Valentine's Day

Billshrink

So maybe I'm a few months late to talk about this topic, but it definitely involves corporations.  Valentines Day: The ultimate corporate holiday.  Why is it that America feels like they need a holiday to say "I love you" to their loved ones? Why do they think they need to spend a ton of money on one day? Do people really think the more money spent on them on Valentines Day means the more someone loves you? It doesn't.  Now I'll admit, when the day comes around I want attention too. If I'm single, I wish I wasn't and if I'm not, I expect something good. That's the downfall. This corporate holiday has made us into greedy people who expect to be blown away this one day a year? Honestly, if someone really loves you they'll blow you away everyday.  They won't need Valentines Day to do it. According to Online Dating Magazine "15% of singles send flowers to themselves on Valentine’s Day". (Par. 2)  It's sad that it means SO much to women to get something on Valentine's Day that they go to lengths to spend money on themselves. Billshrink.com posted this graphic about Valentine's Day.Click on the caption below the picture to be taken directly to Billshrink.com and enlarge the photograph.  It has so many statistics that prove how much of a corporate holiday Valentine's Day really is.  Especially one particular quote near the bottom of the graphic that talks about how some taken people still don't enjoy Valentine's Day because they feel it is meaningless and they're under pressure to provide the perfect gift for their loved one.  That right there is the problem.  People shouldn't worry so much about what they're going to receive or give someone on Valentine's Day.  They should show their love everyday.  The following clip from the movie Valentine's Day shows two teenagers (played by Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner) who talk about how much they love each other.  All he got her for Valentines Day was a teddy bear and they're still so in love for two high school students as opposed to other people in the movie and in the real world.  People who expect diamonds and pearls and when they don't get it it just isn't enough. I'd say I wish we had Valentine's Day without all the corporate influence, but honestly, I think we're too past that.

Works Cited

"Valentine's Day Statistics." Online Dating News Blog - Online Dating Tips and Advice. Web. 

.Maybelline or Maybelying?

E Marinot

Maybelline cosmetics have been around since 1915 when they were just a small family run business. In 2002 Maybelline became the number one cosmetic brand in the world. (Maybelline par. 1 & 16)  It seems like that is a long time to  build up your business and become huge but honestly, I'm pretty impressed that they achieved that in such a short period of time.  But what have they done to climb their way to the top?  Maybelline claims that  "L’Oreal is a leader in developing alternative methods to animal testing with the ultimate goal of eliminating all animal testing completely. In 1989, L’Oreal voluntarily stopped using animal testing for the evaluation of its entire range of finished products." (Par. 3) Because L'Oreal owns Maybelline this quote implies that Maybelline also wouldn't partake in animal testing.  This claim couldn't be more wrong.  All over the internet are different websites saying that Maybelline does animal test.  For example, PETA has a huge list of companies that do animal testing and Maybelline is clearly on their list.  (Par. 1) And PETA isn't the only website with a list of companies that do animal testing. Google gives you a lot of hits if you search "Does Maybelline animal test?".  What gets me though is that Maybelline doesn't actually come out and say, "yes we animal test" or "no we don't".  They just imply that they don't do it anymore.  While it's bad to perform animal testing, it's worse to not answer if you do or not.  Maybelline is playing politics with their consumers and that isn't fair to us.  How are we supposed to know what the truth is? All I know is that if Maybelline does animal test, my opinion has changed on them.  I know if my dogs were ever taken from me to be tested on, or if I saw any animal being tested on I'd be outraged.  But what is completely outrageous to me, is how Maybelline doesn't even own up to what they're doing.  I'd be more inclined to buy products from a company who said they do animal test than one that implies that they don't when really they do.  Maybelline has made a poor decision when it comes to what they imply, especially because it is so easy to access proof that they animal test.  Major corporations who lie, or imply something that isn't the truth, is part of the reason they all have such a bad connotation.  Maybe that's how they got to the top so quickly??

Work Cited

"Companies That Do Test on Animals | PETA.org." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The Animal Rights Organization | PETA.org. Web.

"Maybelline Animal Testing Policy." Web. 

 "Our History." Maybelline New York. Web. 

The Tobacco Industry

According to thetruth.com, which is a website all about promoting the truth about tobacco and tobacco companies stated that, "a tobacco company once gave $125,000 worth of food to a charity, according to an estimate by The Wall Street Journal. Then, they spent well over $22 million telling people about it. I guess when you sell a deadly, addictive product, you need all the good PR you can get." (Fact 80 Truth) What does it say about Big Tobacco Corporations if they spend more money advertising their good deed than they actually did on the deed itself?
Big Tobacco companies are, in my personal opinion, the worst of all the corporations out there. I don't know of any other corporation that would treat the questions they were asked about their products the way Tobacco companies do. For example:

1. Truth.com Fact 108 --How do infants avoid secondhand smoke? "At some point they begin to crawl." Tobacco Executive, 1996. 
• Don't believe it? View the document
2. Truth.com Fact 87 --In 1997, a Big Tobacco executive once said, under oath, that he believed Gummy Bears were addictive like cigarettes. 
• Don't believe it? View the document 
3. Truth.com Fact 70 --In 1984, a tobacco company called younger adult smokers "replacement smokers." 
• Don't believe it? View the document

It's hard to believe that corporations would say these things, and not only that, but that they would actually write them down for other people to find.  Personally, I'm dumbfounded because of it.  And sadly, thetruth.com isn't the only place to find negative things about tobacco industries. Take the screenshot above for example. Of the five links listed when you search "tobacco corporations", the first, fourth, and fifth are all negative. "Trap millions into death", "lure for youth", "invasion of third world", these are all phrases that would make any normal corporation shake in their boots if it was written about things they were doing. Tobacco industries, they seem to embrace it and just keep doing it.
According to Corey Habbas, a journalist, tobacco companies find great importance in smokers that are under the legal age to buy tobacco. The way they see it is the younger they start, the more addicted they'll be. That way, when the older smokers die, the smoking population isn't gone because the younger ones have kept the tradition alive. (Par. 23)  This is just what the industry referred to as "replacement smokers" (thetruth.com)
Smoking advertisements always try to make tobacco look like, while it is unhealthy, it's still a good thing to do. Take, for example, this ad for Camel Cigarettes from the 1940s.

  

What is completely ridiculous about this is, aside from the fact it is doctors advertising smoking, is that there is a random beautiful woman at the end smoking. What was the point of that?! And if you pay attention he said "see how mild and good tasting a cigarette can be".  Now, not only are the advertising Camels but they're encouraging "cigarette[s]" as a whole.  Now, watch this commercial from thetruth, which is on the other end of the argument.

 

This definitely takes a different point of view, and probably had little to no effect on the tobacco company it was outside of.  Which is the worst thing in the world.  There are a lot of bad CEO s out there that realize they're in the wrong and they turn their companies around.  However, tobacco industries are so proud of what they do and they just keep doing it.  

And, just to conclude with a fact that will really make your skin crawl. 

Thetruth.com fact number 172. --

In 1971, when one tobacco executive was reminded that smoking can lead to underweight babies, he said,"Some women would prefer smaller babies."

Smaller babies? Really? For more information on the harm of tobacco, the wrong their companies are in and what you can do to help visit this link right here.

Habbas, Corey. "Tobacco Corporations Trap Millions into Death." MG | Indian Muslims Leading Newspaper | Alternative Media News Source from India. Web. 06 Mar. 2011. 

"Thetruth.com - Facts." Thetruth.com - Unsweetened Truth. Web. 06 Mar. 2011. 

Fast Food Corporations and Obesity

theimpulsivebuys on flickr

theimpulsivebuys on flickr

"Two thirds of Americans are now either overweight...or obese," (Par. 1) states Maia Szalavitz for MSN Health & Fitness.  TWO THIRDS. Is that not one of the scariest statistics you've ever seen? Two thirds of Americans. In November of 2002 the story broke of the two girls who were suing McDonald's because it made them overweight. According to the New York Times, these girls were angry because they were not provided the proper nutritional information to make better choices of what to eat. (Santora Par. 7) Now, I can't even imagine, what person in their right mind thinks that going to McDonald's and making healthy choices is going to be an easy task.  If you're looking for healthy choices then choose food that is healthy.  Make your own food, for instance, they have Lean Cuisine's in every grocery store in America.  Why were these girls saying that McDonald's made them fat because they didn't provide them with nutritional information? Honestly, how many teenage girls go into a fast food place and ask for nutritional information? As a teenage girl myself, I've known very few people to ever even care about knowing those things. Continuing on in the New York Times article, the lawyers representing the company said that everyone knows the consequences of eating food like they serve. The consequences on your dress size, on your health and how it will effect you if you continuously eat it over and over. (Santora Par. 9) It's unfathomable to think these two girls had no idea that eating McDonald's hamburgers and fries multiple times a day would have no impact on them. In my honest opinion, no one has any right to blame fast foot companies for obesity.  Everyone is making the conscious decision of what they're going to eat.  If children are obese, it's because their parents are choosing to neglect making them eat healthy.  If anyone else that has a mind of their own is obese, it's because they are choosing to eat fast food.  Fast food companies are choosing to  meet the demand of people wanting something fast and quick to eat.  People say they want healthier choices, but how healthy do you think something can be if it's ready when you get to the next drive thru window.  Subway has managed to make healthy choices a possibility and Taco Bell has a special menu for people trying to watch their weight, but every day people still blame everyone but themselves.  If you want healthy choices, make time to sit down and make the meal yourself if that is what it takes.  You can't sit there and say "oh well I'll make dinner tomorrow night because I was too busy tonight" because if you keep saying that you'll always be busy. Personally, I know a family who has three children and they're all under the age of 16 and are all involved in at least one athletic team.  These three children and their parents are ALWAYS on the go, and not one of them is obese.  It is possible to keep your children healthy.  Unfortunately, there will always be blame on the Fast Food companies and they'll continue to have to fight off law suits left and right. Hopefully, eventually, people will learn that they can make their own decisions.  What will it be? A Big Mac or grilled chicken breast salad?

Works Cited

SANTORA, MARC. "Teenagers' Suit Says McDonald's Made Them Obese - New York Times." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Web. 03 Mar. 2011.

Szalavitz, Maia. "Obesity in America 2010 - Page 1 - MSN Health - Health Topics." MSN Health: Health Articles & News – Fitness Tips & Guide. Web. 03 Mar. 2011.

Corporations and Causes

AP/Getty Images

If you walk down the street on any given day and interviewed random people, everyone would have something they strongly support.  It could be being pro-life/pro choice, it could be gay rights, it could be cancer research or possibly anything else you could think of.  Corporations, with their human rights, like to have different causes to support, to make them more like an average individual.  GAP supports AIDS research with their (RED) line.  If you walk into the GAP and "buy a (RED) product, 50% of their profit" goes towards AIDS research.  (Par. 1) TOM'S Shoes donates one pair of shoes to a needy child for every pair of shoes that you buy (Par. 1) and Campbell's soup put pink ribbons on their soup cans during Breast Cancer Awareness month .  Are you noticing a trend here?
If you buy a shirt or buy a pair of shoes or buy soup during October, then you will help fund these causes.  How many businesses do you know that have a piggy bank that says, "we support AIDS research, help us help fund it" in their stores? I've never seen it.  But, if you help them make a profit, then they'll help out with their cause.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what they're doing is bad, because research shows people want corporations to support something. Allyson Kapin of Frogloop found that in 2010, it was found that 81% of Americans want companies to give them the opportunity to buy a cause related product. (Par. 2)  But, what I am saying is why can't these corporations and these people that want to buy cause related products, just support the cause without having to give profit to other seemingly related companies? And, you have to be careful about whether or not your money is actually going to help anyone. How are you supposed to know whether or not you're actually supporting anything besides the money hungry companies who are convincing you are helping? YOU ASK.  Your average cashier probably wouldn't know how much money is going to breast cancer research if you buy pink sharpies that say they're going to help fund it, but calling these major corporations and asking would probably shock you (and them) because no one really seems to care.  As long as they think they're helping someone, they feel fine.
So, before you buy that pink ribbon-ed soup or anything else that "proceeds help fund... [insert whatever cause here] research" keep in mind that your money would probably be better spent just simply donating to that cause.  While it's nice to wear the Gap (RED) shirt and show you support AIDS research, you spent $30 on a shirt that sends only $15 to AIDS research.  Go donate the $30 in whole!
Corporations are doing a good thing by picking up causes and allowing you to help support them, but the way they're doing it isn't the best.  Get online and search for how to donate directly to the cause of your choice so you can have a say in how much money goes their way.

1
 Join(RED). Web. 19 Feb. 2011. 
                 <http://www.joinred.com/red/#shopred_52>.

2

 "One For One Movement - A Pair Of New Shoes Is Given To A Child In Need With Every Pair Purchased - TOMS.com." Official Store - TOMS Shoes - One for One - A Pair of New Shoes Is Given to a Child in Need With Every Pair Purchased | TOMS.com. Web. 19 Feb. 2011. 
                 <http://www.toms.com/our-movement/>.

3

 "Ninety Percent of Consumers Want Companies to Support Causes ." Online Fundraising, Advocacy, and Social Media - Frogloop. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.                      
                  <http://www.frogloop.com/care2blog/2010/9/28/ninety-percent-of-consumers-want-companies-to-support-causes.html>.

Lying CEO s

Hypothetically speaking, you're sitting at work when your boss comes into the office. Smiling, he tells you you're going to get a 30% raise on your salary. Thrilled, you call your family and friends and want to celebrate. Knowing you'll make a lot more money, you decide to blow some of the money you have now.  When your next pay check comes around, it is the same as the last...no 30% raise.  Confused, you approach your boss and ask about it. How would you feel if you heard him say "I lied"? Not only did you just spend a lot of money, resulting in you not being able to pay all your bills this month, you've gotten your hopes and the hopes of your family up at his expense.  He lied to you and gets away with it and now you're financially in trouble. This is something no one should go through, being lied to by their boss.  But in today's world there are plenty of bosses and CEO s of major corporations lying.
At Stanford University, analysts may have discovered how to tell if your CEO is lying to you with seven simple hints. (Par. 4-10)

1. Your CEO says we, not I.  If he is willing to share responsibility, it's definitely something worth thinking about. 
2. Your CEO says "everybody knows", "others would agree", "everyone agrees" etc. it decreases their personal responsibility.
3. Your CEO indulges their inner cheerleader and uses words like "phenomenal" and "flawless" as opposed to "good" or "promising". 
4. Your CEO makes the bad even worse by using words like "mortifying" and "heartbreaking" as opposed to "tough" or "difficult".
5. Your CEO curses, even small curses like "hell" or "screw". Dishonest CEO s are more prone to curse than honest CEO s.
6. Your CEO uses words like "hate", "crush", and "kill" to demonstrate their sincerity as opposed to using facts or figured.
7. Your CEO asks you if you trust them, or tells you to trust them. 

It seems to me that if you're going to be a CEO of a major corporation you would be smart enough to tell the truth and you'd be smart enough to know the major consequences of lying.  USAToday can help us take former CEO of Radioshack, David Edmondson, for example. About 5 years ago, Edmondson came clean about "lying about his educational history". (Par. 1)  I'm curious as to why no one caught this beforehand.  Not only because lying about having a degree is not smart to begin with but mainly because Edmondson claimed to get a degree in psychology from Pacific Coast Baptist College, a school that didn't offer, nor had it ever offered, a psychology degree.  So, as stupid as it is to lie about getting a college degree from a school that never offered that degree, who was supposed to check up on that and why hadn't they done their job? Previously to finding out that he lied about his degree, Edmondson had been charged with 2 DWI s.  Now, I'm not trying to judge, but on what planet do you want the CEO of your company to be someone who had been convicted of driving intoxicated? All of this may be shocking, but the most shocking has to be that they actually didn't keep him as CEO. Why do you ask? Because who ever was in charge of him before was stupid enough to hire him.


Even more depressing, Edmondson isn't the first, nor the last, nor the only CEO to be called a liar. MSNBC exposed Enron's founder, "Kenneth Lay and CEO Jeffrey Skilling went on trial for lying" for more than four years. (Par. 1). Bernard Ebbers, former Worldcom CEO was sentenced to jail for  "one count of conspiracy, one count of securities fraud and seven counts of false regulatory filings" said the Seattle Times. (Par. 3).



It's no wonder that major corporations are seen as a bad thing.  They're being run by dishonest people who are in it for the money and will take whatever short cuts and tell whatever lies they need to tell to make sure that they are set for life.  They don't care about their workers and they don't care about who they crush on their way to the top.  Now, I'm not saying that every CEO of every company is horrible. Take Larry Shea for example. He started out at a "sales associate at Barney & Barney in 1968" and later became CEO. He was considered one of San Diego's Outstanding CEO s in 2004. (Par. 6)

The world would be a better place if people would treat their companies more like Shea and not like Lay.  The more honest our CEO s are the better known their companies will be.  Let's face it, Edmondson lied about a degree, while he lost his job Radioshack remained a company in good standing.  However, the biggers liars, like Lay, gave the name Enron an extremely negative connotation.  How do we know which companies to support if we don't know which companies are corrupted by lying CEO s? Sadly, we don't know. Even more sadly, average employees of those companies don't know who they're working for either.

 

1

Watson, Bruce. "Corporate Charlatans: Seven Signs Your CEO Could Be Lying - DailyFinance." Business News, Stock Quotes, Investment Advice - DailyFinance. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. 
               <http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/lying-ceos-seven-signs/19680621/>.

2

"USATODAY.com - RadioShack CEO Lied on Resume." News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U.S. & World - USATODAY.com. 16 Feb. 2006. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. 
                <http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-02-16-lying-exec_x.htm>.

3

"Lay-Skilling Trial Really Comes down to Lying - Business - Corporate Scandals - The Enron Trial - Msnbc.com." Breaking News, Weather, Business, Health, Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Travel, Science, Technology, Local, US & World News - Msnbc.com. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10928376/ns/business-corporate_scandals/>.

4

Hill, Miriam. "Nation & World | WorldCom CEO Guilty in $11 Billion Fraud Case | Seattle Times Newspaper." The Seattle Times | Seattle Times Newspaper. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. 
                 <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002208972_ebbers16.html>.

5

"Profiles of Outstanding CEO's - San Diego Magazine - February 2004 - San Diego, California." San Diego Magazine - San Diego Restaurants, Events, Photos, The Best of San Diego. Web. 03 Feb. 2011.
                <http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/media/San-Diego-Magazine/February-2004/Profiles-of-Outstanding-CEOs/>.

Poverty and MNCs.

"63,000 of [Multinational Corporations] at last count- frequently find themselves the target or criticism by the world's anti-globalization protesters...[they], the protesters charge,  are principally responsible for the impoverishment of many of the world's six billion people," states Romrick.  (Par. 1) While these corporations try to do some good, these anti-globalization protesters are definitely onto something.  If a corporation needs to tear down a little city for a factory, would they go to Oklahoma or Bangladesh? Would they want to demolish a little town with a school and library or would they want to demolish a town that is all sharing water from one well? They have nothing here, so why can't they have nothing somewhere else is that attitude of many of these corporations. How do these corporations get away with it? Amnesty International said,  "...[H]uman rights are abused as corporations exploit weak and poorly enforced domestic regulation and the lack of international accountability mechanisms to devastating effect in developing countries." (Par. 1) All that to say, these corporations use their rights as "humans" to get their way. Last I checked, the constitution doesn't give me the right to go around evicting people from their homes...but apparently it gives corporations the right to do so.  I'm not here to say that corporations never do any good and that they're all evil and we should all buy our food from the farmers market. Many corporations are encouraged to fight the poverty that they are causing and many corporations give millions of dollars to philanthropies to help make the world a better place. Mui talks about,"$2 billion over five years to food banks and hunger relief organizations" (Par. 1) While this is all good and well, why not fight world hunger? When you're as big as Walmart and have stores in multiple countries, why limit your philanthropy just to the United States? If you're trying to recover the bad reputation you've been given, why not do it globally? Maybe because they don't feel guilty. How could you not feel guilty? I ask myself the same question but the reality is, 1) they're making millions upon millions of dollars regardless of guilt and 2) Amnesty International discussed that, "[a]ffected communities are frequently denied access to information about the impact of company operations and excluded from participating in decisions that affect their lives." (Par 4.). In other words, these people who have their communities ruined because of large corporations like Walmart don't know who is ruining their lives. They can be angry and hurt but they have no name to blame.  It gives large corporations, like Walmart, a way out of having to defend their name in more places than just America. They can then continue to go on with their lives as a MNC and make billions of dollars despite ruining lives of other people. Isn't that sweet?
So I ask you, dearest blog reader, do you think that MNC are right in the ways they take charge over unglobalized countries? Do they have good hearts when they make people leave their homes without reason or explanation? Or do they need to change their ways and help foreign countries become globalized, advanced and no longer impoverished?

1Romick, Lyndsey. "Multinational Corporations: A Key to Global Poverty Reduction – Part I | Global Envision." Global Envision | The Confluence of Global Markets and Poverty Alleviation. Web. 26 Jan. 2011.
                <http://www.globalenvision.org/library/3/923>.

2"Corporations, Human Rights and Poverty | Amnesty International." Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights. Web. 26 Jan. 2011. <http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/demand-dignity/issues/corporations-human-rights-and-poverty>.

3Mui, Ylan Q. "Wal-Mart Pledges $2 Billion in Food and Grants to Fight Hunger." Washington Post - Politics, National, World & D.C. Area News and
Headlines - Washingtonpost.com. Web. 26 Jan. 2011. 
                  <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051205075.html>.