeli shopping malls about the possibility of hawking "blow-out sales". Loathsome and typical corporate behavior." even remotely related to what you are trying to portray?
No, in saying "In this instance, however - it is pleasing to see them so thoroughly expose themselves for what they are. They do not even need to be answered ... the mere fact that they have become so visible is valuable" I am not referring to some "secret book" ... but to the fact that it has become clearly apparent in this thread that ethical high ground from which the foldy's presume to judge doesn't exist. That they are quite clearly guilty of exactly what they accuse corporations of.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:34 AM on May 31, 2002
Midas, as I understand it, their point is that offering to help take care of these families for years is loathsome, typical corporate behavior. Ignoring those families, presumably, would be the compassionate, thoughtful thing to do. Or, alternately, shutting down the company and relegating the rest of the employees to unemployment. Or giving up even more money voluntarily, so that the company had no profits and couldn't remain a going concern.
posted by anildash at 11:55 AM on May 31, 2002
posted by anildash at 11:55 AM on May 31, 2002
Most people don't realize this, but when you sign incorporation papers, they extract your soul and replace it with PURE EVIL! PURE EVIL, I SAY! One day you're a good and compassionate person, the next day you're an amoral profit-driven bastard! And all you did was sign a piece of paper!
Signing pieces of paper MUST BE STOPPED.
posted by kindall at 1:19 PM on May 31, 2002
Signing pieces of paper MUST BE STOPPED.
posted by kindall at 1:19 PM on May 31, 2002
That is the point of the foldy gang. The point I was making is that that perspective also should be made to withstand the same scrutiny they claim the right to turn on corporations.
But we're not talking symettrical positions here. This is a thread, remember, about marketing. Companies pay so that the public hears what they have to say (about their products, about what they do as companies, about how virtuous they are). By using fora such as this one to air conflicting accounts of the facts, we allow everyone else to make up their own minds. I guess from reading the thread that most people are coming down on Cantor's side. And that's fine - the scrutiny is already happening and people are making up their own minds, having seen . So we're arguing two things here:
1. That corporate behaviour should be discussed and judged by examining all the facts and values, including those not apparent from advertsing.
2. That a negative evaluation of corporate behaviour is appropriate in this case.
What I've said about scrutiny basically goes to 1 - but I guess you agree with 1. My arguments for 2 are to do with the influence that corporate claims of virtue have on consumers, but they're in my earlier comments so I won't repeat them.
Now if, as you suggest, we had already made up our minds that whatever corporations do is illegitimate, there would be no point to the debate. The whole point of what I have written is that some corporations are better than others (and actually I think Cantor is one of the better ones - but I think that although they gain from being charitable, they lose some back for publicising it). So when we say that Exxon are bad (for example), one of the things we'll say is that they should be more like BP, and it would be better if people bought BP's products and shares in preference to Exxon. So obviously we don't think that they're all evil - indeed if it's true that companies serve their shareholders then that would mean we thought all those shareholders were ignorant. Our actual view is more like this: shareholders are insufficiently conscious of the way in which corporations affect the world and society (for better or worse). If they want to do the right thing they should be vigilant, and use their power in the market to influence corporate behaviour. This is a really modest position - it's not even anti-capitalist (though it is opposed to what you might call pure capitalism, which envisages purely self-interested economic agents).
And as I've just said, if I needed to buy whatever it is that Cantor sell, I would probably prefer them to their competitors to some extent, because whatever demerit I perceive in this advertising campaign is more than made up for the rest of the company's behaviour.
You want to claim that every bit of marketing from companies should be analyzed and dissected - but we should just blindly accept what you say as a true portrayal?
I mean this is really bizarre. The whole point of an argument is that each side claims to be right. So yes, I claim to be right. But I entirely accept that what other people think will (or should) depend on their evaluation of the arguments etc. I don't think I've implied otherwise.
Is it wrong, then, to say ok, let's also look at the intentions and moral standing of those who accuse? If someone feels they have the right to say "Loathsome and typical corporate behavior.", is not their "typical behavior" fair game for examination as well?
You see the problem here is that we aren't in a position to evaluate the behaviour of those in the debate. Earlier you accused foldy of hypocrisy - you doubted that he was charitable himself - but of course you have no evidence either way. I had rather assumed the opposite. So when you say that you are scrutinisng our behaviour, either you mean that you are making baseless accusations of hypocrisy, or you just mean that our arguments are wrong. But we're not assuming the moral high ground in any nefarious sense by claiming to be right - do you expect us to say that we're wrong? The kind of scrutiny you suggest of us is not equivalent to scrutiny of companies, because it is corporate behaviour that is being debated. On the other hand, scrutiny of our arguments is very welcome.
it has become clearly apparent in this thread that ethical high ground from which the foldy's presume to judge doesn't exist. That they are quite clearly guilty of exactly what they accuse corporations of.
I don't really get this. Do you mean that our arguments show us to be wrong, to have a deficient morality? I guess you're welcome to that conclusion, but I don't see how this can be any kind of argument against us. I mean, if we're wrong then presumably that has some implications for how good our morality is. But until people decide whether we're wrong they can't conclude that we're evil.
And even if we are wrong, we certainly aren't guilty of exactly what they accuse corporations of. I guess you mean that we claim to be right (and we're not, according to you), whereas corporations also claim to be virtuous (in their advertising) and aren't (according to us). That's a mistake for three reasons. Firstly, we aren't like corporations because we aren't trying to sell anything - no, not even the revolution ;) Secondly, we aren't claiming that what we do is right, only that our opinions are right - the claim of virtue is much stronger than the claim of correctness. Thirdly, what we accuse corporations of is not, or not only, lying in their advertisements. The claim is also that even when the claims are true, and are presented honestly, they distort the public's perceptions of their own ethical responsibilities (and before you say that I'm making out the public to be idiots, remember that advertising works).
Feel free to take it to email. Or not :)
posted by Gaz at 8:48 AM on June 1, 2002
But we're not talking symettrical positions here. This is a thread, remember, about marketing. Companies pay so that the public hears what they have to say (about their products, about what they do as companies, about how virtuous they are). By using fora such as this one to air conflicting accounts of the facts, we allow everyone else to make up their own minds. I guess from reading the thread that most people are coming down on Cantor's side. And that's fine - the scrutiny is already happening and people are making up their own minds, having seen . So we're arguing two things here:
1. That corporate behaviour should be discussed and judged by examining all the facts and values, including those not apparent from advertsing.
2. That a negative evaluation of corporate behaviour is appropriate in this case.
What I've said about scrutiny basically goes to 1 - but I guess you agree with 1. My arguments for 2 are to do with the influence that corporate claims of virtue have on consumers, but they're in my earlier comments so I won't repeat them.
Now if, as you suggest, we had already made up our minds that whatever corporations do is illegitimate, there would be no point to the debate. The whole point of what I have written is that some corporations are better than others (and actually I think Cantor is one of the better ones - but I think that although they gain from being charitable, they lose some back for publicising it). So when we say that Exxon are bad (for example), one of the things we'll say is that they should be more like BP, and it would be better if people bought BP's products and shares in preference to Exxon. So obviously we don't think that they're all evil - indeed if it's true that companies serve their shareholders then that would mean we thought all those shareholders were ignorant. Our actual view is more like this: shareholders are insufficiently conscious of the way in which corporations affect the world and society (for better or worse). If they want to do the right thing they should be vigilant, and use their power in the market to influence corporate behaviour. This is a really modest position - it's not even anti-capitalist (though it is opposed to what you might call pure capitalism, which envisages purely self-interested economic agents).
And as I've just said, if I needed to buy whatever it is that Cantor sell, I would probably prefer them to their competitors to some extent, because whatever demerit I perceive in this advertising campaign is more than made up for the rest of the company's behaviour.
You want to claim that every bit of marketing from companies should be analyzed and dissected - but we should just blindly accept what you say as a true portrayal?
I mean this is really bizarre. The whole point of an argument is that each side claims to be right. So yes, I claim to be right. But I entirely accept that what other people think will (or should) depend on their evaluation of the arguments etc. I don't think I've implied otherwise.
Is it wrong, then, to say ok, let's also look at the intentions and moral standing of those who accuse? If someone feels they have the right to say "Loathsome and typical corporate behavior.", is not their "typical behavior" fair game for examination as well?
You see the problem here is that we aren't in a position to evaluate the behaviour of those in the debate. Earlier you accused foldy of hypocrisy - you doubted that he was charitable himself - but of course you have no evidence either way. I had rather assumed the opposite. So when you say that you are scrutinisng our behaviour, either you mean that you are making baseless accusations of hypocrisy, or you just mean that our arguments are wrong. But we're not assuming the moral high ground in any nefarious sense by claiming to be right - do you expect us to say that we're wrong? The kind of scrutiny you suggest of us is not equivalent to scrutiny of companies, because it is corporate behaviour that is being debated. On the other hand, scrutiny of our arguments is very welcome.
it has become clearly apparent in this thread that ethical high ground from which the foldy's presume to judge doesn't exist. That they are quite clearly guilty of exactly what they accuse corporations of.
I don't really get this. Do you mean that our arguments show us to be wrong, to have a deficient morality? I guess you're welcome to that conclusion, but I don't see how this can be any kind of argument against us. I mean, if we're wrong then presumably that has some implications for how good our morality is. But until people decide whether we're wrong they can't conclude that we're evil.
And even if we are wrong, we certainly aren't guilty of exactly what they accuse corporations of. I guess you mean that we claim to be right (and we're not, according to you), whereas corporations also claim to be virtuous (in their advertising) and aren't (according to us). That's a mistake for three reasons. Firstly, we aren't like corporations because we aren't trying to sell anything - no, not even the revolution ;) Secondly, we aren't claiming that what we do is right, only that our opinions are right - the claim of virtue is much stronger than the claim of correctness. Thirdly, what we accuse corporations of is not, or not only, lying in their advertisements. The claim is also that even when the claims are true, and are presented honestly, they distort the public's perceptions of their own ethical responsibilities (and before you say that I'm making out the public to be idiots, remember that advertising works).
Feel free to take it to email. Or not :)
posted by Gaz at 8:48 AM on June 1, 2002
Midas, you should be writing professionally. Seriously.
posted by davidmsc at 2:15 PM on June 3, 2002
posted by davidmsc at 2:15 PM on June 3, 2002
« Older The end of free zoo day in Buffalo, NY | Gujarat rocked by a series of bomb blasts. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Craig Cummings
Chris Crosby
Mike Morroni
Ari Schonbrun
Stephen Merkel
Phil Marber
Amy Nauiokas
Joe Noviello
posted by geoff. at 8:16 PM on May 29, 2002