GBGB: Geoffrey Beene Gives Back

[Pawz]

Article (from official site): http://www.geoffreybeene.com/company.html

Seems like a noble cause, but I wonder. How do you feel about your purchases funding philanthropic/humanitarian organizations?

Does GBGB encourage or discourage you from purchasing the affiliated products (the quality of Geoffrey Beene notwithstanding)?

 

[freedom_fries]



Article (from official site): http://www.geoffreybeene.com/company.html

Seems like a noble cause, but I wonder. How do you feel about your purchases funding philanthropic/humanitarian organizations?

Does GBGB encourage or discourage you from purchasing the affiliated products (the quality of Geoffrey Beene notwithstanding)?

think it's great.

still would never buy anything from geoffrey beene.

 

[DerekS]

+1, its a great thing.....but i wouldnt pay a dime for anytning from GB.

 

[Pawz]

@Freedom_Fries: I'm not opposed to Geoffrey Beene, albeit I haven't bought any GB merch in years.

My thoughts are more like this:

Let's say you habitually purchase Geoffrey Beene products and learn of this GBGB project. And let's say (for the sake of argument) that you don't care to support (in any way, shape, or form) certain organizations that GBGB is supposedly donating money to (i.e., if GBGB supports the Children's Miracle Network, but if you disagree with how the aforementioned uses their funds, why would you contribute to it, even indirectly?). What do you do? Would GBGB discourage you from buying Beene products?

Contrariwise, GBGB may encourage others to purchase Geoffrey Beene (whether out of compassion or compunction - or simply as an excuse to purchase more clothing), in which case GBGB increases its patronage, thereby (hopefully) encouraging the company to maintain its patrons by offering a higher quality product (it could happen!).

GBGB could affect another group differently: encouraging themselves to give to charity via an increase of awareness.

I read the article and wanted to know what SF thought about GBGB as well as to direct or indirect (through purchases) contributions to eleemosynary organizations in general.

 

[Bounder]



Does GBGB encourage or discourage you from purchasing the affiliated products (the quality of Geoffrey Beene notwithstanding)?

I don't know. I have to admit, I find the whole "corporate giving" thing kind of annoying.

First, corporate "charity" it is almost always utterly cynical. It has to be. The CEO/board must have decided that the PR boost from their "charity giving" will result in even more profits for the shareholders. If they really are doing it just because it is socially responsible and charitable, they are, at best, incompetent and at worse, criminal as the profits actually belong to the shareholders. Anyway, giving away other people's money isn't really charity.

Second, I also find it annoying to be actively solicited for various charities -- and this is a seriously growing trend -- every time I try to complete the simplest transaction. Yes, I know that breast cancer or multiple sclerosis or crack babies or whatever cause you are pitching this week is really worthy, and yes, the pictures you have plastered up in the check-out line are really heartrending, but dude, I just want to pay for this arugula and go home.

 

[Pawz]

@Bounder: Hmm. I hadn't considered shareholders' stakes. The campaign did strike me as odd, mostly because GBGB claims to give 100% of its net profits to charity; usually when a company does something like this, it's 10 - 25% (or an ambiguous portion of), but never 100. I'm sure there's an asterisk someplace within GBGB's claims.

I don't have a degree in finances, so reading through all the fine print and legalese wouldn't enlighten me. Does anyone know whether shareholders are negatively affected by this or if Geoffrey Beene is going out of business? Biting the hands that feed them sounds like financial suicide to me.

 

[Bounder]



@Bounder: Hmm. I hadn't considered shareholders' stakes. The campaign did strike me as odd, mostly because GBGB claims to give 100% of its net profits to charity; usually when a company does something like this, it's 10 - 25% (or an ambiguous portion of), but never 100. I'm sure there's an asterisk someplace within GBGB's claims.

I don't have a degree in finances, so reading through all the fine print and legalese wouldn't enlighten me. Does anyone know whether shareholders are negatively affected by this or if Geoffrey Beene is going out of business? Biting the hands that feed them sounds like financial suicide to me.

Well, in this particular case, Geoffrey Beene probably isn't actually giving anything to charity at all.

They make a point that it is Geoffrey Beene, LLC which is donating 100% of its net profits. An LLC works something like an S-Corp in that all the profits are automatically passed through to the LLC owners. So, strictly speaking, an LLC is probably legally incapable of donating anything to charity. Rather, whoever owns Geoffrey Beene, LLC is probably donating the money and then taking a deduction for a charitable donation on their personal income tax.

But the general point remains. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders, who are the people who actually own the company. Officers and board members are merely trustees and have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. If the CEO is deeply concerned about the plight of feral cats, they can certainly make charitable donations with their own money. But the corporation's money belongs to the shareholders and the CEO is authorized to use it for one purpose: making more money for the shareholders.

 

[freedom_fries]

ok, i understand bounder's cynicism, but CSR is pretty established and widely accepted, and is usually blessed by shareholders as part of a coporation's marketing/talent retention costs. how efficient these programs are is another story.

in any event, this is clearly not a CSR program at GB but a company - an LLC, don't forget, so don't worry about shareholders - that simply donates all its profits to charity. i am assuming this was not always the case, but became so after the proprietor died (which is usually how it works).

i have no problem with this. GB can do with its profits what it wants - and giving it to some charity is certainly no worse than spending it on maybachs and coke to me.

IF some company were to spend oodles of money on something stupid or destructive like, i dunno, scientology, then maybe i would think about not buying from them, even if i liked their product.

 

[AlexE]

Well there is nothing wrong if a company decides to spend parts of the profits on philanthropic/humanitarian causes rather than paying it out as dividends. What annoys me a bit, however, is if I am asked at check-out if I am willing to donate $X for some cause "supported" by the company, where supporting means collecting donations from customers and using this as a free marketing tool.

 

[tj100]

And just to add the cynics' view here, there are a number of ways that they can structure this to manage contributions:

(1) Geoffrey Beene LLC could just be a shell that owns some intellectual property and has minimal profits on an annual basis.
(2) The owners could take massive salaries / bonuses / management fees to reduce net income to the level that they're comfortable giving.
etc. etc. etc.

From my perspective, I'd just as soon get the best possible product at the cheapest possible price, and contribute the money I save to the charity of my[/I] choice, not Geoffrey Beene's.

 

[Bounder]



Well there is nothing wrong if a company decides to spend parts of the profits on philanthropic/humanitarian causes rather than paying it out as dividends.

Suppose one day you got a letter from you bank saying telling you that instead of paying the interest due on your CDs, they were going to send the money to a charity devoted to providing support for recovering reality show stars. ("You can feed the ego of a former reality show star for only hundreds of dollars a day! Snooki and Kim Kardashian need your help!") Would that be OK with you? If not, why not?

What annoys me a bit, however, is if I am asked at check-out if I am willing to donate $X for some cause "supported" by the company, where supporting means collecting donations from customers and using this as a free marketing tool.

I'm completely with you there. I think it also must be a bit embarrassing for at least some of the employees. If you are a supermarket checker, it seems a bit unfair of you to be suddenly called on to put on a funny hat and shill for donations. Apart from the pressure from your boss, there must be quite a bit of peer pressure, too. I wonder how many go along under silent protest. At that point, it ceases to be a charitable exercise and starts edging into extortion. "We know this is a worthy charity that you will be happy to support . . . and if you don't, your co-workers will harass you and you might get fired."

With respect go Geoffrey Beene itself, it seems to be in serious decline. They used to have a bunch of outlet stores under their name but now I think they are strictly a licensing operation.

 

[Pawz]

I'm completely with you there. I think it also must be a bit embarrassing for at least some of the employees. If you are a supermarket checker, it seems a bit unfair of you to be suddenly called on to put on a funny hat and shill for donations.

Food Lion and Wendy's sometimes host these fundraisers for whatever charity. The charity would allow you to write your name on a paper balloon for a dollar donation, which the store will post on a window. I almost always do it. ^^;

I've never noted an employee feeling embarrassed to ask me if I'd like to donate - they keep it to themselves if they are. I've never seen any paper hats or whathaveyou, but I don't doubt that some businesses do this. I know 'wearable billboards' are demeaning for those whose job descriptions may not have specified they'd be called upon to wear such things. When a person is embarrassed, they are uncomfortable. When I'm around uncomfortable persons, I myself become ill at ease and I want to depart as soon as I can from the situation. Doesn't sound like an atmosphere conducive to generating sales, yet alone donations.