Darren, exactly the same thought has been going through my mind over the last few days.

Report this comment

Why does it matter? Is good any “less good”, just because the companies/people etc. might also get something out of it?

Report this comment

Oooh, a deeply cynical post, Mr D.

Pity you didn’t name the companies…

I wondered if your ire would have been aimed at a well known cruise company who decided it would still dock in a port on Haiti this past week despite the death and destruction in capital and the surrounding area.

Appalling lack of judgement.

Them, not you.

Report this comment

Because for them it´s good PR. They probably wouldn´t do it if it wouldn´t work in their favor. I can´t see anything wrong with a win-win situation.

Report this comment

@Darren – so, the cruise company landing at the island, what do you think about that?

Report this comment

I don’t think it matters. We can get all “purist” about this and talk about how companies “should” act and what “should” motivate them. But the thing people forget is that a company is not a person. It is an organization of people paid to do a certain job- make money. It does not have a heart or a conscience or a family at home. It doesn’t play by the same rules as an individual. You wouldn’t broadcast your donations as a private person, but the marketing department as a company, who is paid and judged by their ability to get press will.

Besides, ultimately I think the press is a good thing. It lets everyone know who has donated. It gives us a way to keep those who haven’t accountable. And it encourages more people to give– a subtle pressure of “hey look EVERYONE else is doing it”.

Re: Kevin’s remarks on RCL docking Haiti, I don’t think it’s black and white. Sounds like the two choices were: dock somewhere else or dock there. The first option eliminates income for Haitians. The second option leaves a bad taste in your mouth, but only until you consider all the tourists in the Dominican Republic who are technically closer to the destruction. If you just consider what is best for the Haitians, then I think they had no choice. Question: what are the other cruise lines doing? Oh right. Nothing.

Report this comment

@christine – do you think the decision was made to dock at the island because the company was thinking of the Haitians?

It makes you wonder what kind of natural disaster is needed before companies take a step back and suspend operations simply out of respect.

Report this comment

I might be biased because I’m in PR myself.

But I don’t think it matters whether or not a company donates for their own selfish greed or out of the goodness of their hearts. The donations are still donations that will go to help the people of Haiti.

Also, I don’t blame companies for wanting people to know. In today’s world the media is so quick to find anything wrong with a company or organization – promoting that good things are happening certainly makes for a change of the usual negativity swarming around the media.

Report this comment

I´m not speaking of any specific disaster or situation. If it comes down to companies donating because they believe it gives a good ROI vs. not donating at all, I´m pretty sure any Haitians, cancer/AIDS patients, etc. would want those companies to donate. Even if it meant they sent out press releases about their good deed.

Report this comment

I donated money to Medecins Sans Frontiers (www.doctorswithoutborders.org). I tweeted about this (once) and updated my Facebook status (once). I wasn’t tooting my own horn (and I don’t think I revealed the size of my donation because I didn’t want to engage in one-upmanship – we’ll all give according to our means). The reason I did so is because it’s another prompt or reminder for other people to donate and also because I wanted to promote MSF as a worthy recipient if anyone was looking to donate.

What I really object to is when people try to derive some sort of advantage for themselves. I won’t name names but I know at least one travel blog that pledged to donate $1 per comment or new RSS subscriber up to a maximum of $200. I ignored the post as it rubbed me up the wrong way. I think the person meant well but it bothered me – why not just donate the $200 (or whatever you can afford) and not try to turn it into a marketing opportunity? People are literally dying and even if you want to argue that it’s win-win, to me it just feels wrong to profit from it in anyway.

Report this comment

PS I guess I have less objection to companies/individuals announcing their donations than I do for the fact that they might make their donations dependent on their readers/customers jumping through some hoops. The former is just human nature and as other commenters have said, in some cases the donations may not otherwise be made since the people who control the donations budget have to show some sort of return on investment in order to keep their jobs. The latter strikes me as profiteering and goes too far for my liking.

Report this comment

@Kevin I just don’t think cutting off part of the island from tourism out of respect for the dead does a lot of good for Haitians on the ground. If it didn’t take money out of Haitian’s pockets… then fine. But from what I’ve read, they are doing more good by going then by not. It’s not pretty.. I totally agree, but it’s not black and white either.

Report this comment

Completely agree with this post — not only do some companies do it just for PR, but sometimes the fundraiser helps the company in addition to the cause. Take the Hilton Honors points initiative — you donate 10,000 of your points, worth about one $100 hotel room, and they give $25 to Haiti. All donations are good donations, but if you make the donation yourself you can contribute more.
http://blog.oyster.com/should-you-donate-your-hilton-honors-points-to-haiti-6374/

Report this comment

This has been on my mind as well. Have to agree with many above, if it raises money for Haitians, good!

It’s easy enough to spot those who are riding the PR bandwagon. I can approve of the greater cause while still being turned off by their ulterior motives.

FYI: the cruise ship that docked in Haiti has had facilities there for a while, they also offloaded 40 pallets of emergency supplies it seems.

Report this comment

There’s likely more than one blog doing this, so I’d rather not name names. I’m not looking for a fight with any of my fellow bloggers and I don’t want to drop anyone in it when it may be well-intentioned. I agree that it’s not very tasteful but that could be a cultural difference.

Report this comment

Couldn’t this post be considered exploiting the situation just as much as any company? Its using a tragedy to generate traffic and pageviews.

Perhaps it is even worse because Haitians aren’t benefiting from it.

Report this comment

In all fairness, companies are doing community stuff all the time. It is just when there is a disaster, there is a single thing at a single point in time where everyone is focused.

Yes, companies weren’t sending aid to Haiti a month ago, but a month ago the buildings in the country were still standing.

I think you suffering from observer bias. You see all this stuff happening at once, because it is a disaster which required everything to happen at once.

By a similar note, if the leader of a country sends aid and has a press conference to announce that they are sending aid, isn’t that also just for PR? A vain political attempt to make them look good to their voters.

Likewise, if a NGO like the Red Cross announces how they will address the crisis, can’t that be considered a cynical attempt to get donation?

I honestly don’t see why a company is any different from a government or the Red Cross.

Report this comment

Companies donate for a mix of reasons. They donate publicly because it is good PR. Does it really mater? Wouldn’t it make more sense to pick on the companies that don’t donate at all?

Report this comment

I’m with Caitlin. I don’t mind the companies’ PR so much as I am disturbed by a few bloggers I’ve seen that are offering donations for tweets or comments. The companies may be hunting for media attention but that’s the nature of business. If you want to give and can afford to, then give. Then tell everybody if you want. But gifts should come without strings attached and a tragedy such as this should not be an opportunity to up your readership.

Report this comment

I’m with you Darren. Great that you’ve sent aid or donated but we don’t need to know. Its not going to make me run out and use that company because of their involvement.

Report this comment

Yeah, but if companies didn’t say anything, then this article could just as easily have been about how greedy corporations aren’t doing anything to help.

Damed if you do, damned if you don’t.

Report this comment

I think you are being too harsh this time. The only ONE reason people/companies are talking about donations, where they donate and maybe how much they contribute is just to increase AWARENESS around us. The snow ball effects means if I see that my neighbour has donated, there is a good chance I will donate if it makes sense.

So yes, I do talk to friends and relatives that I have donated to this charity, because people can easily forget what’s going in Haitia, being too busy to catch up with Facebook, their favourite TV serie or whatever else they do when they come back home.

The situation is urgent, so any communication is good for the cause whether it is PR driven or not.

Report this comment

Interesting views. You can’t please everyone.
Whatever the expectations are of the general public who sit comfortably in front of their TV’s, PC’s and newspapers and judge what is right or wrong, my view is giving aid to one of the poorest countries faced with such a disaster can only be good. If they want to tell me about it, fine, it won’t change my view, but it will change the lives of others.

Report this comment

Interesting post Darren, and a good debate.

Most large companies have a very carefully thought out corporate social responsibility strategy, and will consider fully their expected return on investment for a charitable donation. Increased goodwill, media coverage, positive brand message.

Is it cynical to give aid in this way? It probably is, but it’s still better than not giving it at all. The hoohah around RCL’s donation is being countered by some very negative posts about their long-term involvement in Haiti and it will be interesting to see how they come out of this (if you put yourself on a pedestal you’re liable to get shot at).

I am sure many company owners have made donations who don’t want to publicise their actions. They will find it harder to stay anonymous when their peers are issuing press release about their donations and the public are asking “what about these guys, why haven’t they given anything?”

Report this comment

The same way you would tell your friend how moved you were by the devastation and you did whatever you needed to do to help, one as conversation, two in hopes to inspire your friends or others to do the same. More or less, it’s the same for a company, especially with marketing and PR people on board, it is their job to tell their customers/consumers as well as investors and the general public alike, what the company is up to- whether it is making a new product line or donating to a worthy cause.

Somewhere along the line, people watching at home, reading in articles and hearing on the radio might just get inspired and go back to their jobs and say, Hey, is there anything we as a company or as a family can do to help??

Report this comment

Um, no. It’s not the right motivator to be somehow “inspired” because a flack wrote up a PRnewswire about dumping off a coupla palates of goods on a Haitian dock while they were swanning into port to do some sightseeing. The right motivator is that thing called your individual conscience and sense of appall at indescribable suffering. That’s where it begins, that’s where it ends. I’ve also noted some countries and outfits using this catastrophe more as a ploy to either burnish or rehab their image, nothing more. The greater good from it? You cannot single out the greater good. The excuse cited by the predictable sources here that corporations “have no conscience” so that should indemnify their decision-making is just nauseating even considering the sources. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. I support the organizations in there for the long haul who don’t do it for the spin and do it from their genuine humanitarian dedication and effectiveness, be it Doctors without Borders or Yele Haiti or any number of others.

Report this comment

Darren

The travel industry does this for most disasters, you can call it PR or you can call it good will, but we often not only put on flights for free, but also stick in there for the longer term for tourist areas, such as providing grants for rebuild after hurricans.

Coments about Cruise ship’s calling there, it did so and delivery emergency aid cargo that could not get in by air.

This time it made the news other times it does not.

Report this comment

@ Hal. With regards to your post 1 cruise line took credit but the logistics where airlines and cruise lines working together to get this aid delivered, your not talking about a couple of crates but an expensive and large logistic move of emergency aid to a country which only airport struggles to get even the minimum amount of aid in. The reason this cruise line delivered it was that it ships could cope with the unloading of the cargo, other cruise lines had meet this ship and transferred aid cargo to it, so it could be delivered.

As RCL has been mentioned I do not wish them to be the only cruise line that gets credit “it was a team effort” where competing company’s came together to make this work.

Report this comment

@”Nick” — I can hardly even understand what you’re trying to say, your English is so awful. If you’re saying that several cruise lines were involved, that really doesn’t matter and isn’t the point at all.

Furthermore, no matter what quantity comes ashore at that particular port, they still face the same logistical problems of delivery to the areas of Port-au-Prince and surrounding it that are most affected by the earthquake.

If the U.S. army is having problems for over a week establishing a rapid and timely flow of aid from the airport into the city, I hardly think that a couple of crates of donations on a dock somewhere are going to get to where they are needed in a reasonable time. I have read many, many reports from Haiti at this point.

Unfortunately, there is more than one party and country trying to captialize on a huge tragedy in ways that are much more helpful to themselves than to the Haitian people.

Report this comment

We just wish that help would keep pouring in regardless if its publicized or not. Our prayer goes out to all victims of the Haiti earthquake especially the kids.

Report this comment

@Hal

What I am trying to make clear is there are a lot of companies’ doing this and only a few have made the news. Secondly we talking 100′s of tons of aid not a couple of crates. Plus the personnel that are transported free of charge.

With regards to the American army it can not handle the flights that need to land. This is a restriction at the airport. So if the airport is full why not use a port that is open and has access to the rest of the country?

The news I am watching shows aid agencies getting cross that the army is turning away preapproved non-American aid flights and the fact they are then have to spend days with there aid travelling by road. These are the aid agencies with the personal on the ground both now and before the disaster. So generally they are looking at different ways of getting aid in.

Finally as an industry we also stay in for the long haul and an example of this being Sri Lanka where we are still providing aid for those effected by the 1998 tsunami.

Report this comment

@Nick – you are wrong, for several reasons. Where do you get your statistics on “hundreds of tons” of aid, how effectively is this moving to where it’s neeeded and how many people can it reach and for how long? So no, a hundred tons might sound like a lot, but when you have 3 million people without basic living essentials and 200,000 dead, what a cruise liner leaves off there on a one-time deal is a drop in the bucket. And they are blowing their horn way too loud over it, exploiting a nightmare situation more for their own glory than making any meaningful difference. Same with other groups in there like the Scientologists, Hank Asher, IsrAid and others who see an opportunity to make good PR for themselves rather than actually helping anyone. For better or worse, it is the governments and established aid organizations that are doing the sustainable work on the ground and will be there in the long term to make a real difference in recovery. I don’t even know who you are referring to when you state that “we” are providing aid to Sri Lanka. Your company? Your government? That’s fine — just don’t expect to be doing it to receive special awards from the world-wide public or in the media by running it up a PR flagpole. Do it for the real reasons. That’s all. People like Christine Gilbert who view a huge human disaster as just another business opportunity and to make good PR out of are disgusting beyond belief. It should happen to their child next — then they’d be singing a different tune about the wrong and right motives of business.

Report this comment

I think it is ok to publicize that you are helping to make a difference in hopes that other companies will step up to the plate and also send aid. What makes me angry is when Hotel Chains have offers for you to “Donate Your Rewards to Haiti”. Why can’t hotels just send money out of their own pockets or donate a dollar from every reservation. I would be happy to donate money, through whatever organization, but when hotel chains try to turn a profit by deleting our rewards i draw the line. Raise the prices a few dollars so that you can send extra money, fine by me, but don’t try to get over on your customers.

Report this comment