On Dec 21, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me.
Which they aren't. You're not paid by them and you're arguing FOR them.
Well played, Google.
No, I'm arguing against people who think this is evil are being silly. Including you. Sometimes donating money to charity is just donating money to charity. I really don't see Google getting more business because I posted to NANOG. Are you honestly arguing otherwise? I guess we should get upset at them if they take a tax write off too? -- TTFN, patrick
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:28:10PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore's said:
On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Corey Travioli wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer" http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/ Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep to give to charity they are giving in our stead to shame us. Yup, that is evil.
I know it's off-topic, but I'm impressed with the idea that a public corporation can spend 8 figures on something that has essentially $0 ROI and multiple people here can find bad things about it.
I'm shocked someone didn't say "but that's only 0.0000$WHATEVER percent of their profit!".
Google does many things which can be argued as evil, or not, but I would say this is very much not one of them.
-- TTFN, patrick
-- Ken Chase - ken@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.