Anything banned or requiring a license to use and is rejected by many laws and places in the social system, then they should never sponsor a team in anyway.

I'd be sick if any team if forced to do this or any team willingly does it.

Basically, the sponsors of the team should be there if it's something the team uses (product wise). Soda (pop) companies, tooling, engineering.. used and good sponsors. Alcohal, tobacco, explosives, (hopefully) not used and not good sponsors

FIRST is good.

A company sponsoring FIRST, is doing good.

Even if the company is "evil" by sponsoring a FIRST team I feel they are doing good. This program is (as almost everyone here would agree) a great opportunity for students. The more students involved in the program, the more students who benefit from it. The more teams out there, the more students able to participate. More sponsors = More Teams = More Students Participating.

Any money coming into the program I see as good money. As long as team's aren't wearing Marlboro T-shirts and passing out "promotional" bottles of booze what is the problem with this?

There is a line here... I'm not sure where I'd draw it, but I know EVERY FIRST sponsor is doing good, and we need as many more as we can get. Why limit ourselves?

Because we arn't limiting ourselves. We are setting standards of quality and decency. It is morally wrong for a tobacco company to sponsor a youth organization. They can't even sponsor a racing event for adults, so why a youth organization? And as for not actually distributing the product/logo when at a competition, it still sets an example and shows the outside world what FIRST is about. It's a sad fact that people will see Phillip Morris as a sponsor of a team and them think it's for the good of the youth.

Look at FIRST and a race. What's the difference? Alcohol, tobacco, and gambling sponsorships. Both pertain to building something mechanical and competing with it, but look at the following of FIRST and a race and you'll see the use of those products and worshiping of them.

I think FIRST could accept sponsorship from any company, however, I doubt that schools and school districts could do the same.

I would not even consider asking a company that was in the alcohol, tobacco, or firearms business. Our corporate sponsor is PECO Exelon (Philadelphia Electric Utility). PECO is very involved in the community and is a great corporate neighbor. The President of PECO, Ken Lawrence, is committed to the FIRST experience and supports the Philadelphia Regional at Drexel University. PECO is an engineering, technology and community oriented organization that fits perfectly as a school partner.

I know finding the right sponsor is challenging and retaining good sponsors in this economy is also difficult but the quality of the sponsor has much to do with the quality of the FIRST experience.

Not really, look at what the organization stands for. Not the acronym, but its values. The betterment of society through teaching kids something that will matter once they leave high school. Every sponsor of FIRST itself is doing it for that reason. Companies donate over 1 million dollars in parts (not retail value, at-cost value) because they feel it will help kids. You won't see Spalding donating $1M in basketballs because it will make more kids pro's.. reason? It won't happen.

If a company is to be a sponsor of FIRST, it should have the same values as FIRST. i.e. Tobacco companies aren't doing their job to make kid's have better lives later on, they are there solely for profit. They know smoking is a bad thing for people to do, but they can make a profit off of it. Engineering companies, such as Delphi, Ford, GM, etc. are for-profit companies but they are helping out FIRST because without FIRST even more jobs will go unfilled because from the outside Engineers = Nerds, but on the inside Engineers = Idols. If one kid each year becomes an engineer solely because of FIRST's impact, then FIRST is a good program.


I started this a while ago, left, so i'm stopping here before I end up saying something stupid

If I worked at FIRST HQ's and a company like perhaps, Phillip Morris or Coors Brewing Company wanted to throw money towards our organization I would not flat out refuse them their place in our sponsorship outlets but I would make it VERY clear to them that if they wanted to sponsor FIRST they would not get any "official" credit thrown there way.
By "official" credit, I mean that their name would not show up anywhere, not sponsor banners at events, not in the information booklet for FIRST, not anywhere no matter what. They would be forced to be on the same level as an anonymous donor.

If they said they had no problem with that and they wanted to still throw their money our way, then I would have no problem with that.

But, how many companies would be willing to give you a large monetary dollar amount without any recognition???
I don't think very many.
Individuals who wish to donate money and remain anonymous are more common place in the world or sponsorship than companies are.

Edit: More to add, just thought of another plot twist on my idea.

If it happened like I said, the company would be helping FIRST, but FIRST would also be helping the company. Through a dollar amount donation comes something you can write off on your taxes. This being the main reason some companies donate or do not donate to a cause. If they know they can get a tax break out of their donation, they might be less hesitant and more willing to donating.

In my scenario this would mean that inadvertently, FIRST would be helping this tobacco or alcohol company. This is a tough decision to make, thank goodness I'm not the one making it if it came up!!!!

So does that mean a sponsorship by SEGWAY LLC. is out of the question??? It IS being banned in many places! Where do you draw that line?? Or is this scenario ok just because Dean is involved with this company and Dean can do no wrong???

An interesting conundrum we have here!!!

Ooo well. Battlebots isn't limited by any laws nor do they require a license to use so they can sponser you.:)

The word is 'many'. 10 people cramped up into a house hateing the Segway isn't many.

Automobiles require a license to operate, are banned from many areas (ever tried to drive one on a sidewalk?), and are rejected by many people in society (many folks forgo them in favor of bicycles or mass transit). So would that mean that FIRST and teams should reject funding from Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc.?

This is intentionally not an easy question to answer. Trying to find the right mesh of personal and corporate values, ethics and morals is difficult. There is no "right" answer. But I am interested to see how many teams even consider this question when they seek sponsors, and how they define what is and is not acceptable (and how they would define an acceptable sponsorship policy for FIRST).

-dave

I don't think that was the intention of the statement. The liscense to use probably isn't in the right context.

Lets say that your team is sponsored by a compay such as R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. the parent company of R.J. Tobbaco Company. How would you react to that team? If part of the agreement was to help educate youth about the negatives of smoking, would you have the same reaction? Below is some information about the The R.J. Reynolds Foundation. It looks like a FIRST team could be eligible to earn a grant through this foundation.

Post your thoughts


http://www.rjrholdings.com/Inside/RJRFound.asp

Many orginizations have said that Anti-Tobacco ads created by the Tabacco industry have little, if any, effect on teen smoking. The Truth ones have had better results. And the fact still remains that it IS a tobacco company. If the money went to another orginization from the hands of the company, then yes, it would be good. It's just the fact that the money you spent to send you to have fun at the Championships have killed numerous people. That's MY problem.

That part of the link that David Kelly posted is one of the most idiotic things I personally think I have ever heard. How is killing people by giving them an extremely addictive drug being responsible? I can't stand tobacco companies and I personally feel that smoking in public should be banned. Now back on the original topic of a Battlebots sponsored team I feel that MAIN sponsors should at least have something to do with the message of FIRST. SO I feel that if Battlebots wants to sponsor a team the best of luck to the team. But if something like an alcohol or tobacco company feels that they need to promote themselves by sponsoring a team than that should NOT be allowed to happen in FIRST. How does that go with what FIRST is trying to represent.

My $.02

2 things:

1)
The Foundation generally will not consider funding requests for the following: programs from United Way and Arts Council member agencies unless they fit the Foundation's specific grant categories; endowments; support for individuals; general operating expenses; requests from churches; programs that promote religious doctrine; requests for political candidates and organizations; requests for travel expenses for individuals or organizations; sponsorship of most special events; requests from organizations that have already received support from the Foundation, RJR or RJRT for three consecutive years

2)
From reasing RJR's mission statement, I don't think I would like I would think highly of a team if they were able to get such a grant. Although, if they it would save them from being nothing, I think it's OK.


Very hard and touchy subject. Although now that I think about it, it depends moreso on if the sponsor expects name to be announced before rounds. [ And on the Red side: Team XX, Somewhereville High School and Belcher's Beer... ] not cool.. but on the other hand, if a team would have to pull out of FIRST based on finances I don't know what I would say.

Too tough of a call