7 ms·

I know of people who AWS fully sponsored, including business class intercontinental travel, to attend re:Invent which is essentially a week long holiday party,

I know of people who AWS fully sponsored, including business class intercontinental travel, to attend re:Invent which is essentially a week long holiday party, by virtue of AWS bill. Every vendor has marketing budget and a decent portion of it goes to keeping their point people at clients happy. You can call it kick back or whatever, it’s a matter of semantics. So yes it is normal. And no it’s neither cynical and nor have I been involved in. But I’ve seen it happen around me. So I know it’s a routine thing.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> I know of people who AWS fully sponsored, including business class intercontinental travel, to attend re:Invent which is essentially a week long holiday party, by virtue of AWS bill. Flying people to an AWS conference seems entirely different than funneling money into a single person's bank account. Yes, I know these conferences have a party-like atmosphere, but it's not done surreptitiously and it's not siphoning money out of the deal into someone's pockets.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  It doesn't really seem that different.
  - shakezula 5y ago
    This situation is like lobbying: is it the people's voice in fungible action or is it mega-corporations funneling money directly into politicians pockets? The answer is probably both, and any attempt to litigate it will probably be abused and lead to even more issues.
  - ludocode 5y ago
    You think inviting someone to conferences is the same thing as putting $700k in their personal bank account? Is this satire? What is going on in this thread?
    - twic 5y ago
      Some people think that quantitative differences are never qualitative differences. Zero, one, infinity, right?
    - bumby 5y ago
      At least in the medical field, conferences only provided the thinnest veneer. Doctors were paid handsome fees to present, which is tantamount to dropping money in their bank account when you compare it to other professions whether people often go to conferences on their own (or company’s) dime.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    It is VERY different, come on. It's an open conference offered by the largest player in the space vs. a shady deal between a supplier and ONE person of another company, without its employers consent, on top of that.
    - moltar 5y ago
      It’s different in facts, but it’s not different in spirit. Did you know that pharma sales reps take out doctors to play golf all expenses paid, plus fancy restaurant lunch in the end? Is that different? How about a lobbyist donating money to a political party? Is that different? Google the law of reciprocity. It’s human nature.
      - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
        The main difference here is the scale. "Let us take you on a $2000 vacation" vs. "Let us take you on a $700,000 vacation." One is objectively ridiculous - this is the difference.
        kjreact 5y ago
        So what you’re saying is taking a smaller bribe is okay? Just as long as it’s not a “ridiculous” bribe…
        bumby 5y ago
        There are thresholds elsewhere. For example, a civil servant can accept a gift, up to a very small amount, from a vendor without being an ethics violation.
        moltar 5y ago
        But there’s proportional impact as well. The person who got the AWS treatment might be responsible for $50K of AWS budget. And the person at Netflix is responsible for millions of dollars of budgets, royalties and other schemes.
      - 5y ago
  - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
    Hmm, even at my most cynical I would say the difference is the free conference is a much smaller (and thus presumably less effective) bribe. Giving away tickets to a conference which they sell the tickets for costs AMZN very little (sure, there are costs associated with putting it on, but those would have had to be paid anyhow, adding an attendee or two won't change much). So it's a few grand worth of airplane tickets vs. $700K...
- cheriot 5y ago
  Pharmaceutical companies used all inclusive "conferences" to influence doctors to prescribe more opioids. It was effective enough to be banned. > Accepting a free trip to a drug-company-sponsored conference guided doctors to write more prescriptions of the company’s drugs, a spike of 80 to 190 percent https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2012/01/18/pharmaceutical-companies-bribing-doctors/ https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2012/01/18/pharmaceutical-com... America is generally good about limiting things to legal graft. I can't offer an elected official money in exchange for a vote, but I can donate millions to entities controlled by the elected officials that are my "friends" and make sure they know about it.
jimkleiber 5y ago
I don't think the argument "I've seen it happen around me" means that it is necessarily routine or common throughout society. If I'm a basketball player and most of the people around me can dunk a basketball, while it may be common in my circle, it certainly is not common throughout the American or global population.
boiler_up800 5y ago
Not the same at all. Paying for people to attend your event versus paying them directly as income are worlds apart.
ghaff 5y ago
While normal business travel can have a bit of a boondoggle aspect to it (and your example would probably not be OK for US government employees), it's not generally considered a personal payment or gift as a kickback would be. So, no, it's not the same thing in the manner that paying for someone's personal vacation week on a tropical island would be. Companies pick up at least some expenses for customers, partners, journalists, analysts, etc. to attend business events all the time. And everyone involved is very clear about the difference between that and handing them a stack of bills under the table. (And speaking for myself, I can think of a lot of places that I'd rather be than Las Vegas for re:Invent.)
- spockz 5y ago
  Working in finance, I have to report any gift above €50. This includes when I would receive a gift or lottery for a training, a conference, etc. So for us it is at least treated like a potential personal payment.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  There is no magic loophole by giving people stuff rather than paying them money directly. In tax law this is just called a non-cash benefit and it is taxable all the same. I'm sure the people writing corruption guidelines had the same insight.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    The "loophole" is that, for gifts of more than a token amount, it has to be a legitimate business expense--whoever is picking up the bill. Waiving a conference fee and covering some or all of the travel expenses to a conference, would widely be considered legitimate business expenses. Normally these would be picked up by my company these days if I had a business reason to attend an event and I need to pay for registration and travel. But conference organizers routinely waive at least the conference fees for journalists, analysts, speakers, and possibly others they want to attend.
staticassertion 5y ago
That is not really close to what these charges are. Kail received money and stock directly, not as part of a business or sales exchange. Being flown to a conference where you'll be told the merits of your potential purchase is obviously very different. Even if Kail had innocently owned stock in a company being evaluated it likely would have been a conflict of interest and they should have stepped away from the evaluation. This happens all the time. As a CEO I can tell you I've had people stop a call partway through because they realize they're conflicted out of the discussion and I'll have to talk to a neutral party.
mattbee 5y ago
Kickbacks are a personal payment, an illegal personal incentive to a business transaction. This guy was soliciting cash and stocks! A crummy sponsored trip to a conference would have been arranged through the employer, and is not the same thing.
- mattbee 5y ago
  Also, the set of people with a happy home life and people who are excited by corporate hospitality is a small one.
stefan_ 5y ago
It's all fun and games until you swap AWS for Purdue Pharma and point people for doctors and suddenly there is an opium addiction epidemic. This shit has real consequences.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  I guess at least the courts are there to fix things... except when it's also okay for members of the highest court of the land to get sponsored golf/hunting trips, and even be caught dead in one...
  - moneywoes 5y ago
    What is this referencing?
    - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
      https://people.com/sports/antonin-scalia-died-during-getaway-with-members-of-secret-hunting-society/ https://people.com/sports/antonin-scalia-died-during-getaway...
tssva 5y ago
At one point in my career I was one of those people. Not AWS but I went to many a conference on the vendor's dime. Ran up some impressive bar and restaurant tabs while there. Also on their dime. Some vendors didn't have large conferences and would fly me to a nice resort somewhere for a few days which included some product info sessions. Usually at that point the people trying to keep your business and those trying to get your business are all doing the same thing so it is all ineffective in influencing your choices. In fact during that time I would say a majority of the vendors I was involved in selecting actually did neither. At none of them was there any kind quid pro quo even hinted at. My employer knew about and approved all trips beforehand. This is way different than what happened here. Direct payments to an employee for award of work without knowledge of their employer.
smsm42 5y ago
Things like that - e.g. conferences, paid travel, etc - are common. But I think it's different from a manager charging kickbacks for awarding an IT contract, and on only by pure semantic.
apex3stoker 5y ago
I think in the UK they have laws which basically say that bribery is defined by employers. It is bribery if employers don't approve the payments/gifts as part of the job. I think it is similar in the US. People in your examples probably got the approval, but this Netflix executive definitely didn't according to the article.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> I know of people who AWS fully sponsored, including business class intercontinental travel, to attend re:Invent which is essentially a week long holiday party, by virtue of AWS bill. Flying people to an AWS conference seems entirely different than funneling money into a single person's bank account. Yes, I know these conferences have a party-like atmosphere, but it's not done surreptitiously and it's not siphoning money out of the deal into someone's pockets.

DangitBobby 5y ago
It doesn't really seem that different.
- shakezula 5y ago
  This situation is like lobbying: is it the people's voice in fungible action or is it mega-corporations funneling money directly into politicians pockets? The answer is probably both, and any attempt to litigate it will probably be abused and lead to even more issues.
- ludocode 5y ago
  You think inviting someone to conferences is the same thing as putting $700k in their personal bank account? Is this satire? What is going on in this thread?
  - twic 5y ago
    Some people think that quantitative differences are never qualitative differences. Zero, one, infinity, right?
  - bumby 5y ago
    At least in the medical field, conferences only provided the thinnest veneer. Doctors were paid handsome fees to present, which is tantamount to dropping money in their bank account when you compare it to other professions whether people often go to conferences on their own (or company’s) dime.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  It is VERY different, come on. It's an open conference offered by the largest player in the space vs. a shady deal between a supplier and ONE person of another company, without its employers consent, on top of that.
  - moltar 5y ago
    It’s different in facts, but it’s not different in spirit. Did you know that pharma sales reps take out doctors to play golf all expenses paid, plus fancy restaurant lunch in the end? Is that different? How about a lobbyist donating money to a political party? Is that different? Google the law of reciprocity. It’s human nature.
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 5y ago
      The main difference here is the scale. "Let us take you on a $2000 vacation" vs. "Let us take you on a $700,000 vacation." One is objectively ridiculous - this is the difference.
      - kjreact 5y ago
        So what you’re saying is taking a smaller bribe is okay? Just as long as it’s not a “ridiculous” bribe…
        bumby 5y ago
        There are thresholds elsewhere. For example, a civil servant can accept a gift, up to a very small amount, from a vendor without being an ethics violation.
      - moltar 5y ago
        But there’s proportional impact as well. The person who got the AWS treatment might be responsible for $50K of AWS budget. And the person at Netflix is responsible for millions of dollars of budgets, royalties and other schemes.
    - 5y ago
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  Hmm, even at my most cynical I would say the difference is the free conference is a much smaller (and thus presumably less effective) bribe. Giving away tickets to a conference which they sell the tickets for costs AMZN very little (sure, there are costs associated with putting it on, but those would have had to be paid anyhow, adding an attendee or two won't change much). So it's a few grand worth of airplane tickets vs. $700K...
cheriot 5y ago
Pharmaceutical companies used all inclusive "conferences" to influence doctors to prescribe more opioids. It was effective enough to be banned. > Accepting a free trip to a drug-company-sponsored conference guided doctors to write more prescriptions of the company’s drugs, a spike of 80 to 190 percent https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2012/01/18/pharmaceutical-companies-bribing-doctors/ https://www.drugwatch.com/news/2012/01/18/pharmaceutical-com... America is generally good about limiting things to legal graft. I can't offer an elected official money in exchange for a vote, but I can donate millions to entities controlled by the elected officials that are my "friends" and make sure they know about it.

jimkleiber 5y ago

I don't think the argument "I've seen it happen around me" means that it is necessarily routine or common throughout society. If I'm a basketball player and most of the people around me can dunk a basketball, while it may be common in my circle, it certainly is not common throughout the American or global population.

boiler_up800 5y ago

Not the same at all. Paying for people to attend your event versus paying them directly as income are worlds apart.

ghaff 5y ago

While normal business travel can have a bit of a boondoggle aspect to it (and your example would probably not be OK for US government employees), it's not generally considered a personal payment or gift as a kickback would be. So, no, it's not the same thing in the manner that paying for someone's personal vacation week on a tropical island would be. Companies pick up at least some expenses for customers, partners, journalists, analysts, etc. to attend business events all the time. And everyone involved is very clear about the difference between that and handing them a stack of bills under the table. (And speaking for myself, I can think of a lot of places that I'd rather be than Las Vegas for re:Invent.)

spockz 5y ago
Working in finance, I have to report any gift above €50. This includes when I would receive a gift or lottery for a training, a conference, etc. So for us it is at least treated like a potential personal payment.
stefan_ 5y ago
There is no magic loophole by giving people stuff rather than paying them money directly. In tax law this is just called a non-cash benefit and it is taxable all the same. I'm sure the people writing corruption guidelines had the same insight.
- ghaff 5y ago
  The "loophole" is that, for gifts of more than a token amount, it has to be a legitimate business expense--whoever is picking up the bill. Waiving a conference fee and covering some or all of the travel expenses to a conference, would widely be considered legitimate business expenses. Normally these would be picked up by my company these days if I had a business reason to attend an event and I need to pay for registration and travel. But conference organizers routinely waive at least the conference fees for journalists, analysts, speakers, and possibly others they want to attend.

staticassertion 5y ago

That is not really close to what these charges are. Kail received money and stock directly, not as part of a business or sales exchange. Being flown to a conference where you'll be told the merits of your potential purchase is obviously very different. Even if Kail had innocently owned stock in a company being evaluated it likely would have been a conflict of interest and they should have stepped away from the evaluation. This happens all the time. As a CEO I can tell you I've had people stop a call partway through because they realize they're conflicted out of the discussion and I'll have to talk to a neutral party.

mattbee 5y ago

Kickbacks are a personal payment, an illegal personal incentive to a business transaction. This guy was soliciting cash and stocks! A crummy sponsored trip to a conference would have been arranged through the employer, and is not the same thing.

mattbee 5y ago
Also, the set of people with a happy home life and people who are excited by corporate hospitality is a small one.

stefan_ 5y ago

It's all fun and games until you swap AWS for Purdue Pharma and point people for doctors and suddenly there is an opium addiction epidemic. This shit has real consequences.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
I guess at least the courts are there to fix things... except when it's also okay for members of the highest court of the land to get sponsored golf/hunting trips, and even be caught dead in one...
- moneywoes 5y ago
  What is this referencing?
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    https://people.com/sports/antonin-scalia-died-during-getaway-with-members-of-secret-hunting-society/ https://people.com/sports/antonin-scalia-died-during-getaway...

tssva 5y ago

At one point in my career I was one of those people. Not AWS but I went to many a conference on the vendor's dime. Ran up some impressive bar and restaurant tabs while there. Also on their dime. Some vendors didn't have large conferences and would fly me to a nice resort somewhere for a few days which included some product info sessions. Usually at that point the people trying to keep your business and those trying to get your business are all doing the same thing so it is all ineffective in influencing your choices. In fact during that time I would say a majority of the vendors I was involved in selecting actually did neither. At none of them was there any kind quid pro quo even hinted at. My employer knew about and approved all trips beforehand. This is way different than what happened here. Direct payments to an employee for award of work without knowledge of their employer.

smsm42 5y ago

Things like that - e.g. conferences, paid travel, etc - are common. But I think it's different from a manager charging kickbacks for awarding an IT contract, and on only by pure semantic.

apex3stoker 5y ago

I think in the UK they have laws which basically say that bribery is defined by employers. It is bribery if employers don't approve the payments/gifts as part of the job. I think it is similar in the US. People in your examples probably got the approval, but this Netflix executive definitely didn't according to the article.