3 ms·

> Fundamentally if money changes hands for an endorsement to take place it is no longer an authentic endorsement. I wholeheartedly agree that this is common, a

by bertil 10y ago

> Fundamentally if money changes hands for an endorsement to take place it is no longer an authentic endorsement. I wholeheartedly agree that this is common, and need to be disclosed. However, I work for a brand that is genuinely loved (not hard: we deliver food) has cult following (think major rappers mentioning us casually as a euphemism for chilling) and if we pay anyone to endorse us (I do not know that we have in the past) we’ll probably start by actual fans. Their endorsement will be authentic in that sense. We have sent free food to celebrities during special occasions (not money, but the equivalent is easy to make); I don’t think we’ve ever agreed with them before hand — we just knew they were going to be hungry. They generally learned we took the initiative via a public announcement (@-mention on twitter). > How can we make corporations care about something other then profit? I can honestly confess this corporation cares about food a lot. More than money… Well, the two are fungible.

valarauca1 10y ago
Man the cognitive dissonance in your post is hilarious. >We have sent free food to celebrities during special occasions (not money, but the equivalent is easy to make); >this corporation cares about food a lot. More than money… Well, the two are fungible. What are you even trying to argue about? You admit your core argument is flawed every time you state it. It is like you don't even believe what you are posting about.
- bertil 10y ago
  In the two examples you quote, I am saying that money is easily changeable into food. The reverse is actually not true (which is why there is a lot of food waste and charities handle redistributing some of it). I’m missing the cognitive dissonance. We’ve surprised hungry people with food at an opportune moment, not money. If you want a clearer discussion on the distinction, Dan Ariely has a great explanation on paying his mother-in-law for diner. I’d be happy to quote Amartya Sen or Kahneman on the same topic if you want a clearer explanation.

by bertil 10y ago

valarauca1 10y ago

Man the cognitive dissonance in your post is hilarious. >We have sent free food to celebrities during special occasions (not money, but the equivalent is easy to make); >this corporation cares about food a lot. More than money… Well, the two are fungible. What are you even trying to argue about? You admit your core argument is flawed every time you state it. It is like you don't even believe what you are posting about.

bertil 10y ago
In the two examples you quote, I am saying that money is easily changeable into food. The reverse is actually not true (which is why there is a lot of food waste and charities handle redistributing some of it). I’m missing the cognitive dissonance. We’ve surprised hungry people with food at an opportune moment, not money. If you want a clearer discussion on the distinction, Dan Ariely has a great explanation on paying his mother-in-law for diner. I’d be happy to quote Amartya Sen or Kahneman on the same topic if you want a clearer explanation.