Sue Light Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 An investment banker trying to take the moral high ground about corporate greed? You really are having a laugh aren't you, Martin? Sue (Warrant Officer's daughter; ex-Army Officer; ex-wife of ex-Army Officer ... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Baker Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 I have to declare an interest as I am a Sainsburys shareholder and consider the ad in question excellent from this perspective .... I wonder if you'll still be thinking that when the Christmas period retail figures come out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 But you appear to condone the concept that a corporate can make a commercial gain from associating itself with a charity. .... This is the point where altruism disappears. If you believe Sainsbury's should be able to make a commercial gain on the back of a charity, the obvious question is to what extent? If it sold a product for £10, or £100 what in your view is an appropriate level of donation to the charity?. The second question is what in your view is the limit of this? I Don't know the answer to this question as it simply something that is beyond my comprehension: the idea that anyone could benefit from raising money for a charity. As the Sainsbury family still are shareholders, how far do you think their personal sympathies are relevant in the choice of charity association? I'm aware that the Sainsbury family are no longer the largest shareholders, but they have enough to need only to win over a proportion of the other shareholders for their wishes to predominate. In this way, the politicisation of charitable affiliation seems more likely. This is important because of the risk of contamination. If a charity takes a donation from a company, and the company's integrity or ethics are subsequently shown to be dubious, then the charity becomes contaminated. I am not suggesting that Sainsbury's is disreputable: I am talking in theory. Similarly, flaws in the charity can contaminate the brand of the company. The point is that any association is risky and any association needs to be completely beyond criticism. The fact is that there is criticism of this particular alignment in this particular advertisement: if it draws negative comments - and it is doing from both sides of the political spectrum - it can contaminate both. Were I a Sainsbury shareholder I would be worried that both the Telegraph and the Guardian have published pieces strongly criticising the strategy. An example of potential problems could be this. The advertisement is very easy to satirise. (What if someone decided to satirise it by showing the next episode - the chocolate lying in the battlefield next to a blood-stained corpse - for example?) Satire can damage brands. I think it is a risky advertisement. Indeed, there are already people who object to the RBL's current mission statement. (I am one.) It is flawed to think that the RBL is universally loved: it isn't. It simply isn't enough to say that anything which raises money for a charity has to be a good thing. That raises all sorts of ethical questions. The bottom line for Sainsbury's is that it is imperative that it reverses its poor financial position by capturing the market from the cheaper competitors and if the advert doesn't do this, it's a complete waste of the investment. Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 I wonder if you'll still be thinking that when the Christmas period retail figures come out? That remains to be seen Chris! I am a Johnny come lately who bought the shares after they bombed recently along with Tesco's. So happy-ish at the moment but could bail out at any time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 Hm. I was wondering about buying shares in Tesco but I'm not moved to do anything but cringe at their festive charm offensive - a lighting extravaganza in Wigan. Aldi & Lidl are badly acted and full of greedy people. So I suppose at this point, Sainsbury's is ahead of the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 "Were I a Sainsbury shareholder I would be worried that both the Telegraph and the Guardian have published pieces strongly criticising the strategy." Gwyn I am and I aint. You are quite correct that the financial fundamentals are the main issue. (And a lot of short positions are being closed at the moment so fun to be had) But we digress and the Mods will be stirring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 But we digress and the Mods will be stirring. Don't worry about the mods, they will have their hands full with Sophie, oo-er Missus! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 Don't worry about the mods, they will have their hands full with Sophie, oo-er Missus! Mike I am assured the rotary sand dryer can be bought at your nearest Sainsburys. Profits going to the Legion.. Sophie will be on the till. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 I am assured the rotary sand dryer can be bought at your nearest Sainsburys. Profits going to the Legion.. Sophie will be on the till. I'm reliably informed Sophie has left the building, with a size ten boot up her **** Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 An investment banker trying to take the moral high ground about corporate greed? You really are having a laugh aren't you, Martin? Cheers-salesie. Er...no...simply explaining that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about accounting will understand that the economic benefit is not only measured in 'profits'. The idea in this case that profits are being donated rather conveniently skirts around the other economic benefit (to Sainsbury's) from advertising. For any corporate to benefit from a charity is, in my view,...er....uncharitable. In my view it is simply wrong. Others will make their own decisions. Your knowledge of investment banking is very mis-informed. The actions of a few do not represent the moral values of the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pudsey63 Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 It's an advert! Beyond that I don't feel qualified to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 I wonder how they will 'top' that advert next Chrtistmas November? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 "Store under fire over new blockbuster seasonal advert based on famous 1914 football truce in the WW1 trenches" says a Daily Mail headline. Elsewhere, in news comments columns, there is talk of boycotts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 Martin, as the Sainsbury family still are shareholders, how far do you think their personal sympathies are relevant in the choice of charity association? I'm aware that the Sainsbury family are no longer the largest shareholders, but they have enough to need only to win over a proportion of the other shareholders for their wishes to predominate. In this way, the politicisation of charitable affiliation seems more likely. Gwyn The Sainsbury family are small shareholders. From memory one of the Middle Eastern Sovereign Wealth Funds was the largest single shareholder - the Qataris. I don't think the shareholding structure is a factor. This is simply a commercial initiative probably driven by the marketing people as an extension of its 20 year association with the RBL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawsyd Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 Despite my earlier post on this thread, I remain ambivalent about the ad & it's true motives. However - at the risk of being described as naive and / or simplistic - can somebody please explain to me the difference between Sainsbury's running an ad that, they hope, will make them some money on the back of WW1 & a professional writer (i.e. one of derives most of his / her income from writing) writing a book about WW1 that he / she also hopes will make some money? I'm not really sure I understand the differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 A writer of history books, while he/she needs to earn a living, also has the aim of teaching the buyer more about the actual subject. Sainsbury have no interest at all in educating people about the subject. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 A writer of history books, while he/she needs to earn a living, also has the aim of teaching the buyer more about the actual subject. Sainsbury have no interest at all in educating people about the subject. Mike Whilst Sainsburys have no responsibility to feed our minds as well as our bodies, the ad has prompted discussion. A colleague knowing of my interests came up to me and said "Did that really happen?" I regard the ad as more for man's humanity to man than for Sainsburys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 The Sainsbury family & their lawyer hold about 24%, so they don't need many more shareholders to support them before they have a majority. The Qataris are 26% (not from memory). My point is that a company which has a family or personal interest is more likely to sway charitable affiliation on the basis of their own personal inclinations. The Sainsbury's certainly were the major shareholders when the company linked with the RBL. Therefore, a company affiliation with a charity is not beyond critical examination and it ought to be, otherwise it can be politicised. In this case the RBL is ethical but politicisation ought not to be part of it. It becomes political because the RBL is raising money to support injured service personnel and their families (good - but it is arguable that the government ought to be doing that), to commemorate the dead (good) and "to show support to those still serving today" (political, and a change in RBL mission statement. It is government policy that people should be encouraged to be positive about the armed forces.) Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 The comment that marketing and pr people are just like 'us' is fatuous. I spent much of my career after journalism in both fields (fortunately in house for a very ethical non profit organisation)and later taught marketing. In my experience broadly marketing people are not just like 'us'. In one advertising campaign - which I managed to get killed, making myself very unpopular with the marketeers - the marketing men, with the aid of an internationally known award winning Ad Agency wanted to compare the organisations training school to a "Concentration Camp". Let me assure you for many organisations, companies and others, ethics are an added extra - nice if you can get it. Its really just about abut flogging the product by any means - legal or otherwise and retaining the business if they are an agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 ... Were I a Sainsbury shareholder I would be worried that both the Telegraph and the Guardian have published pieces strongly criticising the strategy.. Gwyn I'm not a Sainsbury shareholder, but if I were I wouldn't be worried about these critical articles. The debate has led to the brand name being much publicised, very few of the store's customers would have read the articles, and many of them will have enjoyed the commercial, though I wonder what proportion will be aware of the historical background to it. My Scrooge-like objection to this and other commercials by the big names is that they all started to be shown at least two weeks too early. They aren't going to influence where I shop one little bit. The most convenient supermarket for me is barely a mile away and I've been loyal to it since it opened a decade or more ago because it's the nearest and has always been very satisfactory. Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 Whilst I also know first hand the cynicism of the ad industry - "2 ***** in a kitchen" etc , the ad you see is what should be judged. As such , it emerges into our politicised world and is there to be shot at , praised, boycotted etc. I have just read the Grauniad readers comments on the relevant thread there. Hysterically funny and proof that the Left has as many dinosaurs as the Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarylW Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 The fact that Sainsbury's have supported the RBL for twenty years shows a certain amount of loyalty and commitment to me. They could have abandoned the RBL in favour of another higher profile more 'fashionable' or 'trending' charity within those twenty years. One that say the Guardian or Telegraph and their readers approved of. As for the Daily Mail, I'm not even going there!. Now here they are, having supported the RBL for twenty years in the run up to the Centenary, when no-one else was particularly interested, being accused of jumping on a bandwagon for commercial reasons. As far as I can see, all or most of the supermarket chains support various charities. For example Waitrose: Charitable causes we support: Waitrose http://www.waitrose.com/home/inspiration/community_matters/community_matterssupport.html Google the names of all the main supermarket companies, along with 'charitable causes' and they all come up. To suggest that any of them, including Sainsbury's, should be associating themselves with various charitable causes for purely and only altruistic purposes, is quite frankly naive in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norrette Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 Coo. I usually come in to GWF to get away from the angst and arguing that I have to put up with in politics. Seems there's no getting away from it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 Elsewhere, in news comments columns, there is talk of boycotts. Organised, or just a few individuals saying there should be one? For those who aren't getting enough debate about the ad here on GWF, there are more comments on Digital Spy Having read a few of them (before giving up), not for anything like the first time do I give thanks for the relative good sense and civility of the GWF. Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 14 November , 2014 Share Posted 14 November , 2014 Very well done Sainsbury's! Regardless of some members' disagreement I thought it very moving and like Hazel forgot it was supposed to be an ad. Anne This is a free country : buy the chocolate! Or make another donation or both or neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts