Off Topic/Miscellaneous Subjects - Discussion

instinct wrote:

jlccaz wrote:

skitts wrote:I think if PW would back off of the #wearethemovement and 'change the world' in regards to the PR, I would feel more comfortable with them. Touting these lines to increase sales, when the charity percentage in miniscule compared to profit margin is downright misleading! Anything is a good thing to bettering the world, but PW is using the charity affiliation to make money!

And to create a volunteer field sales force to arrange distribution by enlisting them in the cause of distribution when the point of these "ambassadors" is to boost product sales. It is cynical and repulses me to see them redirect cause - inspired generosity and interest to their own profit-building, business-expanding objectives.

ITA. Of all the galling things I've learned about PW, this perhaps bothers me the most. These people have chutzpah in spades.

Regarding the PR piece, er, letter from the COO that was just released, does anyone think that the issues raised on this board made this topic an agenda item at last weekend's "executive retreat"?

I assume the COO wrote that blog because the merit of the criticism, while not well received here, is undeniable, and any knowledgeable marketing practices advisor would concur with the observations about (i) blurring lines of for profiit/charity; (ii) labeling ENSO bottles as "biodegradable"; and (iii) the confusing, poorly thought out "drop for drop" pledge. It draws debate/fire on this board because of the passionate support for the Happy Couple (and various penumbras emanating from being "swept away" during a reality TV viewing experience), but these are not debateable points in the off-board, business realm. In another words, not only are some in the crowd pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes, but the dude is in fact naked.

Besides working with major outlets, the other plans for "national distribution" seem to depend upon recruiting an army of college and corporate "ambassadors" to accomplish "micro" distribution in corporate offices, on college campuses, etc. That is basically the Monte Holm Method that put Jef and his siblings on the "ranch" metaphorically speaking. Think of it as applying the "magic of compound recruiting" [source: Monte Holm's former business partner, Hubert Humphrey, a guru of multi level marketing of financial services products] practices for a ... plastic water bottle company.

In short, a redundant, imitative, in fact cynical addition to the already saturated (pun intended!) water bottle market.

PW dances between the Tom's and Ethos cause-marketing models, in a way that is actually deceiving many good-hearted people who might otherwise be willing to direct equivalent energy to the actual cause, rather than the "cause" of helping some Utah entrepreneurs achieve their dream of national distribution of People Water bottles. How ironic that just when so many college campuses have adopted campus-wide bans on sales of plastic water bottles, to stimulate reusable bottles, People Water is recruiting "ambassadors" (read: field sales force?) to promote its bottles. It's regrettable on multiple levels. They are setting up a field SALES force of volunteers (? not sure about that?) to advance a business goal of national distribution (I think), under the guise of "joining a movement." I'm sorry but it's vile. I hope that they at least pay them. http://www.cjr.org/the_news_frontier/aol_settled_with_unpaid_volunt.php?page=all (very interesting area of the law, incidentally)

goodgal wrote:I do have a few charities I supported for years but some are very pushy when they get you on the phone and that is a huge turn off! I think most of us have charities near to our hearts and the ones I like have not been pushy at all!

And those pushy, annoying people on the phone are paid out of donations!

Honestly, being able to see to the numbers of a variety of businesses and organizations like I am, the line between true charity and business is so incredibly vague at this point in our society that I don't see why people would single out PW for its miss steps. I have agreed that consumers and donors should have knowledge, and for that reason this discussion is good, but maybe we could also dig through some much lauded charities and look at what they pay out to contract fundraisers, and what they pay to their own CEOs. I was sick to the core one year to learn that a relatively new charity (off shoot of a larger one) that I had sent quite a large donation to had spent 100% of its proceeds that year paying contract fundraising organizations and tried to justify it as building their donor base! I have never donated to them again, and am now extremely wary of who I donate to. Another worthy sounding organization that I was sending small donations to had telemarketers calling me twice a week for a while, making it abundantly clear that they had spent more dollars trying to get more money out of me than I had donated in the first place.

Charity is big business, make no bones about it, and tons of people make a small fortune from that fact. The best ones are hard to find.

I do believe that Cody started off with the single goal of building wells, just as he has said in an on-line video. Jef partnered with him feeling he had a business model that could make that happen, A driving B. Whether or not anyone agrees with how they are getting there, the charitable cause seems to have been an honest goal. Easy to say all Jef had to do was spend his own cash, but how long would that have lasted? How many wells could he have helped Cody build? They were dreaming bigger, or something that would generate enough cash to keep the well building going.

Do I have an issue with their choosing a bottled water company? Yes, I have always said so. It makes me scratch my head to think that they didn't know about the movement to rid the nation of bottled water, and Cody also makes it clear in that on-line interview they honestly didn't know. But it isn't like we'll fully rid the country of bottled water anytime soon, and I'd rather a small company with some social conscious take care of that market, than a big conglomerate.

I wonder how much the Nicaragua well cost to build? I think building the wells themselves was the original model, and that the Nicaragua one was direct cost of out pocket, but they learned on that trip just how little they knew of what they were doing, and made the wise decision to partner with Generosity Water for the future.

Anyway. Everyone can decide who and what they want to support but, as I said, to single out these young guys for combining business and charity is, to me, a little naive. Charity is big business and a lot of people make real good money off of it. Sad but true. I see the numbers.

It's all well and good to compare to major charities (American Red Cross, etc.) but that's not an apt comparison for this situation, where the corporation merely makes a donation to Generosity Water, and the purchaser has the option to donate directly or buy water and donate indirectly.

Generosity Water, Water for the People, etc. have much more IMPACT on people who need clean water dollar for dollar (donations:purchase) than People Water.

Red herring.

jlccaz wrote:

PW dances between the Tom's and Ethos cause-marketing models, in a way that is actually deceiving many good-hearted people who might otherwise be willing to direct equivalent energy to the actual cause, rather than the "cause" of helping some Utah entrepreneurs achieve their dream of national distribution of People Water bottles. How ironic that just when so many college campuses have adopted campus-wide bans on sales of plastic water bottles, to stimulate reusable bottles, People Water is recruiting "ambassadors" (read: field sales force?) to promote its bottles. It's regrettable on multiple levels. They are setting up a field SALES force of volunteers (? not sure about that?) to advance a business goal of national distribution (I think), under the guise of "joining a movement." I'm sorry but it's vile. I hope that they at least pay them. http://www.cjr.org/the_news_frontier/aol_settled_with_unpaid_volunt.php?page=all (very interesting area of the law, incidentally)

See, now, I honestly don't believe those same people would be doing anything charitable instead. They might talk the talk, but they wouldn't walk the walk. If they like the PW model, it is because nothing else ever appealed to them enough for them to take action on it. I've recruited enough volunteers and donors to know that different people tick differently.

As for vile ... let's get real. Do you know ANYONE with enormous wealth who didn't sell a piece of their soul in the process? I don't. I work with a lot of wealthy people that I respect and like, but I also see clearly what they gave up of themselves in the process. In all these years I've had exactly 1 client that I truly admire on all levels, and he's done well but not as well as he could have / would have / should have if he hadn't had as much heart as he has. So I don't doubt that Jef accepts certain things which you and I might not; it isn't that he is trying to be vile, its just that he's grown up in a world that sees everything differently. This stuff is insidious; I don't know how to change it, do you?

There is a whole segement of the population that doesn't want to commit to a straight donation...they want something in return for their donation so will buy a bottle of water, or a chocolate bar, or a chance for a fancy trip. If PW can fit into that niche and get money from people who never consider a direct donation then why not? Is it the smartest way to donate? Maybe not but for some it is the only way they will donate. I say don't turn down a penny because you really wanted a dollar. It might take a little longer but in the end when all your pennies come together you will have the dollar you need.

jlccaz wrote:It's all well and good to compare to major charities (American Red Cross, etc.) but that's not an apt comparison for this situation, where the corporation merely makes a donation to Generosity Water, and the purchaser has the option to donate directly or buy water and donate indirectly.

Generosity Water, Water for the People, etc. have much more IMPACT on people who need clean water dollar for dollar (donations:purchase) than People Water.

Red herring.

I disagree. There is so much overlap that it becomes a valid question as to what is more honest: start a charity or start a business with cause marketing.

On clean water, certainly the direct donations have much more impact. But would those organizations be anywhere without for-profit partners and/or an outrageous fundraising and marketing budget of their own? Would I even be thinking about Generosity Water or Drop in the Bucket if we hadn't had all these discussions, or if, instead, they had spent a mountain on advertising? The answer is no. It is all linked together.

deedreamer wrote:There is a whole segement of the population that doesn't want to commit to a straight donation...they want something in return for their donation so will buy a bottle of water, or a chocolate bar, or a chance for a fancy trip. If PW can fit into that niche and get money from people who never consider a direct donation then why not? Is it the smartest way to donate? Maybe not but for some it is the only way they will donate. I say don't turn down a penny because you really wanted a dollar. It might take a little longer but in the end when all your pennies come together you will have the dollar you need.

Exactly.

It isn't how I do things, but I'm not going to fault someone else for recognizing that it is, in fact, how many people do things, and playing to that fact for dual purposes.

jlccaz wrote:

instinct wrote:

jlccaz wrote:

skitts wrote:I think if PW would back off of the #wearethemovement and 'change the world' in regards to the PR, I would feel more comfortable with them. Touting these lines to increase sales, when the charity percentage in miniscule compared to profit margin is downright misleading! Anything is a good thing to bettering the world, but PW is using the charity affiliation to make money!

And to create a volunteer field sales force to arrange distribution by enlisting them in the cause of distribution when the point of these "ambassadors" is to boost product sales. It is cynical and repulses me to see them redirect cause - inspired generosity and interest to their own profit-building, business-expanding objectives.

ITA. Of all the galling things I've learned about PW, this perhaps bothers me the most. These people have chutzpah in spades.

Regarding the PR piece, er, letter from the COO that was just released, does anyone think that the issues raised on this board made this topic an agenda item at last weekend's "executive retreat"?

I assume the COO wrote that blog because the merit of the criticism, while not well received here, is undeniable, and any knowledgeable marketing practices advisor would concur with the observations about (i) blurring lines of for profiit/charity; (ii) labeling ENSO bottles as "biodegradable"; and (iii) the confusing, poorly thought out "drop for drop" pledge. It draws debate/fire on this board because of the passionate support for the Happy Couple (and various penumbras emanating from being "swept away" during a reality TV viewing experience), but these are not debateable points in the off-board, business realm. In another words, not only are some in the crowd pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes, but the dude is in fact naked.

Besides working with major outlets, the other plans for "national distribution" seem to depend upon recruiting an army of college and corporate "ambassadors" to accomplish "micro" distribution in corporate offices, on college campuses, etc. That is basically the Monte Holm Method that put Jef and his siblings on the "ranch" metaphorically speaking. Think of it as applying the "magic of compound recruiting" [source: Monte Holm's former business partner, Hubert Humphrey, a guru of multi level marketing of financial services products] practices for a ... plastic water bottle company.

In short, a redundant, imitative, in fact cynical addition to the already saturated (pun intended!) water bottle market.

PW dances between the Tom's and Ethos cause-marketing models, in a way that is actually deceiving many good-hearted people who might otherwise be willing to direct equivalent energy to the actual cause, rather than the "cause" of helping some Utah entrepreneurs achieve their dream of national distribution of People Water bottles. How ironic that just when so many college campuses have adopted campus-wide bans on sales of plastic water bottles, to stimulate reusable bottles, People Water is recruiting "ambassadors" (read: field sales force?) to promote its bottles. It's regrettable on multiple levels. They are setting up a field SALES force of volunteers (? not sure about that?) to advance a business goal of national distribution (I think), under the guise of "joining a movement." I'm sorry but it's vile. I hope that they at least pay them. http://www.cjr.org/the_news_frontier/aol_settled_with_unpaid_volunt.php?page=all (very interesting area of the law, incidentally)

That is a very interesting article and area of law. I remember back in the day of the AOL volunteers. Now, I'm aging myself while admitting to the use of AOL as an internet service provider back then.

I love your law lessons, JLC. Very interesting to me.

Chacharo wrote:

I love your law lessons, JLC. Very interesting to me.

jlc, I know we interpret things differently, but you are pretty smart and thorough.

The thing is, as long as you see it all as vile, we'll never agree. Because vile is something that a person is going to feel a duty to wipe out, and that does explain how passionate you are. I'm just a lot more low-key about these things; I see them more as gray areas, and I'm used to people taking advantage of them, even if I wouldn't. Some people understand it, and some don't, and education is important for those who don't, but even some that fully understand will choose differently than I would, and that has to be OK. Different strokes for different folks.

skitts wrote:I think if PW would back off of the #wearethemovement and 'change the world' in regards to the PR, I would feel more comfortable with them. Touting these lines to increase sales, when the charity percentage in miniscule compared to profit margin is downright misleading! Anything is a good thing to bettering the world, but PW is using the charity affiliation to make money!

Thanks skitts. This has been my main point all along. Yes it is nice to do "something" but seldom has so much praise been heaped upon a group who has actually accomplished not so much. It really galls me to see "People" using a charity to make money and presenting these fine Ghana folks as "proof" of what IMHO are not the true intent of someone who want to change the world. Yes, I am questioning their intention and their tactics. This was a CEO job for Jef and a family funded opportunity to work with his buddies. No crime in that, but no hero either.

pavalygurl wrote: ... but seldom has so much praise been heaped upon a group who has actually accomplished not so much.

Par for the course in fan-dom land. I've never understood it. The world of fan-dom creates this fantasy no one could actually live up to.


I enjoy well-building pics, love the Nicaragua video, etc etc but do I see these guys as amazing people doing amazing things? Not really. They're just people like the rest of us. Not heros and not zeros.

dw_a_mom wrote:

pavalygurl wrote: ... but seldom has so much praise been heaped upon a group who has actually accomplished not so much.

Par for the course in fan-dom land. I've never understood it. The world of fan-dom creates this fantasy no one could actually live up to.


I enjoy well-building pics, love the Nicaragua video, etc etc but do I see these guys as amazing people doing amazing things? Not really. They're just people like the rest of us. Not heros and not zeros.

My point is the rest of us are not touting ourselves as world saviors. I will bet our little board has some amazing folks who quietly contribute so much in time, effort and cash.