This is also how round ups at checkouts like Walmart work.
post
A celebrity being an advocate for a charity is honestly the very last thing on my list of problems that need to be addressed. Most Hollywood types we all know are several orders of magnitude less wealthy than our billionaire overlords. At least they're trying to do something beneficial
Yeah maybe the average person can’t be bothered to make a distinction between billionaires and millionaires (most celebs) even though the difference happens to be 1000 to 1.
But they should, if working class solidarity matters and isn’t a one-way street.
Im Not defending the billionaires but the reason the Hollywood types are even brought up at all is they are 100 times more peachy than billionaires who just bank roll some dark money super PAC so you never actually hear from the person themselves
1 - it usually gets them a tax write off 2 - they do little other than talk about it and any explanation of their involvement is usually heavily exaggerated (except maybe John Cena's make a wish work) 3 - they view their name attachment as worth enough, and people aupplaide them for the lip service, further feeding their narcissism 4 - it is wielded around with their superiority complex, leveraged against others more often than not 5 - the orgs themselves mostly go to funding their leadership groups. Where the largest cost (overhead) is paid before money actually makes it claimed place of benefit. The largest part of the overhead are the leadership and executive members. And they make CRAZY money for "non-profit" positions.
In Germany, we have Pfand, which means: You pay 25 cents more for a bottle of water and get it back when you return the empty bottle.
And when you return it to LIDL (supermarket), they give you the choice to donate those 25 cents to charity or keep it for yourself. The family behind LIDL is the richest in Germany...
The family behind LIDL is the richest in Germany…
I shop at LiDL here in the US. It's interesting that they're doing so well when they have much lower prices and pay their employees better than other grocery stores in the area, yet these other stores claim to be barely scraping by or even losing money.
They are probably working on lower margins in the US for a few years to gain market control. They got rich in Europe they can break even in the us and still win.
Also they own "Schwarz Gruppe" which is a huge conglomerate including lidl. They also have cloud hosting, publishing, research etc. They are aiming to be the european alphabet (Google)
When can I get onto the European search engine alternative?
I'm torn, is there a good bit in the first half or is it all a scam to guilt us into losing money and LIDL still comes out on top on average?
The outcome is neutral for LIDL they don't get the deposit money either way. If anything they would prefer you don't return the bottles at all, since it would avoid processing costs and depending on the distribution agreement they might even pocket part of the deposit.
This - the dirty secret of most rebates and coupons is that without them customers don't buy the product as much. But then for those who don't have the discount still but for the increased price.
THEN most charities offered are in affiliating with the offering corp. Meaning they get tax write offs and a portion of the donation through their offering. The donation is made in the business name, not yours.
If you don't return it or discount, they pocket it.
Celebrity endorsements are advertising for themselves. Creating a carefully curated public personality is what encourages networks and creators to hire particular celebrities. These endorsements are as much about getting attention to make themselves more employable as they are about championing a cause.
At least it brings awareness to a cause, but you can never really forget that there is an underlying self interest in the whole venture.
not quite? it would be if they pressured 10000 people each into giving half a mars bar to the homeless. they better give away their own mars bars of course, but things generally aren't black and white.
Yes exactly it's about their power to influence
Feeding the homeless on a Mars bar diet is not the solution. The homeless need a path to a healthy life.
And who keeps mars bars in the fridge?
Psycho
And that was definitely the point they were making
You sure? I thought they pointed out that celebrities could share more.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but stop allowing yourself to be persuaded by celebrities and influencers.
That's not to say don't help those less fortunate. But do it because you want to, and in ways that make sense to you.
Because collectively we've become a bunch of fucking followers, and this does the world no favors. Trust the good instincts from within yourself.
/rant
I know it's not generally popular here on Lemmy but some scripture comes to mind: 2 Corinthians 9:7
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
The compulsion of celebrities and influencers would apply here I think.
God: No compulsion, give as you decide.
Also God: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. But again, no pressure guys.
Like when Swift donated 1 million. It's basically $1 for us poors. Probably way less.
I mean they give a few Mars bars of their own too, but they are then left with ~10000 Mars bars at the end of it.
top 50 comments