Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

In response to some of the discussion taking place in a thread about the new control system (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=57475), I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about what behavior we expect from sponsors and, perhaps, mentors outside their participation in FIRST.

Should be there some litmus test that determines whether a company or individual has acted with the "gracious professionalism" we regard so highly or does the oft repeated warning that it should be used only as an internal measuring stick apply here as well?

Perhaps it's true that sponsorship of a FIRST event by Anheuser-Busch would be inappropriate were it handled in the same way that sponsorship of a football game might be, but what if the money came with no strings attached? What about such a company might make its support unwanted by FIRST or its teams?

Where would you draw the line regarding acceptable corporate or personal behavior before accepting money from a potential sponsor? Is it a deal-breaker if they lie to Congress, but okay if they've been party to egregious environmental devastation? No-go if they make bombs, but peachy-keen if they use sweatshop labor to produce their products?

I guess I'm just stirring the pot some, but I'm interested in getting an idea of y'all feel about what might constitute inappropriate behavior by a current or future sponsor and how we should react to that behavior -- and how we weigh the pros and cons of what each sponsor and mentor bring to the program.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

For a little more that four centuries now, governments (beginning with the Dutch) have been granting some companies the same legal status previously reserved for favored individuals -- and the significant extra benefit that the company's legal liability is limited to the sum of the investments its owners; i.e., its capital. Governments created this new kind of legal entity to encourage large scale risk-taking, initially in ocean voyages. The limitation on liability is sometimes called the "corporate veil". Under certain extreme circumstances the veil can be "pierced", making the company's owners liable (without limit) for damage to others arising from the company's activities; however, such piercing generally requires proof that the company was established for purpose of defauding those who have dealings with it.

In 1602 the world only contained one of these limited-liability creatures. Now there are millions of them. In almost all cases they have proved worthy of their special liability status, because their risk-taking activities provide access to goods and services that would not exist otherwise. However, special status leads to power and that can have a corrupting influence.

Which view you take of any particular limited-liability company may depend on your relationship with it -- customer, supplier, employee, or simply where you live. Residents of St. Louis might feel differently toward Anheuser-Busch than residents of Manchester, or Munich, or Mumbai, when asked whether that company's activities are a net benefit to the world.

So how to decide which limited-liability companies are worthy to help us change the culture? I won't claim to have the answer, but I will say that understanding FIRST's goal and willingness to help move the world in that direction ought to count heavily in any potential sponsor's favor.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

As long as a company, like say Anheuser-Busch, were to sponsor a FIRST event, I don't personally have an issue with it. As long as they aren't promoting underaged drinking or irresponsible actions they really are doing nothing wrong. Their advertising would be what you see at every other sporting event or see in everyday life. Just because you saw their advertisement does not mean you are required to use or buy their product or service. That's a personal choice left up to the individual. Secondly, I would hope that students in the FIRST program, and of that age group would be educated enough to make informed and appropriate decisions in areas such as this. Also, there is no perfect company in existence. Even a company like Microsoft, that sponsors FIRST to a degree, does not have a clean background (read anti-trust lawsuits amongst other things). To find a company like that would be near impossible and eliminate a lot of big name (and big money) sponsors.

I apologize if my post has errors pertaining to clarity but I wrote it in a hurry before I left for dinner.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Well, beer isn't necassarilly. It's a beverage, that can be bad if abused. If they simply wanted to sponsor an event, there is no problem with that. If they were handing out samples... that's an issue.

Also, if making bombs makes sponsors a no-go.... a lot of teams would be with out sponsors...

Now that I think about it, any corporation has to have some sort of bad deed associated with it... I guess no coorporation could be a sponsor if they were held to that standard.

(I'm not claiming you are making those points and that I am argueing with you M. Krass, just stirring the pot as well).

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I believe that one of the schools I worked with once got an offer from Coors for a sponsorship. After review by the school board, it was decided to accept the money because there were no promotional stipulations attached to the money.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I think the whole idea behind this is what your organization stands for and what value you want to add to it. As Dave said in the other thread, FIRST stands for its values, and adds even more value to the organization when they refuse to accept sponsorships from Alcohol and tobacco companies. Some of you might disagree with this, but it is true - If FIRST were to be sponsored by a company that promotes drinking or tobacco, just being around an ad or just having the name written on the FIRST website will make people talk. Kids will think it is good(even though we tell them drinking underage is bad) and that would lead to more problems. If you don't believe me, look at your own family and think of what influenced the things you do today - Something from your past. You picked up some values from your parents(unless you hated them). If you say you didn't and you were born in a dysfunctional family, that's no excuse. Psh, who isn't. Think of FIRST as the dad of your family, and then you'll understand the responsibility FIRST has to the leaders of tomorrow.

On the other end of this, companies(and the govt.) are constantly evaluating FIRST since all of us do our homework and work hard at bringing the attention to FIRST. Contrary to what you might think, professionals evaluate businesses and organizations in a slightly different way then you might imagine. They don't look at the finances or results first. The reason for this is S-curve economics. They evaluate an organization by looking at the people and companies involved and where it is going. If I was the US Govt. and FIRST was brought to my attention, I'd set a group to evaluate the organization. If they came back and told me "Well it is for students from FLL to FRC level but they are supported by Alcohol, Tobacco and companies like AOL(dial up, with bad business practices)", I would definitely not support that. Yes, I realize that sometimes even high school sports have alcohol involved, but we are not that, are we? Also, it would be hypocritical of FIRST to tell us to go get students involved and then surround them in an atmosphere that indirectly encourages alcohol or tobacco use.

This is a touchy subject but I think it is one of those factors that will critically impact the future of FIRST. FIRST needs to be marketed correctly in order to get the expected growth. Once they reach a certain point, it is smooth sailing to the point where it will be saturated in all high schools in the US and that's when it will really matter whether we held up to our values or not. By doing it right now, FIRST is also preventing a lot of future problems. After all, our parents also evaluate the activities we participate in school. I am sure they would not want to be involved if there were any alcohol problems at events. By completely staying away from such a crowd, FIRST is taking away one more excuse for people not to participate and adding one more reason why they should participate. Yes, I realize my thoughts are scattered through the whole post, but you understand.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

...Except that there's already gigantic Budweiser logos located prominently in the Georgia Dome during the Championships, and you'll see similar things in many regional venues too.

If a company wants to help support FIRST and/or teams, I generally think we should accept it. I don't think it's a good idea for FIRST to take on the responsibility of deciding whether a given organization meets some FIRST-defined moral standard. Look at it this way, no matter what a company has done in the past or what you think of their business, as long as they're supporting FIRST aren't they trying to do at least some good?

(* It would be a puzzling problem though to be sponsored by a beer company: I'd have no problem with them as a sponsor, but sticking their logo on the side of the robot wouldn't sit well with me. I would hope in a case like that they would be understanding and be able to work out a compromise [I suspect they would not want to be accused of marketing to minors anyway so that could help the situation]).

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I don't think FIRST has a choice to remove those logos. However, they should control what they can. And I agree, in general they should accept all the sponsorship they can, but definitely not the kinds that support anything against its values.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Many teams are supported by defense contractors who work on vehicles, weapons, bombs, etc. I dont think that the team or FIRST is trying to support war and violence in the world though. Maybe one day we will get to the point where we dont need so much money being pumped into an army but while we still have defense contractors I see no reason why they cannot be a valuable sponsor to FIRST and FIRST teams.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

But nearly every company supports or does something that could be considered against FIRST's values, and other things that companies do might depend entirely on your perspective. To a smoker, a tobacco company as a sponsor may not be inherently wrong. A biotech firm that works with embryonic stem cells would be a fantastic fit for a sponsor for some, but a company profiting from murder to others.

Can you imagine the uproar if FIRST turned down enormous sponsorship $$$ for something you consider frivolous? To use my example above, imagine FIRST turned down an enormous medical company sponsorship because someone in FIRST believed that embryonic stem cell research was wrong. To many in this community, that would be a terrible mistake. To others, it would be the right choice. There are nearly zero "obviously against-values" companies.

Even companies that don't work in hot-button fields might be considered unacceptable: Microsoft certainly didn't show gracious professionalism when they broke anti-trust laws in the 90s. Google (and any other search engine with a chinese site) aids the chinese government in suppressing free speech. Sony embedded rootkits in CDs it sold to paying customers. Defense contractors make weapons such as cluster bombs that can indiscriminately kill civilians long after the war is over. Governments engage in wars of opportunity. IBM sold products to Nazis. Power companies own coal plants which spew smog, cancer, and global-warming-causing fumes, or they own nuclear plants that create radioactive waste, or they dam up rivers and destroy habitats.

In short, the line between "against FIRST's values" and "in line with FIRST's values" is extremely fuzzy, and mistakes would inevitably be made.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Dare I suggest that context might be a factor here? Sure, I wouldn't be in favor of sticking a big Coors logo on the side of our robot, but what if their "21 Means 21" campaign was highlighted instead (even with some fine print beneath with the company name)?

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

So let me see if I got this right...
First isn't interested in excepting money and support for a company that makes an adult beverage...
But has no problem joining forces with a company that steals ideas from other companies, makes weapons that kill other young people in places with lots of sand. And would welcome goverment involement so they can recruit bright young people to build things to kill more.
And that doesn't even talk about the money and support First gets from companies that employ third world youth in sweat shops. And they not building robots thats for sure.

Very interesting thread....

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

what if a beer/tobacco company were to sponsor FIRST in a way not to promote their products, but to discourage underage drinking/smoking?

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I would tip my hat to Anheuser-Busch if they were ever to support FIRST. Although they sell beer they do not promote underage drinking, and as long as they stay in the back, than money is money. I think it is unfair for FIRST to limit who can and who can not sponsor a FIRST team especially with such an expensive program. As long as FIRST says that teams/companies can not put certain types of pictures/text on their robots that promote drinking, it shouldn't be a problem. For a couple of thousand dollars many teams would gladly change their team colors as a way to thank their sponsors, not necessarily by having a huge beer logo on all four of their bumpers.

Do you think that changing your team colors to that of your sponsors' is a sign of respect that FIRST could recognize and let be?

There are a load of people who love robots, [and I'm pretty sure that beer companies are included in this catagory], so why not let all of the help out in any way they can? If you're against that than we might as well just stop being sponsored by companies that lay off employees or have buisness contracts with "bad" companies [ex: Booze/Tobacco]? Why stop there, and stop engineers from these companies from helping out their local teams as well and the whole 9 yards! *RANT* Sooner or later I think we're going to have to give students/mentors/engineers/volunteers tests to make sure they haven't done anything thats "ungracious" either. */RANT*


Pavan.





.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Wow, what a thread.

Go back and read what FIRST stands for and what their goals are. The goal is the promotion of science and technology, cultural change, inspiring people to excellence, etc, etc

Why does FIRST even exist? If you listen carefully to Dean Kamen and others it will become quickly apparent that we need all the scientists and engineers we can get to solve real problem that we face.

It is not to create a 'friends of robots' advocacy group. Robots do not need advocacy groups.

We want sponsors to be of generally good conduct and responsible corporate citizens. You are not going to find a 'pure' sponsor on this planet.

We do want to avoid companies that are not good citizens, but bad corporate citizens tend not to want to sponsor FIRST efforts in any event.

I'm no fan of tobacco, but calling them 'murderers' is a little off the map when the behavior is high self inflicted. There are people that make the same claims of the automobile when highway deaths and injuries and environmental concerns are considered. One could say that tobacco has zero value and autos have some value. But some would argue that even the long term costs of the auto and the use of fossil fuels outweigh its benefits.

With the littlest of imagination you could make the claim that many modern activities have risk and bring harm. But these activities also may bring needed benefits.

What is a little more interesting about this thread is comments that reflect a trend going back several decades that says something like "corporations are bad, because they are bad and may have done something that I don't agree with, and they make people do things they don't want to do"

Each of us has the power and the responsibility to use the products and services of the business community in a responsible and sustainable fashion.

Corporations are made up of people like me and you. One day you may be working for one of these companies. As an engineer or scientist working for that company you may be responsible for increasing the sustainability of their efforts, increasing responsible use of their products, and reducing the negative impact of their operations or products. You will find that most people in good companies are real people that share the same values and concerns as all of us.

I think A-B sponsorship is great and as a good citizen I'm sure they would be happy to give us a boatload of '21 means 21' stickers. A-B is a concerned as anyone about their customers enjoying their product in a legal, responsible (socially and environmentally).

Many other companies share the same values. These companies very much need new engineers to help them become sustainable. How about biodegradable bottles and food packaging? How about zero impact transportation?

This is where FIRST comes in. Companies need engineers. FIRST delivers.

PS.

If you don't use tobacco, don't start. If you do, get help and quit.
If you are underage and drinking, then stop. If you are 21 or over then limit yourself to 2 drinks a day maximum.
Exercise, eat properly, work hard, live hard, play hard, laugh hard, inspire people, solve problems.
And leave the world around you a little better place than you found it.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

One more quick but important point.

Way Way Way back in time I grew up in 'tobacco' country. I'm familiar with the subject way more than most people. I'm not in the business and I know plenty of people that are quite glad to be out of the business.

But there is a big point here that is related to FIRST.

"Back in the Day" from about 1607 to about 30 years ago, tobacco was considered to be a wonderful thing that helped build this country........... long story (it is on the walls of the Capital Rotunda). It was highly culturally acceptable. Today it is very negative as it should be.

I watched this cultural change process move things from positive to negative over a long period of time.


Today, FIRST is doing the same type of cultural change with the public perception of engineering, science, and technology. Changing our culture to celebrating the values of FIRST is a very doable thing. It may take 30 years but it is doable and it is happening and we are all part of it.

I think it is important that we don't run down some ideological rat hole and argue amongst ourselves but that we go forward and work inside of these companies as engineers, scientists, and business people to help transform themselves into the most sustainable responsible company that is possible.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

In Israel most hi-tech companies are somehow connected to the army. Israel, for the good and bad, is a country that has to have th strongest army it can. That means that all production, innovation, and budgets are set to millitary goals first of all. This fact makes most, if not all, hi-tech companies connected to the army, hich, well - bombs people and sometimes kills the innocent, there are some thinsg you can not escape from.
The fact that a company develpos an item or an idea for the army, or any other organization does not mean that it supports it(the organiztion). It simply means that it was a good deal and they needed the money.
If FIRST and it's teams start 'selecting' sponsors according to the things they support, and the organizations they work with, all, not most, of the companies will be inappropriate to be a sponsor.
I do not think that having an alcohol comapny as your sponsr is a bad thing. If they are willing to support us in any way there is, it means they intend all good, at least on that issue, if this company supports you than it deserves a sticker on your robot, no matter what it stands for, as it stood for one thing among rest - FIRST (here remember the For Inspiration and Recognition thing). Having a Miller sticker on your robot does'nt mean you support underaged drinking, it means Miller supports you and FIRST, and they should be appreciated for it.
I honestly believe that each and every person who takes any kind of aprt in FIRST, is self aware, or at least has friends who are selfaware enoough to make the correct desicion even if they see a beer commercial in a FIRST event. If we see a picture of Dean or Woodie having a drink in a pub or something tit doesnt mean they want us to drink - same way having an alcohol company sponsor doest mean you drink or want other people drinking.

About companies that have teeangers and children working for them many illegal hours in countries like India, China and other African countries, i would just like to say that as it is wrong, we are still not those who should judge them to sponser or not to sponser FIRST. They should be judged in a courthouse, and if found guilty punished, and maybe only than not be allowed as a FIRST sponser. As long as there are just 'rumours' about what thte copmany is doing no desicion should and can be made. After they are found guilty, an action should be taken, though in most cases i still think that a "you-can't-be-a-sponser" policy is wrong.

Hope i've got my idea cleared, Liron.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

As far as team sponsorship, I suspect that no high school administration would allow an alcohol or tobacco company to be a sponsor, even with no strings attached.

Regarding FIRST, FIRST is a brand and the brand has to be promoted and protected. Who FIRST selects / allows as a sponsor can have a tremendous impact (positive or negative) on the value of the brand going forward and could have a significant impact on future corporate sponsors.

As an example, look at how companies respond when a pro-athlete gets into trouble. They almost always - immediately - distance themselves from the person. These companies are protecting their brand and the value it has in the marketplace.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

re: child labor

At certain times and places in history it was/is desired that children and teenagers work to help support the family. It has been that way for thousands of years. Only in recent history and in the developed world has child and teenage labor been frowned upon. It's a cultural thing.

I am NOT supporting child labor just explaining it. Even today in the US it is acceptable and legal for a child to work on a family farm or business to a certain degree.

What is obviously unacceptable is abusive and exploitive labor situations for anyone, child, teen, or adult.


re: alcohol

There are things that frustrate every company. With companies like AB it is things like irresponsible use of their product and irresponsible disposal of their containers.

FIRST participants can lead by example in these areas. I have no problem with teams promoting responsibility. The '21' rule. I just don't equate alcohol with tobacco. When used as directed tobacco isn't good under ANY circumstance.


re: economics

Economics is the study of the allocation of resources. That can be time/money/labor, etc. The build season is about economics. there isn't enough time and money and talent and labor to build the perfect robot.

Think about this. Does the government 'pay' or give economic incentive for people to pollute?

Irresponsible beer drinkers drive around and throw containers out the window polluting the roadside because they do not want to pay the fine for having an open container.

Irresponsible people dispose of trash illegally by dumping in the nice woods and other places because they have to pay someone to take their trash.

What if things were turned around ? What if the trash dump paid you for everything you took there.

I had to put this out there because I have thought a lot about corporate responsibility as it relates to the alcohol companies and I can to the conclusion the government gives people 'incentive' to pollute.

What the government really needs to do is punish bad behavior, like pollution and drunk driving, etc.

That was another nickels worth.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I went to college for free because it was endowed with several hundred million dollars that came largely from bullets and munition sales. The Nobel Prize was started with dynamite money. "Bad" money can be put to "good" uses.

I believe that all companies should be allowed to sponsor FIRST, so long as they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. I hope that we do not end up being a rag with which dirty companies wipe their image clean.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I don't want to pick on AB specifically, especially since I am more familiar with the advertising of Labatts and Molsons (from what I've seen, it isn't that much different) it is only under some external pressure that beer companies have started "responsible use" campaigns. I can't see any beer company executive reporting to the board, "Good news! We've managed to reduce underage and binge drinking AND our profits!" Generally what frustrates companies the most is losing money*.


For cans and bottles in BC... you are! And it works, really, really well. I cannot believe that there are still some places in North America that don't have programs like this in place. Mind you, government here had to shove it down the throats of many beverage companies... perhaps brewers aren't as "frustrated" by the improper disposal of their containers as one might hope...

But back to the bigger issue of the thread, I think these questions have to be weighed on a case-by-case basis, with the number one criteria being "is it good for the kids on the team(s)?"

Jason

*and well it should... a company that doesn't make money won't be a company for long.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I would just like to add one thought.
Ideally, FIRST teams work to develop partnerships with their sponsors. From these partnerships may come internships for the students, future employment opportunities, an exchange of support and talent.

This thread is talking a lot about the impact of branding, money, reputation, history of the sponsor/potential sponsor. It is also good to think about what the FIRST team(s) and the sponsor(s) can achieve working together.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

And are there any negative consequances in having an x-Firster working as a Mecahnical Engineer for Marlboro of Smirnoff? On he contrary, having a Firster there might bring some sort of a change to the companies face, but even if that does not happen, First has produced an Engineer out of this partnership, which is what FIRST is all about, isn't it?

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Setting aside spelling and grammar issues for a moment...no, I don't believe there's anything inherently negative about working for such a company.

Focusing on spelling and grammar issues for the next moment, I believe you meant to write consequences, ex-Firsters, Mechanical, and or. I'm not usually a stickler for correctness, but that question had an unusually high density of typographical errors.
FIRST is not about churning out engineers for sponsoring companies to hire. It's about promoting a culture where engineering is celebrated, one where science and technology get the same recognition as athletics and entertainment. Within our community we already have engineers and scientists as celebrities. FIRST is all about extending that to the rest of the world.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Yea well, sorry =] English isnt my primary langauge...
About the engineer, i was talking about an example of a person that without First would have never become an engineer, and that FIRST, and the partnership is what made him follow that path.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

So lets but Marlboro and Smirnoff on the line. They are owned by Atria and Diageo respectively, so technically if you got sponsored by either company there are 'kid friendly' internships that they can give you. Instead of working with engineers that design around the production of cigarettes, they can instead let you work with engineers that design around the production of macaroni or [insert Kraft product here]. And although I am unaware of any non-alcoholic production in the Diageo company, there probably is something they do besides alcohol even if it is a community oriented project.

What I'm saying is that there IS a way to work with these companies that we are inappropriately calling "bad" to help spread the goals of FIRST: to inspire people to pursue careers in science, engineering, and high technology.

Pavan.


.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Not a perfect example but working with engineers to build a water purifying facility seems perfectly acceptable even if the water is later to be used in alcoholic drinks.

http://www.diageo.com/en-row/NewsAnd...rnoff+Co.ht m

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

These are a couple of things that come to mind when thinking about recruiting and outreach.

Our team actively recruits from some of the middle school programs. We also do outreach/demos to young children all over the Austin area. The parents are always there and always full of questions. One of the questions that I am asked is who are some of our sponsors. I also keep in mind that the high school students who are part of the recruitment and the demonstrations are there representing their team, their school, themselves, and FIRST. I am always happy to talk to the parents about our program and about our sponsors. It is always a goal of mine to discuss the partnerships and the future of these students in the areas of science and technology. It would be difficult to put a spin on some of the companies mentioned, simply because the target group of FIRST is children/teenagers, introducing them to the fields of science, engineering, technology.

Another thing that I think about is the branding that teams do in partnership with their sponsors. X-Cats comes to mind very quickly when I think of their partnership with Xerox. If companies that promote and market products that are not suitable for children/teenagers are used in partnership, and knowing how fun and clever these teams are - what could soon evolve as names for the teams? What image would that project?

Other partnerships that I would like to see continue to develop are with the schools/education systems, helping support FIRST teams with money, shops, teachers funded with stipends, equipment. That is the direction that I appreciate seeing FIRST moving in.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Businesses are often criticized for doing something because of external pressure instead of some sort of lofty internal motivations.

Environmental laws and bottle deposit laws allow companies to legitimately pursue useful goals and maintain that level playing field, as an example.

Don't misunderstand me. Motivations are important. But it is important that companies have a chance to compete on a level playing field. It really isn't economically feasible for a company to do something that puts them at a significant disadvantage relative to their competition.

Market forces dictate corporate AND personal behavior and generally trumps altruistic behavior.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Wow. There are a lot of very thought-provoking posts on this thread, which in itself is very hard to make a decision on.

However, here are some of my thoughts:

A team should ultimately be the one responsible for who they want as their sponsors. If a team does not mind having an acohol or tobacco-related sponsor on their side, more power to them. People come from all different places and backgrounds, and therefor their opinions on which sponsors are "right" and which sponsors are "wrong" are also different. In my own opinion, I am against any form of underage drinking and/or tobacco use, so I probably wouldn't want a sponsor from one of these industries. Of course, this does not mean that because a team could be sponsored by one of these industries, the students are all going to go pick up a six pack and smoke twenty cigarettes, either. It's just my personal opinion that it is better to steer clear from such influences all together.

However, I know that there are many other people who would say differently, and feel completely okay with being sponsored by such companies. Like I said before, the outcome of whether or not we should allow them to sponsor should vary from team to team, depending on their personal preferences.

I hope that made sense and that I wasn't just babbling! :)

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I'm not in favor of tobacco, at any age.

But the alcohol thing - Given the problems with underage and binge drinking by people, I think FIRST students could be a positive influence as role models by not partaking of alcohol when they are underage and becoming responsible if they choose to partake when they become adults.

Culture has been changed regarding tobacco.

Culture is changing regarding science, technology and engineering.

Culture needs to be and could change regarding alcohol.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

the problem with using child labor is most times it is legally done. It is not illegal by U.S. law to have products made elsewhere. Wherever elsewhere is, it is usually legal to use children for labor AND pay them low wages.

that is why child labor is so hard to fight. We can't prosecute U.S. companies for their counterparts in other countries, and we can't really get those countries to outlaw child labor.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

When Rentschler Field opened in East Hartford, RAGE was given the opportunity to fundraise by working concession stands. We have been working at their beer concession stands for most every UConn football game, World cup game and concert since then. The team earns a good portion of our fundraising this way.
As soon as the team started doing this, we set up a few rules to determine who can work the concessions. First, students are not allowed to work them, only parents and adult mentors. Second, you must be over 21 to work.
As long as the money has no strings, I have no issue with where it comes from. I also wouldn't mind seeing robots with brewery sponsors on them. After all, how many kids do you see wearing a #8 Budweiser hat or shirt? I bet more kids watch Nascar than FIRST.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I find it somewhat ironic that, while reading this thread, I see a "Coors 21 means 21" commercial, stating that teens are half as likely to drink if they have at least 5 caring adults whom they come into contact with regularly. 5 caring adults...FIRST mentors, maybe?

I just wanted to add my $0.02 after seeing that commercial. If a company such as Coors were to approach me personally to inquire about a sponsorship of my team in particular, I would most definately consider it if they were willing to make the focus of the partnership on the "21 means 21" campaign. So instead of saying "We're sponsored by Coors" we could say "We're sponsored by Coors' '21 means 21' campaign." I personally feel that compromise would help eliminate the negative connotations that may be a concern for a team sponsored by such a company, and it also seems to fall in line very nicely with what Coors appears to be advocating.

In fact, it would make my esteem for Coors go up significantly if they were to sponsor something like FIRST. I always find myself raising my eyebrows at any such prevention program; sponsoring a program like FIRST, with its high incidence of student-adult contact in a high-impact environment, would be, to me, a case of Coors quite literally putting its money where its mouth is.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

If you simplify things down to the 2 key components of FIRST's mission statement, you could probably come to some conclusion like this while avoiding 80-line posts in this thread:

To change the culture of the nation to sci/tech via execution and example, you need major sponsors who have a large hand in being able to both a.) change their own corporate culture and b.) show value in sci/tech. It's really quite simple. FIRST's largest sponsors are (go figure!) the epitome of these two qualities. Usually the "shady" (defined by OP & relevant posts thereafter) companies lack one or the other.

Xerox is a prime example that can be publicly researched -- early 2001-2003 business culture change + their sometimes-unnoticed contributions to the basis of many technologies.

Culture change is best done via execution-style leadership which Dean does every year during the FIRST season -- perhaps his only lacking in this area is that there's nothing to do over the summer & early Fall except that which the teams do themselves. Hence the birth of the Chairman's Award.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Uugg, apologies to all for the 80 line posts. I get carried away.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

It should be remembered that in some states it is illegal for alcohol or tobacco productions and/or logos to be displayed on school proporties or at school activities.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Don't sweat it too much. You had something to say that was worth voicing your opinion about. Besides, we're all here to listen to what each other have to say. So no worries! :)

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Okay, I can live with that. But is changing your team's colors a sign of respect for your sponsor? I can bet that many teams here wouldn't mind changing some colors for a large some of money especially since many alcohol and tobacco have different flavors and stuff with different colored themes that you could choose from.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I honestly don't think that a good sponsor would expect a team to changes its colors or attach the team brand so closely to the company brand.

It is far more important to the sponsor that the team represents itself well and promotes a good clean positive image and promotes the causes of education and such.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

That's not the point he's making.... Pavan is saying that many teams would be willing to change color for a large sum of money.... I hear far too often about teams that barely squek by; I'm sure they'd love that extra 5-10k (maybe even more) that buys more equipment, better parts, or additional events.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I think the rest of the point is that there is an alternative to using a logo to recognize a sponsor; if the logo is for some reason offensive, the team can simply use highly recognizable colors from the sponsor to achieve the same recognition. It isn't a case of a sponsor requesting something; it's more a case of a compromise for a questionable logo and eliminating one concern of "questionable" sponsors.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

If you take a quick look at the sponsors here in CD, you will see their logos used in the website.

Sponsor support/partnership is reflected in the team websites, their promotional materials, oftentimes in their giveaways and clothing, and it doesn't stop there.

It is what it is no matter how you color it or change it. That is part of dealing with the marketing/promoting of your partnership with your sponsors and gaining everyone's approval to do so.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Something that just came to mind.

Activities that Anheuser Busch sponsors that are targeted toward youth programs are typically branded as Anheuser Busch, not Budweiser or any of it's brewing related brands.

Using the A-B logo is a way for them to support the community without the risk of promoting alcohol to youth. Remember they also have the entertainment group (and other groups) and have a lot of familiarity with family oriented events.

I would imagine that many people, especially youth are nowhere as familiar with the A-B eagle as they might be with other A-B corporate symbols.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Fabulous discussion ... my .02:
1. Local/team/school rules and ordinances often apply and it's pretty clear as to what can and cannot be done.
2. Personally, otherwise, what would guide my decisions would be the "mirror" test. Can I look myself in the eye? Am I promoting the right things to the students and others around my team? Have I compromised my beliefs and values in exchange for sponsorship money?
3. I do find it a very interesting conversation that FIRST might be a context in which teams can help the business to act in a more socially responsible manner as we look toward igniting a broader social change. However, this can be a slippery slope and we all must be highly aware of the projected image we are casting toward our communities - intended or not.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Indeed this is a great discussion.

There are really 2 dramatically different situations present:

1. Sponsors to the FIRST organization
2. Sponsors to FIRST teams

I believe that FIRST as an organization (the 501c3 based out of Manchester) has been selective regarding sponsors and still needs to be. Even receiving donated materials and services comes under scrutiny and vendors need to be held to a certain standard that suits FIRST's needs.

FIRST teams have more freedom to choose who their sponsors are, of course. Teams need to set their own criteria for sponsorship and have the ability to have a wider standard than what FIRST-Manchester has to deal with.

Here's a hypothetical situation...

An alchohol-brewing company approaches FIRST-Manchester with sponsorship resources. What does FIRST do? Currently, most likely, they respecfully decline. They *could* suggest to the company that they sponsor a team in their area, while promoting their "drink responsibly" campaign. This way, the relationship is between the team and the company, and not FIRST as a whole and the company. This relationship could be a litmus test to see how a positive relationship could come about.

I have no idea if this has happened before, but am only offering an idea if it would.

Andy B.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

This was the point I was trying to make, but it sounds much better and way more clear!

FIRST as a whole has a responsibility as to who they chose to sponsor the program. Whoever they chose will (in part) be representing FIRST. This makes it harder to allow acohol, tobacco, or other related companies to majorly sponsor FIRST.

However, in the case of team sponsorship, each team should have its own set of rules regarding sponsorship and what that particular team believes to be an okay sponsor to have. The factors that constitute an good sponsor to have will definitely vary from team to team, region to region, etc.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

So why can FIRST have a regional in "Sin City" ???

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

That is easy to answer. It could be argued that 'sin city' isn't really any more sinful than any other major (or minor) city.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Is it not perception we are discussing here? It's all in how we feel about it.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Yep, I hear ya John and you have a real point, but doesn't it also make sense that students in all places, especially a place dubbed "Sin City", deserve to have this very different experience in their lives? If word gets out in a place like Vegas about FIRST, might it also inspire some of the adults to act differently?

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Might having a brewery sponsoring a FIRST team inspire them to act more responsibly with regard to the teenagers who inevitably illegally consume their product?

It seems to me that a balance is desirable between maintaining and protecting the image and public perception of FIRST (or an individual team) and potentially impacting a company's image or policies through contact with FIRST.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

This thread is provoking thought in at least 3 different directions for me right now.

1. Mr. Kressly's comment about inspiring adults (and others) to act differently.
That made me think of qualities that FIRSTers would like to encourage. What would those be? To help bring about change from the inside out - working with a potential sponsor/working within a community - what change would we encourage?

2. If a regional can occur in Las Vegas, can/do teams take advantage of the options available as far as fundraising in that area that might not be available in other places and what would those options be? That ties into obtaining sponsors and developing/promoting those relationships that would be found in Vegas or areas similar.

3. With the continual development of technology and scientific discoveries in this world of cause and effect - self responsibility/accountability will increase in importance, not diminish. We've discussed the products of the potential sponsors. A-B can promote the 21 campaign but each person has to be accountable for the decision regarding that. They (A-B) make and sell a product. That is their business.


Edit: I'm adding this in here above Alivia's post (#54). It's from the FIRST website, highlighting 3 of the FIRST sponsors and what some of their contributions to the FIRST mission are/have been:
http://www.usfirst.org/involved/spon...nt.aspx?id=210

This is the sponsor FAQ in the FIRST website:
http://www.usfirst.org/involved/spon...nt.aspx?id=214

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

This thread surely does create a lot of things to think about and take into consideration!

Does anyone think that there should be mandated rules as to who can sponsor and who should not be able to sponsor? (Either for FIRST as a whole, or individual teams, or both?) Why or why not?

[Example: FIRST Sponsor Rule #1: No team is allowed to be sponsored by an alcohol-related distributor.]
*keep in mind that this was just an example, not how I actually feel*

:)

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Personally, I dont think FIRST should limit who can sponsor teams. If a company wishes to sponsor a team I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to. It is not like we are dealing with pharmaceutical companies donating to politicians. I do not see any anything wrong with alcohol or any other company supporting a team as long as it does not promote illegal activities such as underage drinking.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

With only one or two exceptions it would be impossible to create a 'forbidden sponsor' list. Sort of like banning speech.

It is possible to build a negative image of nearly any legal sponsor on the planet. That sounds a little far fetched but I can list a many companies and products that has a list of enemies. Industrial food grid ? Bottled water ? The automobile ? Medicine ? Wood products ? You name it there is an anti-advocacy group.

The forbidden list - illegal activities - drug cartels, etc. Just like in contract law.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Another question that must be asked is; Does any Company actually want there product used illegally?

If you look at most (if not all) alcohol ads they say "please consume responsibly. Many of the negative actions in relation to alcohol are because of the consumer not the producer. The producer recomends how to use the product and who should use it but in the end it is the decision of the consumer.

And what about companies like Johnson and Johnson or BMS who make medication. These medicines when used by the wrong people can be just as deadly as Alcohol or Tabacco. Just because the market it with good intentions makes them different.

In my opinion Money is Money regardless of where it comes from if it is given to a good program with good intentions. First should not decline a companies offer to sponser First but instead they should control the usage of logos. IE; If Budweiser want to sponser First they must use a logo that discourages drinking rather than incouraging it.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I definitely think that's a valid point. I don't think people would be against having A-B or any other industry for that matter sponsor a team or FIRST if the logo they used was trying to convey the message that illegal activities are not cool. And that people should (forgive this cliche, but I really think it's true, especially in the FIRST program) "stay above the influence"!
:)

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

So, is there anyway to get an official FIRST response on this issue?



It seems like those pages aren't up to date. The page of sponsors examples mentions IFI as an organiztion that leaded and supported the design and the develpment of the Vex platform, and the FVC.
We now know that FIRST for some reason decided to change it into FTC, and no longer work with IFI.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

If you are looking for a highly specific ruling I doubt you would get it. Life is like that. You could in theory make the ruling so narrow that all team members look alike, all teams look alike, all sponsors look alike. No innovation, one dimensional. I think the issues are too broad and complex.

I have a very old large farm. There are areas where families used to live a long time ago. If I dig up the site there are very few remains. A few buttons, nails, or bricks. Back in that day manufactured goods were very scarce. Most man made items were organic and returned to the earth. On other areas of the farm are more modern homesites. There are materials that will be here a long long time if not recycled. Most items do not return to the earth. Not robots, nor HDTVs, nor carburetors, nor anything else. Our view of the world is so normalized to what we see today, we can't see yesterday or tomorrow.

The world is complex and the answers impure. If we draw too narrow a definition of the type of companies and sponsors we will work with, then we will be like Gilligan, on a deserted island, no phone ,no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury.

ramble, ramble

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I have no problem with a regional in Vegas. As a team we're looking to go there this year.
The point I was trying to make was that if A-B is not a good sponsor for this age group because of what they are known for, why is Las Vegas OK because it's known for activities not for this age group.

Sponsor money is sponsor money. I know how hard it is to raise enough money for a team. If money is offered without strings, then why not take it? These kids are smart enough to understand the perceptions.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Technically if you asked on the FIRST Q&A's about specific questions they would most likely say yes or no. The only thing is, that if FIRST decides to call you an idiot for asking the question, you may be an example in the future and you could be taking the reputation of your team down with you since you have to post as your "FRC0000" user name. Otherwise I would email them and get a direct response.

Also this brings up something else. If lets say if a rookie team with a NASA sponsorship found a wealthy sponsor like A-B, what would NASA's reaction to working with the "bad guy" [as FIRST makes them out to be], be and could that potentially jeopardizes the relationship between FIRST teams and NASA and/or any other type of federal or government funding??

I just don't see the government taking too well to working with the people who make booze...


Pavan.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Taking issue with two concepts here:

Wealthy - How do you define wealthy? a) they have a lot of money relative to what is in my pocket. b) they have a lot of money relative to their market capitalization c) they have a lot of money relative sales. For most people it is (a) because they don't really understand (b) or (c). A-B isn't 'wealthy' but they perform well against (b) and (c)

Evil - How do you define evil? - Characterizing A-B as the "bad guy" isn't fair or accurate. What is evil is the culture that celebrates misuse of their products.

Some people, too many people characterize pharmaceutical/medical and oil companies as being evil because of wealth test (a) above. Misuse of their products is rampant also.

If I remember all this correctly when the team goes through the NASA grant process the teams sponsors are listed along with a lot of other information. NASA has the right at that time to refuse the grant and they can refuse grants in follow up years for many reasons. The grant process is done on a team by team basis and the issues are dealt with as such.

Of course you are talking to mr. unique here. I'm am probably the ONLY person in the state that wears a helmet and gloves when riding my ATV and a life preserver when cruising in my boat. A lot of these people misuse these product, often in combination with misuse of alcohol. And then when things go bad it is "someone else's fault", I think not!

If I remember right the sponsors are listed on the NASA grant application. NASA uses many factors to determine making the grant and have the right to not fund the applicant. The team has to go through a followup application process each year it receives a grant. NASA can refuse at any time. The grant process is on a team by team application basis and doesn't reflect on FIRST in general.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I agree with you, but I believe, when discussing how society celebrates the misuse of innately neutral products like alcohol, it must also be noted that society tends to shift the blame to anything but itself at all cost. Thus the product is often blamed for the stupidity of the user. In this case, alcohol and the alcohol industry get the brunt of the blame for the stupidity shown by people who misuse it.

This line of thought piques my interest. FIRST is, in quite a large part, about changing the culture, correct? Changing the culture's perspective on how "okay" it is to perform acts of stupidity - often fatal stupidity - doesn't, in my view, seem too far off from what FIRST already does.

(**I'm not saying FIRST should change its mission and go after the image of alcohol in our society. I'm merely pointing out what I see as another way in which society needs to change, and how it (kinda sorta) parallels the mission of FIRST.**)

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

If you want to think along that line a little further - go into the educational aspect of things and see where math, science, and technology fit on the ladder of importance. It doesn't take long to watch a few commercials and get an idea of how important marketing is when trying to attract attention to a product.

This society places a lot of emphasis on marketing products to people who enjoy sports, entertainment, travel. FIRST Robotics teams compete, they entertain, and travel is a given. This coming year and in the future, more wonderful, enticing locations will invite teams and fans to visit and enjoy. The key to marketing FIRST teams is that FIRST Robotics is culture changing. Promoting the mission of FIRST in the areas of math, science, and technology in our society today and into our future is the central theme. There is a good reason the President's Circle was created. Seeking sponsorship with potential sponsors and introducing the vision of FIRST, the mission of FIRST is important. Teams that are scraping by, pulling together funding to build a robot much less travel, may just think about the money but there is always that golden opportunity to take it one step further. To promote the mission of FIRST and to ask the sponsor to work in partnership in getting the word out. I may be wrong, but I think that FIRST keeps some of this in mind when they seek sponsorship for FIRST.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

re: alcohol and tobacco

Well, I think alcohol and tobacco is really a different thing although they are both addictive. We live in a free world so I don't think it's a good idea that they have to be regulated. in fact, I think we should give people more freedom.

re:
about Israel

I like the mossad. Wars? It's a basic human stupidity. Have you seen Adam Sandler in ZOHAN? Boy! that is my favorite movie!


-----------------------
Think about the environment: Vancouver Electronic Recycling

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Interesting "old thread returns to life".

An important missing point here is that many of the "teams" are school sponsored / organized. Schools and school systems have rules about sponsorships and many (most) would prohibit any company associated with alcohol & tobacco. For some potential sponsor companies, the final decision would be made from the school system administration.

Many of these 'questionable' companies are great companies that are good corporate citizens and fine for mainstream communities, but just not a company that school systems want associated with 14 - 18 year olds.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

While it makes sense what you are saying, I don't think the best way to punish a corporation with faulty ethics is to deny sponsorship. In fact accepting their sponsorship is a form of healing them by giving them an opportunity to give back.

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

I would have to say that GP is a measurement that can only apply to yourself. To apply it to another is unfair to that person/group. I would like to submit as an example a war, particularly the Crusades. Both sides felt they were acting for the best, so which side was GP and which side wasn't? Apply this to any modern day conflict. In Iraq is America being GP? GP can only be judged by the party themselves.

As far as sponsoring companies being companies that have a negative public image goes I have a few quick thoughts. Basically the issue is public image, a tobacco company has a pretty awful public image for example. This raises the question, do they deserve that image? They sell a product that is lawful and turn a profit doing it. How are they any different than Mom and Pop's Grocery down on the corner? Obviously this company wants to help with the mission of FIRST. Why should we tell them they can't?

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

If our teams were sponsored by Alcohol and Tobacco companies I think there would be a major back lash.

When a freight company started sponsoring a primary school in the 1990's , it caused a bit of a discussion but it seems to have worked well for the school.

Under NZ law tobacco companies are banned from sponsoring sporting events. I am not sure if this would apply to robots? But I can't see anyone signing up for a tobacco sponsorship.

I also doubt anyone would take an alcohol sponsorship either.

On the subject of alcohol sponsorship they have just released a survey that shows members of sports teams sponsored by alcohol companies tend to drink more then non-sponsored team members.

Here's a link to the newspaper article.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10543439

This topic is quite interesting because it also brings up the issue of sponsorship of companies who provide parts for millitary applications.

This has caused some debates about where government retirement funds should be invested.

Even companies like Coca Cola have voluntarily withdrawn carbonated sugar drinks from sale at schools.

In the end there is probably a person who would object to nearly every sponsor company on some grounds. It's just a matter of picking sponsors people dislike the least.;)


Holding sponsors to the same standard as teams would be hard.
I think it would be more important that if these firms provide mentors then they need to work to GP with the teams.

In the end it's the adults who decide who sponsors a team and have to make these decisions. It reminds me of the movie about a little league baseball team " ??? bears" and their uniforms were sponsored by the "Boom Boom room".

An intersting question for teams would be "are there any taking sponsorship from companies now in tight financial times that they wouldn't have when money was more available?"

Re: Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?
 

Here's a couple of thoughts:

I saw a wonderful trailer this past fall on the University of Texas campus where I work. It belonged to a robotics group and it was plastered with decals from sponsors. I was so impressed with the sponsors that I made a mental note to contact the group and ask about it. The logos belonged to corporations from the technology industry.

If the trailer had been plastered with decals from places that didn't represent futures that I, personally, could encourage young people to look into - then it would not have stopped me in my tracks. I would have kept walking.

If FIRST Robotics competitions were to want to pattern themselves after big events that attract crowds and audiences that aren't necessarily placing education as a priority, then a logo on a robot or banner wouldn't really matter as much. (Rodeos, tractor pulls, wrestling events all have beer sponsors.) That's one way to look at it. Schools draw the line in who can sponsor teams. Some teams, themselves, draw the line in what logos they would like partnered with their team name/reputation.

The teams should be prepared to stand by/stand up for their sponsors. An example: some teams have generous sponsor partnerships with fast food places. When talking about those sponsors to people, they can talk about the importance of keeping the teams fed during build and how generous the sponsor was... easy tie-in. One team talked to me a couple of years back about how a local funeral home was a sponsor. The team was very appreciative and was able to explain why that sponsor was so important to their build/expenses. And, the sponsor was delighted to be able to support students who were interested in science and technology.. in their futures. (Some funeral homes do a lot a business because of gang activity, seeing so many young people's lives wasted.) -

Times are hard and generosity is nothing to sneer at but at the same time, it is wise to look at all the different aspects of obtaining and working with sponsors as partners or potential partners.

Regarding the Gracious Professionalism aspect. It will be impossible to limit the spread of Gracious Professionalism - to contain it or control it. I agree that it is an internal measuring stick but I also think it is more than that. One example: watching the teams on the field and in the pit - is available to the public. The teams who have chosen to understand, implement, and display Gracious Professionalism, set a standard for others to follow. Part of that is sharing the concept with companies, potential sponsors, visiting guests, including politicians and school administrators. If the concept is not shared or displayed, then are the goals of FIRST being met? It isn't loud or showy but it does garner attention. Well deserved attention and also, respect.