Cancel this event

[dcipher]

You must be a blast at parties...
"Great music, this really makes me want to dance and I love this artist!"
"You mark, this music was only created so you will buy it."

I will assume this is directed towards me (@ posters in general - it's poor form to "reply" to somebody without even a blanket quote - I know this is often done through negligence, but it does give the impression you're actually afraid of a direct reply - moreover, as I've stated many times on this board, if somebody wants to actually have a substantial debate, specific multi-part quoting is most preferable and productive. I will endeavor to do the same in return)

Now in regards to the quote above, your fictitious scenario is not an accurate reflection of what I have stated repeatedly in this thread and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. If you wish to continue this...allegorical comparison, a more accurate representation would be:

"WOWWEEEE, I love this music....I just want to thank HMV for selling it to me!! I think we should subsidize HMV and/or make it a community event/center. It really bring people of all ages to the store, and we should be grateful to them! Did you know sometimes they GIVE away FREE HMV stickers?? We don't even pay for those!!"

"You know...it's great you enjoy HMV, and enjoy their business, but you really don't need to "thank" them. Nor should we subsidize them in any way. Just because you are enjoying the music does not mean that you should associate those feelings of good will towards this corporate entity, and think that you should give them additional money or tribute from yourself or, even worse, from community coffers....and by the way, the "free" stickers weren't given to you out of kindness."

Of course Rogers was trying to promote their brand, doesn't mean that it couldn't be a fun event.

Again, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood my posts. Please reread and note that I have never said it couldn't be a fun event. In fact, I stated over and over that if somebody enjoys it, that they should be all means (that refrain should sound familiar if you did indeed read my posts even once).

And their coverage of Kelowna on the show was a great promo for our valley, and if some new tourists or residents come in the future, then this city has benefited as well.

Yes, that's a nice side effect for the community - though I doubt highly it will translate to a single visitor/dollar.

[dcipher]

Sounds like dcipher has nothing with a logo on it. No shirts that say Nike or any thing else. His/her car has all the badging stripped off, because heaven forbid that he/she buys a vehicle that promotes the company that built it. Probably pulls the labels off his/her beer before he/she drinks it, so as not to promote the company as he/she drinks it and tells everybody how good it is.

Again, as with the reply I just made to Gilchy, your interpretation shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what I have said, and of my position.

It is an interesting coincidence that in fact, I do tend to avoid badging and promotion - but that is of course irrelevant to this discussion.

If I were to elaborate on your scenario and let me reiterate (from two sentences ago - but clarity seems to be a priority as there is so much misinterpretation), this is NOT what we have been discussing - I would say that when I wear a "Nike" logo, I don't thank Nike for selling it to me, or even giving it to me if it was done as a promotion. I do not feel I "owe" the Nike corporation anything, nor do I feel, because I enjoyed wearing their shirt, that we as a community/society should then subsidize the Nike corporation because we enjoyed the experience of wearing their shirts.


@ general responders;
It is disheartening to see how bizarrely twisted these interpretations of my comments have been - if I have not been clear then I accept that responsibility and apologize. Having said that, I suspect that many of the people who FEEL the opposite - in fact, the same people who are a Rogers marketing dream (they feel, rather than think critically - which Rogers is counting on) are lashing out based on that feeling, and are simply making up what they feel are weak, or at least distasteful, positions to attribute to me. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, and if they choose to respond sincerely (directly, honestly - without fallacy or purposeful misrepresentation) I will be happy to elaborate and we can perhaps reach a better understanding of our mutual positions. Of course, this is impossible if is simply out to vent.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with me, I have explained my position clearly, repeatedly, and in detail. I have responded directly to responses which had substance. if you have integrity, you owe it to yourself to respond with at least as much diligence as I have - or better yet, exceed me.

[Gilchy]

I will assume this is directed towards me ...

Indeed it was. I didn't bother to insert @dcipher explicitly because it was the next response in the thread under yours.

I don't believe that anyone is deliberately misinterpreting your posts, just pointing out the intrinsic cynicism you are exhibiting. Leave the corporation status out of it, virtually every human interaction is driven by some kind of internal motivation.

In this case, Rogers hosted an event showcasing both their product (NHL hockey) and the host city (Kelowna this week). No one ever stated that this wasn't done for Roger's ultimate self interest, but there is nothing wrong with exhibiting sentiments of appreciation torwards an enjoyable event, regardless of operational motivation.

Rogers does not operate out of selflessness, true. But the vast majority of individuals actions are not out of selflessness. You thank a dinner party host when leaving, even though he hosted the party to raise his social standing. You thank a person for returning your lost wallet, even though they are returning it out of a feeling of moral superiority.

My point is that there is nothing wrong about stopping to think critically about the motivations of an individual or company, simply that only looking at base motivations will strip a lot of the joy out of life.

[dcipher]

[
Indeed it was. I didn't bother to insert @dcipher explicitly because it was the next response in the thread under yours..

OK fair enough!

I don't believe that anyone is deliberately misinterpreting your posts, just pointing out the intrinsic cynicism you are exhibiting. Leave the corporation status out of it, virtually every human interaction is driven by some kind of internal motivation. .

Well that's the problem isn't it? First, pointing to my "intrinsic cynicism"....the face that people will make that kind of blanket assumption about me based on the fact that I don't feel beholden to a corporate promotion - says something about the people that judgment. Second, even were it true, and I was a chronic cynic, it wouldn't be a worthy argument right? It is no different than yelling "hater!". I think people should set aside their assumptions about my approach to life, and address the actual specific argument I present - THAT you can know all about - it's right there.

Finally, let me point out that you CAN'T leave the corporate status out of it. As I pointed out earlier...Rogers ISN'T a person...its' a business entity who's sole raison d'etre is to make money. Now, we could certainly get into a discussion about psychology and moral philosophy - the intrinsic rewards and/or whether true altruism exists - I'd be all for it, that's a great topic - but it's SO far removed (many levels) from a undisguised corporate product promotion that I think it the comparison totally implausible. I for one, will certainly give far, far, more credit to the kindness of an individual (many level of that as well) then I will ever give to a corporate promotion - which is to say: some credit, since I give none to the corporation.

In this case, Rogers hosted an event showcasing both their product (NHL hockey) and the host city (Kelowna this week). No one ever stated that this wasn't done for Roger's ultimate self interest, but there is nothing wrong with exhibiting sentiments of appreciation torwards an enjoyable event, regardless of operational motivation..

Leave off the "ultimate" and we're largely in agreement. Now I disagree with showing "appreciation" towards the corporation - what would that even mean? Appreciation to whom Ted Rogers? The majority shareholders? The board? Appreciation that they are going about their corporate business of selling things to me, and I LIKED the way they sold it to me? Sorry, I think that misguided. As a litmus test, perhaps one should be able to write a letter of appreciation to somebody who deserves it: Dear ____________, thanks for ________. I know you did this because of _______________, and you didn't need to.

I don't imagine it would seem reasonable to most to write:

Dear Rogers, thanks for holding a promotion for your NHL product. I know you did this because of your profit-driven corporate structure, and....you did need to - it's your job, and if you don't, you'll be fired. Again, thanks a lot!

Rogers does not operate out of selflessness, true. But the vast majority of individuals actions are not out of selflessness. You thank a dinner party host when leaving, even though he hosted the party to raise his social standing. You thank a person for returning your lost wallet, even though they are returning it out of a feeling of moral superiority.

LOL! Ok, well as I read down, now you are into the discussion I referenced above, I happen to disagree, HOWEVER, that's a huge interdisciplinary topic, and one that - as I mentioned - I don't believe relevant to this discussion or my point. .[/quote]

I strongly suggest you start a separate thread about this, I'd gladly participate, and I think it'd be interesting, for all like-minded individuals!

I will say this however, let's just accept your premise for the moment. You are now arguing that most individual acts are not selfless and therefore we should go through the facade of "thanking" Rogers anyways. I would posit that a more efficient and rational conclusion would be: we shouldn't thank Rogers or those individuals. It would just be propagating an invalid fantasy premise (that it was selfless and worthy of thanks), to another level where we do it for non-living entities, who can't even hide that it wasn't done selflessly.

Taking that one step further, in your world, one could argue that the only reason for the thanks, is not to selflessly appreciate the individual/corporation (which you KNOW didn't do it for you), and that you're probably only doing it to satisfy some need for you to feel morally upright, and to avoid feelings of debt or guilt.

Certainly, one could argue all of that, (though, again, I disagree), and if this is your stance, we're again basically in agreement, because at that point, you've invalidated the basic premise behind both the act, AND the thanks! Rogers does a illusory service act, and you give an illusory thanks. That's fine by me.

My point is that there is nothing wrong about stopping to think critically about the motivations of an individual or company, simply that only looking at base motivations will strip a lot of the joy out of life.

I agree when it comes to individuals. I don't think you have to "look" far to see the modus operandi of a corporation. I happen to put some varying belief in the ability of people to be moral and selfless. I put some value on their well-being, on their feelings etc. I am willing to interpret their motivations on a more cursory level, or with greater benefit of the doubt (there is no doubt with a corporation) depending on the situation. A corporation is essentially a robot - a non-living entity which creatively follows it's one paradigm rule: make money, sell stuff. I won't back down from viewing it for exactly what it is, and I dont' wish to have "joy" from trying to convince myself otherwise....I don't need feel-good feelings towards Rogers the Robot....


PS. Thanks for a thoughtful reply, with direct replies. Obviously, I disagree very much with what you wrote, but I appreciate the time and effort spent on it. You have my respect. (though maybe I am only saying that in a self-serving way ;-)

[MAPearce]

Do you still think that Rogers used the park for free ?

I doubt they did... And this thing you have against Rogers seems a bit ,eh hem, un healthy...

Next time , just pay your cell bill and they won't cut you off....

[Gilchy]

PS. Thanks for a thoughtful reply, with direct replies. Obviously, I disagree very much with what you wrote, but I appreciate the time and effort spent on it. You have my respect. (though maybe I am only saying that in a self-serving way ;-)

Thanks for the response! I would be lying if I said I fully believed what I wrote as well, I was mostly taking a specific viewpoint to the nth degree. It would be an interesting topic for a standalone thread, that's for sure!

With regards to the corporate event standpoint, having worked previously in the Stakeholder Relations department of an large international company, I think it's commonly underestimated how much the people in these departments, and by extension the companies they represent, care about the communities they are active in. I don't believe that a profit driven agenda and "giving back" have to be mutually exclusive.

Regardless, we are wayyyyyyyyy overthinking this :)! It was a fun event, and now we move on.