FC NOW: The Fast Company Weblog
March 29, 2006
Reputational Insurance
One of the more surprising comments I heard at SXSW Interactive this year was made by Doc Searls during a panel discussion revisiting the Cluetrain Manifesto. When asked which companies and organizations he thought were clued in, Searls didn't hesitate before saying Microsoft.
Microsoft? Searls held up their Channel 9 project and Robert Scoble as examples. And an article early this month in the Wall Street Journal explored how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation holds a halo above Microsoft, improving its reputation (subscription required).
Does charitable giving make up for an organization's failings and foibles? Can Bill Gates buy himself love?
Posted by Heath Row at March 29, 2006 6:32 PM | Category: ideas |
8 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
FC NOW MENU
NEWSLETTERS
FC NOW CATEGORIES
FC READS
Does it occur to you that Bill & Melinda Gates genuinely want to HELP people? Time to stop bashing philanthropists who put their money into worthwhile endeavours. If their generosity helps them too -- so what? Gives them a chance to help even more people. And so it goes. Life actually does work on the law of the boomerang.
When people see Bill Gates, they think Microsoft just as when people see Hollywood actors they often see the role they played, not the person.
Being philanthropists is great, and all the more power to them.
Yet when the company he's founded and runs is a confirmed predetory Monopoly, everything they do, no matter how good, will be looked upon skeptically.
Combining giving money with a for-profit company (whose purpose is to make money) then there's a potential conflict of interest and history has shown the company's willingness to dance in the grey-zone.
Having been a board member for a non-profit that received a BMG grant, I had the chance to meet surveyors from the foundation. I believe in the mission of the foundation and believe that both Bill and Melinda's intentions are true.
However, I keep that view separate from my views about Microsoft. The two organizations are not one and the same.
I've gone into this at length before, so I'll be brief. The real impact on Microsoft from the Gates' Foundation is minimal. People buy their products because they feel that they have to (untrue, but there it is). The billions of dollars that Bill and Linda give away won't have billions of dollars of positive impact on Microsoft. However, it will have a positive impact on the world, and that's what's really important.
we interrupt this cruise through the clouds to bring you a moment of reality: in Gates' library there is a cupola ceiling. The inscription inside the top is the last few closing lines from the Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald.
Let it be known that Bill the First sees himself as some sort of modern-day Great Gatsby. Not that that in itself is all bad, just that it seems true enough.
If only more companies would realise that giving sells ..! I think Earth may indeed become a much better place virtually overnight if the billionaires of this world were consistently moved by a profit motive, to lend their time, money, energy and celebrity to those causes that for decades have been badly neglected or poorly attended to by inefficient and listless government bureaucracies.
As to whether Bill and Melinda are cynically attempting to boost Microsoft's image by giving away hundreds of millions of dollars to deserving causes like malaria research and AIDS relief ... Who knows. In fact, who cares. I'm sure the beneficiaries of their charity don't mind where the money comes from.
When a person remains on the top of the rich men list in the world for so many years and has achieved and enjoyed almost all aspects of life(I feel the beginning of windows platform,internet brought to home in 1998 edition and so many things),he has done the right thing.Company is doing its part like x box or vista or new developments of small business or servers.And he in his part is acting as a good samaritan which is well deserved.In India,the steps initiated for education is definitely a good step,donating for a good worthwhile cause is welcome.Why to see things from publicity angle only and even if so then what harm it does to you.
Yes. This is a sad article. I am not a Microsoft junkie, but I completely resent the tone of the article. For starters, the C9 initiative is actually quite an amazing thing for a large corporation to undertake. The level of openness and communication that goes on there is very commendable. It certainly fits the bill for being "clued in". Secondly why pull in the WSJ article in this context? And thirdly, everything everyone else has aready said about the positive nature of giving.