Vote for our @sxsw Panel with @Boeing and @NIglobal! Some of the world’s biggest corporations are partnering with nonprofits to capture new audiences in authentic, meaningful ways. We want to share our experiences. SXSW PanelPicker® (press “Sign-In” to start) #sxsw#npo
The link – SXSW PanelPicker® – describes a proposed panel at the SXSW conference, organized by Brooke Blew, Sr. Manager, Marketing & Strategic Initiatives that purports that “traditional brands should be leveraging nonprofits, which are seen by consumers as more trustworthy and attract significantly higher engagement rates than most corporate brands.”
FIRST is trading on its good reputation and the goodwill of its participants to sell itself (and to teach other non-profit organizations how sell themselves) to corporate sponsors in return for social media impressions and clicks.
I am not naive enough to believe that corporate sponsorship of FIRST has always been wholly altruistic – I know that’s not true. However, I cannot think of a time in my twenty years of participation when FIRST HQ has so brazenly acknowledged that it views those involved in its programs as a commodity it can trade for dollars.
I think this is utterly reprehensible. I am tremendously disappointed in FIRST leadership today.
Editing to add:
The referenced tweet was deleted sometime on the afternoon of 2018-8-22.
But FIRST will reinvest that new revenue to directly support teams, right?
Right?
Here is the model: build a base of young people -> get them to follow all of your social media accounts -> slowly introduce product placements into social media posts.
Of course, right after they rent out a new arena for each day of Worlds and set up a 10 camera system for all events, hooked up to the world’s most sophisticated random number generator.
Nothing in this panel really surprises me but the lack of awareness of the poor optics of essentially selling FIRST participant mind space as a product towards corporations is quite staggering. Not something I’d expect from marketing professionals.
The corporate sponsorship and partnership component is actually something I quite like about FIRST. It brings a lot of legitimacy and learning opportunities to the program but I believe there is a line that stuff like this starts to encroach on.
I wish FIRST in general would treat us more as consumers rather than a product.
There is something else distasteful here that folks haven’t touched on. Nonprofits are traditionally more trusted exactly because they are nonprofit. However nonprofits can keep their donor lists secret and anonymous. That’s why they are abused so horribly by political groups and corporations.
Some adult language, but this shows the problems with it and highlights some recent abuses.
This is something FIRST should be staying away from. Very disappointing.
If you support FIRST and want to see them grow so they can impact more youth around the world you should be championing this, not tearing them down.
In this scenario where companies financially support FIRST to attract talent (FIRSTers) to their companies who is being negatively impacted?
FIRST is getting financial support which it can use to grow its programs, the companies are getting more brand awareness from us, and we as FIRSTers get to benefit from the financial support FIRST is receiving and presumably if you like FIRST you be more inclined to support companies that support FIRST.
The panel topic is discussing the corporate sponsorship dynamic as it already exists today just in a more open and honest way then FIRST typically lets on. If anything this peek into how FIRST sells itself to companies could be an opportunity for teams out there to better learn how they can sell themselves for sponsorship.
I don’t understand how you could equate what FIRST is doing to astroturfing. The whole premise of this panel topic is based on companies supporting FIRST to spread their name not hide it.
It might be helpful to this discussion to get more specific. Are there particular examples of FIRST using its name to boost sponsors that people find objectionable?
Or are folks uncomfortable with sponsorship being a calculated decision by corporations as a quid pro quo?
I believe very little of it has been altruistic. Ever. That’s a good thing. If FIRST relied on altruism instead of returning value for the corporate “investment”, I imagine they would see much less support from business and industry.
Market Summary > Facebook, Inc. Common Stock
NASDAQ: FB
173.64 USD +1.02 (0.59%)
Poor example? FB started with ads for revenue and now is purging “fake news” and groups that they feel abuse their terms.
Since most of us work with FRC and see teens/young adults, many of whom are preparing to go off to college, have jobs, etc., it may be hard to see corporate advertising tied to FIRST as a “bad” thing. Especially when the two corporate entities taking part in the panel are Boeing and NI.
But remember, FIRST also has FLL Jr… 6-10 year old kids. Most companies want to build brand loyalty as early as possible. An educational organization running a panel stating “You can get at consumers real easy if you go through non-profits!” while also trying to get their programs into every school in the US is a *little *unsettling.
I’m more depressed that this is what SXSW has become. :rolleyes:
Of course the companies that sponsor FIRST and FIRST teams see this as an investment. I don’t think FIRST or anyone has ever been coy about that. Not sure what about this is any more egregious that the countless corporate sponsors who have been given a microphone at FIRST events to pitch their companies to the student’s in attendance.
This isn’t a particularly new strategy. Tech companies have been fighitng that battle for quite some time. Apple was doing it with school computer donations in the 90s. Microsoft was doing it with Microsoft Office in tech & typing classes in the 2000s. Google is doing it now with their suite of productivity products now. There’s a whole industry built around educational apps now.
For me, the meaningful difference has always been that I’ve presumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it was FIRST’s corporate sponsors who were performing the calculus that determined how many eyeballs would see their logos and how many ears would hear their corporate VPs speak; not that it was FIRST itself suggesting that its non-profit status made it a more effective avenue for advertising dollars than others.
FIRST should be selling its mission. If a potential sponsor wants to learn about reach – about how many students, parents, volunteers, companies, etc. are involved in FIRST programs day to day – that’s a reasonable question to ask and I wouldn’t object to FIRST sharing that information. If, with that, the potential sponsor decides that a contribution is a worthwhile investment solely on the basis of its ROI as an advertising spend, that’s disappointing but reasonable. They don’t have to believe in the mission, frankly.
But when it’s FIRST itself that doesn’t seem to care about the mission – and I think saying “people trust us and your brand can leverage that trust” demonstrates clearly that they don’t – it seems to me that the organization is now morally bankrupt.
What about this makes you think that FIRST doesn’t care about their core mission?
What is mutually exclusive about FIRST stressing to sponsors that they can get something out of their relationship with FIRST and FIRST caring about changing the culture?
I think someone who cares about their mission solicits support on the strength of that mission. They say, “We’re trying to change the world for the better. Here’s why. You should help us because it’s the right thing to do.” They might even say, “Your support would raise your standing among some people.” The focus remains on the mission.
This panel – and what FIRST is seemingly doing here – is not that. Instead, it says to for-profit corporations, “Did you know that aligning yourself with non-profits can leverage the trusting relationship they have with their supporters to increase brand awareness and bolster your position in the marketplace?” The focus is not on the non-profit’s mission, but on using the good will they’ve developed as a result of that mission to raise a brand’s esteem among a set of people. It’s cynical at best and, I think, a pretty significant abuse of that trust.
So you think that caring about your mission means you cannot employ any other tactics to elicit support for your organization? It means you cannot speak to multiple different audiences to stress how your organization can build a mutually beneficial relationship with that audience?