Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?

[ebarker]

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.

[Tottanka]

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.

[Chris Fultz]

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.

[ebarker]

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.

[EricVanWyk]

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.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by ebarker

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.

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*.

Originally Posted by ebarker

re: economics

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

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.

[JaneYoung]

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.

[Tottanka]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

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.

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?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

And are there any negative consequances in having an x-Firster working as a Mecahnical Engineer for Marlboro of Smirnoff?

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.

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?

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.

[Tottanka]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

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.

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.

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

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.

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.


.

[chris31]

Originally Posted by Pavan

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.


.

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

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

And are there any negative consequances in having an x-Firster working as a Mecahnical Engineer for Marlboro of Smirnoff?

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.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

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*.

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.

[Alivia]

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!