Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?

[Andy Baker]

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.

[Alivia]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

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.

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.

[JohnBoucher]

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

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

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

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.

[JohnBoucher]

Originally Posted by ebarker

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.

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

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

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

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?

[StephLee]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

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?

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.

[JaneYoung]

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

[Alivia]

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*

[chris31]

Originally Posted by Alivia

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*

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.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Alivia

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?

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.

[thefro526]

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.

[Alivia]

Originally Posted by thefro526

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.

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"!

[Tottanka]

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

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

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

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.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

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

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