Should sponsors be held the same standards as teams?

[JohnBoucher]

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?

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.

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by Tottanka

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

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.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Pavan

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??Pavan.

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.

[StephLee]

Originally Posted by ebarker

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.

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.**)

[JaneYoung]

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.

[josephelite]

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

[Chris Fultz]

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.

[Woody1458]

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.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Madison

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?

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?

[BrentJ]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

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.

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?"

[JaneYoung]

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.