Well Well. It’s a new day and a new controversy I might add. As you may or may not recall I had the amazing opportunity to go meet with a company I have used and loved all my life for the Nestle Family Gathering. When myself along with other bloggers from all over the web went to Nestle to say we got flack for it would be an understatement. We were informed of reasons we should not work in any way with Nestle.
I came across this post by my friend Amy which was followed up by an Accountability Post from one of the major boycotters. Imagine my surprise to find out this blogger is not only attending a conference sponsored by a company she is very adamantly against but she is in fact speaking at it. I seem to think that is a bit hypocritical after all the flack we were given, now it’s okay for one of the major players who called Nestle out to speak at a conference they are sponsoring.
Before I continue because this could get long let me try to sum up my thoughts in a vlog:
Okay now, let’s get back to it. She is going to donate money to charity which I think is great but is this blogger doing it to appease her guilty conscience? To attend let alone speak at a conference sponsored by a company you claim to despise their practices seems a bit on the hypocritical side to me. This issue that was so very black and white to this blogger along with the other boycotters is now gray it seems. Changing the rules to fit the situation is what the outside sees.
If I had spoken out against a company as much as some of these people have and boycotted and pushed others to boycott, would I attend or speak at an event they were sponsoring part of? ABSOLUTELY NOT. It’s not worth my integrity and going back on saying I would never support anything they do. By buying a ticket and going to a conference they are sponsoring in some way you are indirectly supporting that company in my opinion, even if you give to charities after. I would either sell my ticket or be out the money if I had already paid for an event and a company I do not support at all were part of it. And for my family with our financial situation that would be like a punch to the gut but I couldn’t go if I felt as strongly as some of these people claimed. Â I guess that’s just me though.
I just can’t wrap my head around they way some of them are “okaying” their decision when in my eyes after everything they did and said, I would think it would be an easy decision. Stand behind what you believe fully or admit you bend the rules to fit your situation. I respect the ones (yes even the ones who attacked me while at Nestle) who have pulled out, those are the ones I see as standing behind the cause 150%. They don’t waver and are true to the cause they are advocating or the movement they stand behind. I tip my hat to them and give those people a standing ovation.
To the ones who are not sure what to do, well it seems like a simple answer to me. Either admit that your black and white issue has a gray area or back out and stand up for the cause you believe in with all your mind, heart and soul. It’s not a hard decision or shouldn’t be in my opinion. If you want to make the way you feel on something have a gray area then do that, just don’t be surprised when some of the credibility you have with me and so many others drops. Ultimately it’s your decision and you have to live with it.
And now I shall get off my soapbox but I want to hear your thoughts. Â When does making a black and white issue gray become okay? What would you do in this situation? If you had spoken out as strong as some of these people did would you attend an event the company you spoke out against sponsored? Â Please share any other thoughts as well.
All comments welcome on this post but any comments that are attacking another person will be deleted, no hurtful personal attacks will be tolerated. Â Debate away but be mature about it.
Toni Patton
Latest posts by Toni Patton (see all)
- Sunsets Are My Reminder… - May 27, 2024
- Pensacola Beach’s “Bands on the Beach” 2024 Schedule Announced - February 21, 2024
- When The Baby Goes to College: I’m Not Ready…But, oh, How Ready She Is - August 22, 2023
it’s always something, isn’t it?! sheesh.
Yes it is or so it seems LOL
This debate will reveal the true colors of Nestle boycotters. I have read several posts the last few days from Nestle boycotters who have dissected the reasons of why they should attend, and have even expressed why it would help their cause.
Sadly, I think these explanations are an effort to validate going because they just simply want to go, which is their right, but I would like to see more honesty about it.
Like you said, the boycotters who have decided to cancel their plans upon finding out about the Nestle sponsorship have my utmost respect. It speaks volumes about their convictions because it certainly isn’t an easy thing to do, especially when you have already invested cash into it.
No matter how you look at it, it simply does not make sense for a Nestle boycotter to attend a Nestle-sponsored event. No matter how many reasons you provide, explanations you list, and how beautifully you craft your words, it goes against the very definition of a protest/boycott. It’s a no-brainer, in my opinion. To attend in hopes of enlightening unsuspecting BlogHer attendees to one’s agenda is not only a bit egocentric, but unfair to those who are attending BlogHer for what it is, which is not a protest rally.
A think a bigger statement would be make by a protestor/boycotter if they showed their followers that they will not be swayed or persuaded BY ANYTHING to do with Nestle. With all the effort that was put into the Nestle boycott last September (and months to follow), I am extremely surprised by the reaction regarding this issue.
.-= Amy´s last blog ..e.l.f. Makeup Party + Giveaway =-.
I agree with Everything you just said.
Kudos for you posting this girl!
It is hypocritical of them…and they are simply as you say “making it fit their situation” and will attend because they want to…regardless of how strongly they were against Nestle in the first place. Pathetic really.
Meaning, they took this black and white issue…and have now made it gray.
See that’s my point. If you are so against something why would you even want to be involved in something that is sponsored by them in some fashion. Gray defeats the cause they are fighting for, in that situation it has to be black and white
What Amy said 😉
.-= Melissa Multitasking Mama´s last blog ..Overcoming the sense of entitlement =-.
She speaks wise words doesn’t she 🙂
Some people are only against certain things when it brings attention to them personally. When they can get more attention by being involved with those same things, ironically they seem to have a sudden – temporary – change of heart, which is often lined with excuses and justifications.
Annoyingly funny, isn’t it?
.-= Kat @ For the Love of Chaos´s last blog ..Giveaways for Father’s Day on For the Love of 2Cents =-.
See that is how I am seeing this situation.
Toni, Amy, I couldn’t agree more. The attack on Nestle in the fall was not a few little posts expressing displeasure or taking issue with certain policies, it was a full blown ambush across several social platforms that lasted weeks. It’s obvious that those boycotting so strongly and who are still attending are merely justifying their attendance with excuses.
.-= linney´s last blog ..Initials, Inc… personalized products and business opp too! =-.
I agree to justify it in any way is definitely making their hard work, time and more while advocating seem like it was for nothing or not as important to them as they claim
drama, drama, drama! lol I would feel like a real jack-hole if I was SO against something and then clearly did something to counter act what I said…but, then again we are females with too many hormones and feelings! hee hee BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!
Precisely how I feel but maybe you and I are the exception LOL
This is a very interesting take on the #nestlefamily event and the forthcoming BlogHer Conference. My understanding of both events is somewhat different.
I work for Baby Milk Action which promotes the Nestlé boycott in the UK and we became aware of the #nestlefamily event due to the jump in traffic to our sites from people posting links to inform other bloggers about Nestlé’s pushing of baby milk in breach of international marketing standards supported by the US and all other countries that attend the World Health Assembly.
I contacted those bloggers who were down to go, to ask if they were prepared to look at the evidence of Nestlé malpractice or would just be relaying what Nestlé said. A couple of people did enter into communication and I provided background information. Nestlé is one of the four most boycotted companies on the planet and it was obvious that this event, targeting parenting bloggers, had the intention promoting the the company’s portrayal of its activities to a wider audience – this is a common tactic. For example, it invites health journalists on all-expenses-paid trips to Switzerland and when positive articles have resulted has provided direct financial support. We advise people not to attend such events and if they want to question Nestlé, use their own resources to visit the company to do so. But our starting point is people who accept such invitations probably were unaware of the implications.
In the case of the #nestlefamily event there were bloggers who said they were new to the issue and wanted to question Nestlé directly about it. There were others who seemed to take the view that because they like a particular Nestlé product they didn’t want to know anything bad about the company. Those who were already aware of Nestlé’s practices simply declined their invitations at the outset.
When the event was on, some bloggers did indeed put questions to the Nestlé (USA) Chief Executive and relay the responses. I tweeted information pointing to evidence disproving Nestlé claims, as did others. I also offered to take part in a direct tweet debate with Nestlé (I have debated with Nestlé many times, though it now refuses to participate having lost all past debates when there has been a vote). This offer was not taken up by Nestlé.
There were some attendees who can only be described as pro-Nestlé who objected to the hashtag being used to criticise Nestlé and wanted to tweet exclusively about what a nice time they were having. There were some critics who were unpleasant about this response and upset that bloggers had attended in the first place, which was unfair and unproductive in my view. But, on the whole, the use of the hashtag gave a good airing to concerns about Nestlé and its strategy blew up in its face.
Although Nestlé promised to take part directly on the hashtag it did so only briefly and did not return as it had promised. However, it did provide detailed responses to the PhD in Parenting site which have been well analysed and, inevitably when put against the evidence, reveal Nestlé to be dishonest in the way it presents its activities. This has greatly raised the profile of the boycott in the US.
Nestlé’s response to its Twitter disaster has been to recruit a Public Relations agency to try to improve its image in cyberspace. An independent image rating agency has found Nestlé to have a particularly poor image.
It is probably on the advice of the PR agency that Nestlé’s Stouffer and Butterfinger brands have come forward as sponsors to the forthcoming BlogHer event late in the day. When people were buying early-bird tickets and accepting invitations to speak, no Nestlé brand was listed as a sponsor, people who bought such tickets have said. Now that BlogHer has decided to take Nestlé on as a sponsor it has created a dilemma for those who had already arranged to attend and particularly the PhD in Parenting blogger who was booked to speak specifically on the whole Nestlé issue.
It has been a masterstroke by Nestlé to set itself up as a sponsor because it now has some people demanding that Nestlé critics do not attend on the grounds doing so would make them hypocrites. If critics do attend to expose Nestlé then the company no doubt hopes the focus will be on whether they should be there or not, rather than the company – just as it prefers the discussion about the #nestlefamily event be whether people were rude, rather than Nestlé’s behaviour and its inadequate answers. Nestlé has an anti-boycott team so they are no doubt chuckling to themselves because their job becomes a whole lot easier when arguments erupt over other issues – and this is an important lesson for critics to learn: try to keep focus on Nestlé.
This strategy is all par for the course for Nestlé. A few years ago it came in as a sponsor to a nutrition conference in Canada where the Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF was to be the keynote speaker. It caused a lot of debate as to whether UNICEF should attend or not given its criticism of Nestlé. Stephen Lewis, the Deputy at the time, decided to go and used his keynote address to blast Nestlé and the other formula companies and make the point they are not appropriate sponsors for such events.
Those who want to hold Nestlé to account are sometimes faced with a quandary as to how to respond to Nestlé’s strategies. And make no mistake, Nestlé has not come on board BlogHer at the last minute out of kindness. This company is determined in its defence of its business and profits. It has only given ground on the baby milk issue where we have embarrassed it sufficiently – or brought in strong enough laws – that it calculates it is its better option to do so.
But it goes to great lengths to undermine campaigners. As I write, it is being pursued through the courts in Switzerland for infiltrating the groups Attac Switzerland with a spying operation, not just on baby milk marketing, but a whole range of issues from campaigns against its trade union busting, failure to act on child slavery in its cocoa supply chain, exploitation of water resources etc. You can find further information on the Nestlé Critics website.
Regarding baby milk, Nestlé is found to be the worst of the baby food companies in terms of violating internationally-agreed marketing standards by monitoring conducted on the ground around the world. According to UNICEF: “Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed. These facts are not in dispute.”
Nestlé latest global marketing strategy is to promote baby milk with the claim that it ‘protects’ babies, despite knowing that babies fed on it are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to die. We attended the Nestlé shareholder meeting in April (yes, that’s a Nestlé event) to raise this directly with the board of directors before the shareholders. The Chief Executive of Nestlé Nutrition was called forward and defended the strategy, revealing as he did so that it has been rolled out in 120 countries. We have stopped such practices in the past through pressure from the boycott and public support – and we will stop this, but we need your help.
We are currently asking people to send a message to Nestlé. It takes one minute to do so. Four minutes if you want to watch our little film clip about it.
You don’t have to support the boycott to send a message to Nestlé. You don’t have to avoid BlogHer to send a message.
I imagine people will be spending far more than four minutes writing about the pros and cons of Nestlé coming in at the last minute to hijack BlogHer and whether Nestlé critics are right or wrong to attend. Please don’t let that discussion stop you giving 1 – 4 minutes to help mothers and babies around the world by sending a message to Nestlé. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510
For this comment with links and my opinion on the BlogHer issue, click the link on my name.
Okay I was one of the bloggers who questioned Nestle even though I liked them on behalf of those who raised concerns . I was still attacked and called very bad names because I went to meet with a company I used and loved all my life. If you were one of those who were so adament against us going then yes I think it defeats the purpose of your message to go to AND definitely speak at an event sponsored by a company you claim to despise practices of.
And actually there was not one blogger there that you are accusing that said they didn’t want to hear anything bad about Nestle, your facts are messed up. I was there I can assure you that. We all were open to hear what you and Nestle had to say which is what people with intelligence do hear both sides and then form an opinion right?? And not all who were aware declined just an FYI 🙂 I didn’t know about the practices when I accepted, but when I did I brought up concerns and Nestle answered. I formed my opinion on listening to both sides. And reading CURRENT not past issues. Because I was a sole breastfeeding mom I wanted to be informed.
As far as it being a dilemma should it be? If I were against Nestle I wouldn’t be going or if a company I believe has unethical practices are a part of an event I would not attend and definitely not be a speaker. Would it hurt to lose the money if it came to that, yes b/c my family lives on a very tight budget but b/c I couldnt’ align myself with a company I thought was unethical it would be something I would have to deal with. It’s very simple, you either believe and stand behind your cause 100% or it can become gray to fit a situation. That’s the way it looks to so many and not just supporters of Nestle but even some that aren’t.
In your videoblog you say it was ‘several individuals’ who said things you found objectionable. It is unfortunate that those few comments – however hurtful and unwarranted – have generated so much heat and provide a reason for avoiding the real issue: how to protect mothers and babies from practices such as Nestlé claiming formula ‘protects’ babies.
And I must correct the suggestion that we are talking about past issues.
We are talking about what is going on right now. This ‘protect’ marketing strategy is just one amongst many current issues, but it is particularly damaging to the health messages that the World Health Organisation, governments and others are trying to put out regarding the protective effect of breastfeeding.
Whatever Nestl̩ told you, there is no justification for pushing baby milk like this Рand they have rolled it out in 120 countries. No only is it cynical, irresponsible and revealing of how Nestl̩ puts its own quest for profits before the health and well-being of babies and their families, it is a clear violation of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes which Nestl̩ claims to follow (Article 9.2 Рanyone who want to focus on the real issues can follow the links to the actual text).
Let me reiterate – this is what is going on right now.
Nestlé is a sponsor of BlogHer and this provides an ideal opportunity to expose it over these marketing strategies.
I would certainly welcome suggestions and input on how best to do that from yourself and anyone else and I hope those who want to stop what Nestlé is doing will focus on this.
Taking a minute to send a message to Nestl̩ is what I am suggesting as an easy action to take Рjust click the link above.
I think it’s great to send Nestle a message on behalf of a movement but for those who are so vocal to support (by going/speaking) something Nestle is a part of taints that persons voice. I respect you and what you do as you don’t seem to be attending the conference (or that I know of) even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. But all the ones who have been as vocal as yourself and now are supporting (because yes by attending you are supporting the sponsored in some way) the company they say are unethical.
How does BlogHer provide the opportunity if I may ask. They have strict rules about passing out “swag” even if that is simply a brochure in the conference and chances are the people there will be too busy outside the conference to stop by boycotters rooms to learn more and I highly doubt the speaker in question is going to use the platform to bash Nestle and it’s practices. Just some food for thought. Also the only ones who would make time to learn about this at a conference that is busy as blogher are probably the same ones who know about it now so it’s not helping the movement gain anything but criticism now.
We are already getting lots of traffic to our sites because of the debate about Nestlé sponsoring BlogHer and so it is already backfiring for Nestlé.
I am in the UK, otherwise I would come along to the venue, organise a fringe meeting and invite Nestl̩ to come and debate Рa strategy we have used in similar circumstances, though Nestl̩ now refuses to debate as those have gone badly for it.
You say: “But all the ones who have been as vocal as yourself and now are supporting (because yes by attending you are supporting the sponsored in some way) the company they say are unethical.”
But you also said that you respect those who were vocal and are tearing up their tickets and not going.
I don’t know if you read my article, but I cite the case of the Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, Stephen Lewis, who was put in a similar situation some years ago when a nutrition conference he was booked as a keynote speaker for in Canada took Nestlé onboard as a sponsor. You would presumably label him a hypocrite, but he decided to go to blast Nestlé for its marketing practices and tell the organisers he did not think they were appropriate sponsors.
Decisions have to be taken about how best to expose Nestl̩. Clearly that was not a consideration of those attending the #nestlefamily event Рat best some raised questions to find out more and relay the answers.
But the discussion amongst those concerned about Nestlé’s impact on mothers and babies over whether to attend BlogHer is motivated by what will be most effective at exposing Nestlé, now that they have already made arrangements to be in New York.
How will the opportunity be used? That remains to be seen, but these things often end up embarrassing Nestlé and being picked up in the media. UK examples include the Perrier Comedy Award – which Nestlé pulled out of in 2006 after stars such as Emma Thompson called for a boycott. A Nestlé-sponsored children’s book prize where the winner said he didn’t want the prize money in 2007.
A particular favourite from 2001 is when pop stars started speaking out about songs going onto a free CD being promoted on Nestlé chocolate bars, which saw the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitute reported in the the New Musical Express (legendary here) and groups like Pulp appearing in the British Medical Journal:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/322/7280/191/a
It is when Nestlé is under most scrutiny that we see it making the changes we are calling for. For example, in 2003 it said it would stop promoting complementary food from too early an age after we had campaigned on the issue for years because a week of national demonstrations were reported by Swiss television.
So if everyone reading this spends 1 minute sending a message to Nestlé and publicises the link to their networks, we could stop Nestlé’s latest global ‘protect’ campaign.
Thank you for the opportunity to bring it to people’s attention!
Personally, I don’t believe anything in life is black and white, no matter which side you’re on. There’s always going to be a gray area. And I think that some of the anti-Nestle bloggers (who I support, btw) have just learned this the hard way.
I can understand why you and some of the other bloggers who took a lot of flack for attending the first Nestle event would be upset and see this as hypocritical, but two wrongs don’t make a right. They were wrong to attack you and judge your decisions and your motives, but aren’t you just doing the same thing? I don’t know that we can ever really understand why other people do what they do b/c we’re always looking at things from our own perspective – to me, that’s what makes everything gray.
No I am not saying they horrible things such as “Nestle bloggers support baby killing” I am simply stating it seems very hypocritical to speak at a conference or even attend that the company who’s practices that person protested and thinks are unethical.
If I said I think the killing of animals is wrong (which I do) for fashion but then attended an event where one of the sponsors is a company who does just that, you can’t tell me that would not be hypocritical in very many people’s eyes. That is my point.
They are diluting the cause they are advocating by attending an event sponsored by a company they think is unethical.
I guess my point is that whether or not they’re being hypocritical isn’t your judgement to make, just like it wasn’t their place to judge your decision to go to Nestle. People all over the message boards are commenting about what so and so “should” do. But who are any of us to judge what someone else should do based on what we would do? You think they’re diluting the cause; they think they’ll accomplish more by going. I’m not saying one or the other is right. I’m just saying neither one of you needs to be judging the other one.
.-= St. Louis Smart Mama´s last blog ..The Nestle Wars (Or Why I Buy My Chocolate Chips at Trader Joe’s) =-.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts I appreciate them truly I do. I replied to Mike (above) on why I have a different view. So I am not going to retype LOL.
I agree. If you are going to be “black and white” on virtually every issue you vocalize on your blog, it seems very inconsistent (and convenient) to all of a sudden be able to see “gray.”
Inconsistent is definitely how I see it I just don’t understand the reasoning they have for going when they are so adamantly against a company kwim
I think this is a gray issue for a lot of people, who didn’t make a stand against the NestleFamily event, but still don’t support Nestle.
I wrote back then I think bloggers have a responsibility to know all the facts behind sponsorships- if after they are aware of them, and they are ok with a company’s business practices, fine.
Having said that, I have decided not to attend BlogHer ’10 because of the Nestle sponsorship. When you write, “just don’t be surprised when some of the credibility you have with me and so many others drops.”
It boiled down to that for me. I’ve spent 3.5 years building my blog readership and have written a lot about pro-breastfeeding. If a BF mother sees I have attended BlogHer ’10 while Nestle was a sponsor, how can I expect her to take anything I write about breastfeeding, and the issues with formula seriously? This may not ever happen, but even if there is one reader, or another blogger who respects my blog, I feel attending now will cause me to lose credibility. It also doesn’t feel right. I don’t want to attend a conference that is being paid in part, by a company who causes so many baby illnesses and deaths in developing countries by their aggressive formula marketing practices.
Everyone has to decide for themselves, but I’ll admit, it is a bit disheartening that more bloggers who have made a stand against Nestle are so quiet now. I am also disappointed BlogHer would accept Nestle as a sponsor, when so many of their bloggers have issues with them. But, as we are seeing, I guess when it comes down to it, it doesn’t really matter who BlogHer accepts as a sponsor.
Here is my blog post on BlogHer ’10 and the discussion that helped me reach my decision: http://amamasblog.com/2010/06/02/blogher-10-nestle-sponsorship-integrity/
.-= A Mama’s Blog- Heather´s last blog ..BlogHer ‘10, Nestle Sponsorship, & Integrity =-.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and I do agree it makes a situation more difficult for so many. I understand wanting to do something so badly and then not for reasons beyond your control to maintain the integrity you hold. I have (believe it or not LOL) had to drop out of projects because of a conflict of interests and that to me is where the biggest statement is made.
I think that is what annoys me the most is the ones who made a big to do and are now quiet for those of you (as a breastfeeding mom myself I am all for pushing breastfeeding) who feel as strong as you do on the issue it has to be disheartening. It’s tainting the issue that so many have worked so hard for (even if I choose to give Nestle the benefit after learning things on the trip) and that has to be a bit unnerving to some even if not all.
It’s not just Baby Milk Action trying to get Nestlé to remove its ‘protect’ logos (see above). When Nestlé launched them in South Africa in 2008, the Department of Health told us:
“The Department of Health are extremely concerned about all the health claims that Nestle make on the new NAN 1, 2 and 3 tins. The health claims are a contravention of the current South African Regulations. A meeting was held with representatives of Nestle and Department of Health and it seems they were not aware that they are transgressing the Regulations. However, they are reluctant to change the labels.”
I hope readers of this blog are not reluctant to spend 1 minute asking Nestlé to change the labels. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510
If you are going to BlogHer, please do think about raising this with Nestlé and asking as many bloggers as you can to link to the campaign page. We’ve stopped such practices in the past (for example, forcing Nestlé to remove pictures of babies from labels) and will stop this – but we need your help to do it.
Boycott-refusing to buy, sell, or use.
Will they be using any of the services or products supplied by Nestle?
If so, they are no longer Boycotters.
Um well yes since Nestle is a sponsor, using the wifi, getting the swag eating the lunch they are using the servcies that are in part provided by Nestle I would think
In addition to not buying, selling or using, “preventing dealings with” is also part of the definition of a boycott.
Like Toni said below, attending BlogHer could be looked upon as indirectly using Nestle services.
To show “hypocrisy” (which is a pretty nasty allegation in my mind, though, of course, not as bad as “baby killer”) you have to show how a person is taking an action that runs contrary to her prior statements.
For example, I’ve stated quite clearly before that I think that any hashtag is open to any on-topic use. If you use an anti-Nestle hashtag (like #BooNestle) to explain why you think Nestle products are just grand and the company is a good corporate citizen, you are on topic. If I tell you to go elsewhere, THEN I would be a hypocrite.
I fail to understand how sharing information and debating issues with people who make public statements suddenly becomes “rude” or “attacking”.
Yes, there were nasty people…on both sides of the issues. Call them out. Anyone who was screaming “baby killer” at attendees or calling anyone who challenged Nestle “an anti-American Communist” or cracking jokes about slavery is not someone contributing to the dialog.
Since I never told you that you couldn’t go to the NestleFamily event, never told anyone that I or that they should have to avoid any place that benefits from Nestle dollars (like my supermarket), etc., then going wouldn’t be hypocritical.
And of course the two events are different…that doesn’t necessarily mean it is okay to go to BlogHer if you stand against Nestle…in fact, it could be worse. But it is quite obviously, to me at least, two very different types of events.
Would it be ethical for me to go believing what I do about Nestle? I don’t know…I’m still going through the issue in my head.
Of course it is shades of gray. It is always shades of gray. If Nestle made a product that could save my child’s life, of course I’d use it! Would I travel an hour out of my way and waste gas to go to a supermarket that didn’t stock Nestle? Wouldn’t that hurt other things I believe in more?
Everyone has to constantly balance one principle against another.
You are welcome to challenge any of my public statements the same way I may have challenged yours…but I didn’t sling any labels at you or conflate your actions with others in your group…so don’t do that to me.
.-= Candace´s last blog ..Recall Notice: McDonald’s Shrek Glasses =-.
This reminds me of when I worked at Walmart. I was a cashier and my b/f worked at Kroger, which is a union store. All of his co workers were all about the boycotting Walmart because it is not union, but I would see those same people in the store buying and shopping week after week. At Christmas time I had a lady who was standing in my line tell me that she boycotts Walmart based on her feeling that they do not pay well. So, I looked at her and said, well lady, I hate to tell you this, but you just walked into, shopped, and purchased items from a store that you are boycotting. Kinda stupid huh?
.-= Tawnya´s last blog ..Thankful Thursday =-.
I am not attending BlogHer nor did I plan to so I have no dog in this show but I think there is NO comparison to the Nestle Family event and a BlogHer sponsorship. As Mike above pointed out, none of the Nestle Family Bloggers accepted the trip in order to expose Nestle for their heinous practices. But those going to Blogher AND those cancelling are acting in line with their values if they use the opportunity to speak out against Nestle.. which they are doing. Annie will no doubt be speaking about Nestle a ton as she attends and that will be a very good thing for her cause.
You compare a free trip to bake cupcakes and eat chocolate in a cushy hotel room paid for in full by an unethical to…
Attending a conference that an unethical company sponsors in small part (one of 80 sponsors) in order to draw attention to that company and use your voice and presence to expose them…
NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.