I understand that as a country we're meant to remain neutral when it comes to international issues that arise, but I also feel as though that caused Americans to become more self-centered resulting in a massive individualistic society...
Though I see how the corporations backing this not-for-profit organization can be misleading, taking away from our own issues that arise in our backyard. I don't believe they should be criticized for still raising some type of awareness, that's benefiting other cultures in need. Raising awareness about any sort of political, socioeconomic, global issue comes with a double edged sword. Though we talk about the issues in America with our gov't we fail to see that there are many countries still suffering from dictatorships. Though we are focusing on Japan aid and their lack of resources we take away from the need to help the homeless right around the corner from our place of business.
This article for me I feel as though was a waste of a read, we're focusing on the companies that are apart of the organization, and their marketing strategies instead of the actual good that comes from it. Is it really exploitation if someone other than the company is being benefited from their strategies. Isn't the spending of money for advertisements to promote the "causes", hiring of more employees to help run the organization more efficiently, and causing global aid the complete opposite of exploitation?
If we are really going to discuss media and exploitation, why not discuss PETA and their ads that exploit women in many of their commercials? The way in which they choose to reach their audience is a common strategy used that we have been used to for years now. Why raise hell now? Shouldn't we applaud the organizations for better use of their finances and product to promote the well being of humanity?
What about the link that Frank posts on his blog re Facebook and the Palestinian situation? Corporations push specific political agendas. In doing so, they take a political side. But they are not accountable to voters. Corporations can thus push political events in ways that counter the concerns and wishes of voters.
ReplyDeleteThe question of who benefits is a political question. It isn't simply a question of awareness.
Movements.org goes a step beyond cause marketing to being an active agent in political change in specific directions. These directions, though, are not determined by voters. They are not decided by citizens but by a small group (AYM).
Also, did you notice: the website didn't say very much about any actual good. It mentioned movements and awareness--so what was the good that the group achieved?
Finally, where is the evidence that AYM, Yahoo, and Facebook are actively contributing to the well-being of humanity? The primary legal responsibility of any corporation is to ensure shareholder value. Legally, they are required to do this.