var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
krucoff
July 31, 2007 2:48 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

The Times followed up with a story about this on Sunday. It's ridiculous, the P&G project should be banned. AMEX is just asking for a shitload of bad publicity on this one. I hope they shell out another $5 million to the runner-up if P&G wins.

BTW, his name is Allgood?? I demand an investigation into THAT!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rbb
July 31, 2007 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Should P&G be disqualified? NO, not if they are in compliance with the rules as written when the project was entered.

If P&G was an individual and had fairly entered a contest according to the rules, would the consumerist defend that person when the company changed the rules to unfairly disqualify that person? I think we know that answer...

So to recap, if P&G entered the contest fairly and complied with the rules at the time of entry, what justification do you have to tell the company to rewrite the rules to eliminate P&G?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ArtDonovansDrunkenLovechild
July 31, 2007 2:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like a good cause, and if Unicef gets the oversight on the funds then no harm no foul..

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
FatLynn
July 31, 2007 2:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A project administered by a well-run corporation, regardless of profit motive, has the potential for a much larger impact than one run by a crappy non-for-profit, or, worse yet, the government.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Aaron Pratt
July 31, 2007 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let me get this straight... you're asking if this project should be disqualified even though they followed all the rules and it's a good project that will help a lot of people? Because P&G stands to make money?

I hate to break it to you, but non-profits make a lot of money for a lot of people. There are other individuals and/or corporations that stand to make money should someone else win the prize. If \"Plant a Million Trees\" wins, do you think they'll just use the money to buy a million trees? Nope. Their proposal says they'll use the money for local cash grants to promote reforestation. That could mean paying employees of an organization that coordinate planting; it could mean payment to a larger company that does landscaping; it could mean money in the pockets of lobbyists discouraging deforestation.

The Wind and Solar project says it would work with \"national laboratory researchers, appropriate manufacturers and system integrators.\" Could those be individuals and corporations that stand to make money should they be awarded the grant, too?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CreativeLinks
July 31, 2007 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have worked with P&G in the past, and I just want to point out they are exceptional corporate citizens for those of us here in Cincinnati.


They are always willing to donate funds, provides goods, etc to hundreds of organizations here in the city.


So if they win, more power to them. The prize money would be in good hands.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
krucoff
July 31, 2007 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Corporate apologists. Are you people for real? Yes, they are ALL good causes and they all deserve $5 million, if not $5 billion! But who should be paying the bill? And don't give me \"following the rules\" when the rules were rigged (like they always are against the disadvantaged) in the first place. This isn't about jobs or where the money goes.

The huge honking question is: Why does P&G need a $5 million handout from AMEX? Are you people that sucked into corporacy (I made that up but that's exactly what it is) that you actually think nothing is wrong here? Unbelievable. Please do a little research before speaking without knowledge. The other contestants do NOT have a HUGE corporate backer with millions, if not billions of dollars at their disposal. P&G is an excellent position to fund its own clean water project and every other one on the list! The *real* non-profits, those poor little mismanaged institutions as you say, are not so fortunate.

I won't go into how big corporations, especially P&G, are the root cause of many of the world's problems (oooh, evils of capitalism and shit!) that in turn need to be funded by us, because I think that might be a little too \"big picture\" for some of you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
July 31, 2007 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If P&G followed the rules they can't and shouldn't be banned. UNICEF is the organization getting the money. Helping them buy the purification technology isn't a bad thing. However...

Many Amex members may have understood the contest to be for organizations that would otherwise be unable to get this kind of money. At least that's what the TV ad made it sound like to me: smaller or less popular causes as opposed to something like AIDS and poverty. However, Aaron Pratt's examples make it sound like that's not the case anyway.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JayThree
July 31, 2007 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This story seems more in the anti-corporate realm rather than the pro-consumer side which I assumed was the mission of the site.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
allstarecho
July 31, 2007 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Considering the goal of this contest - helping people out - I could care less who wins. People are getting helped.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ancientsociety
July 31, 2007 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@krucoff: Agreed

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ancientsociety
July 31, 2007 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"The huge honking question is: Why does P&G need a $5 million handout from AMEX?...The other contestants do NOT have a HUGE corporate backer with millions, if not billions of dollars at their disposal. P&G is an excellent position to fund its own clean water project..\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
shoegazer
July 31, 2007 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Disclosure - I am a former P&G employee, though I never worked on the R&D and water purification business units.

Should P&G be disqualified? Amex have said that they did not break any rules and that \"Pur\" and the P&G name are not being used in this contest; also that UNICEF will have oversight over the project. Let's set aside the fact that I believe UNICEF to be ten times as corrupt as P&G could ever be (and those of you who have experience with both organizations, know this to be true). I find it hard to believe both initiatives would sit comfortable beside each other, or that the Amex project would somehow invent a better methodology than the one already being trumpeted by the CSDW.
Sure, people are being helped - but the whole point of this contest is to provide Amex members with an opportunity to do good with their card fees. Having one corporation hijack another's CSR initiative means one less outreach program. This is incestuous, and very disturbing.
If Amex were a government would we find this sort of behavior from a corporation acceptable? Of course not. The fact that members vote on the outcome is hardly a mitigating factor - P&G are one of the largest corporate Amex clients, so it's likely the P&Gers (or Proctoids) are the ones buoying up \"Greg\"'s project.
Sorry, but P&G should put up the $5M themselves and leave Amex to pony up cash for something equally worthwhile.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
July 31, 2007 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sure, P&G would do some good here, and sure, there might not be any material abuse of this, but they are still getting something for nothing. They get their name all over a high-profile charitable project, at someone else's expense.

It's like supermarkets sponsoring canned food drives. All they provide is a location to drop stuff off, and most of the food is stuff that they're making a profit on. But it's still the \"Basha's canned food drive.\" They get all the PR benefit with none of the cost...or even make a profit on it.

Is it fundamentally a bad thing? No. But is it kind of crass to use someone else's charity to build your own good name?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
July 31, 2007 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shoegazer:

Matching Amex's donation would be enough for me to be cool with it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
juri squared
July 31, 2007 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think AMEX is TECHNICALLY in the wrong for allowing it, nor is P&G in the wrong for entering. But it's pretty shitty of both of them, especially because the PR for this contest promoted the idea that ordinary people would make a difference, as opposed to one billion-dollar corporation giving money to another one.

Bad form, both of them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JeffK.
July 31, 2007 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nitpicking: It's ProctEr and Gamble.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
alk509
July 31, 2007 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review


(Psst! Consumerist! That's Procter and Gamble...)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The Bigger Unit
July 31, 2007 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JayThree: Funny, I thought since I'm an Amex cardholder (a consumer), and I could be eligible to enter the contest if I chose, it would be a consumer-based story with anti-corporate tinges as well.

It's a story about a large company stomping out the little consumer for this Amex project. What's the problem?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
The Unusual Suspect
July 31, 2007 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Isn't the point here that P&G is somehow gaming the system from the inside? If they won fair and square on ordinary Amex user votes and played by the rules, I'd have no problem with it, but it has been suggested that P&G employees (of which there are thousands and thousands to be mobilized) are voting en masse, and that P&G changed the wording on the corporate site from \"P&G's project...\" to \"P&G Employee's idea...\" which seems a disingenuous move.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
krucoff
July 31, 2007 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JayThree: Divorcing the anti-corporate realm from the pro-consumer one? The inability to connect the dots is frightening.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Aaron Pratt
July 31, 2007 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: I really should clarify that I'm not saying that any of these are bad causes or that I believe any of these companies are gaming the system. My point is that individuals and corporations make money off of altruistic, non-profit causes, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Trackback
August 2, 2007 11:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In cases of the proverbial David vs. Goliath, Goliath always has the opportunity to truly be the bigger man by simply doing one thing: opting out of the fight.

Reply
");