Your thoughts on brands that give to charity???
So I have been very curious to see what the consensus is of our watch community, there is no right or wrong answer.
If a watch brand offers to give a portion of each of their watches sold to a charity, would that influence your decision in buying that brand as opposed to a competitor?
25 comments
Sort by
ebartocci
I am a horophile that loves very clean and well executed watches.
Miami
Member since
Last active: 1 year ago
No, no, no, no! If a brand offers to give a portion of proceeds to charity, I will avoid it like the plague! I will specifically buy another watch from a direct competitor, just to teach them a lesson.
Sorry if this is an incredibly "cynical" take on it all. It's just, you know, as an executive in big multi-national corporations, this is the reality. Behind closed doors, all of us know this is the game, and we all laugh about it, but we never talk openly about it in public, because, you know, it sounds (and is) so horrible.
Yup, generally a scam or at least opportunistic. In the best cases they'll admit the amount is actually donated but it's always a relative pittance.
If and only if there was some organization whose logo I really, really wanted to wear would I even consider such a thing. I'm at a loss to even think of a hypothetical for this.
But yeah, don't take my money and take credit for being a do-gooder. I'm not easily guilted, nor a virtue signaler. And I'm not a rube.
No, no, no, no! If a brand offers to give a portion of proceeds to charity, I will avoid it like the plague! I will specifically buy another watch from a direct competitor, just to teach them a lesson.
Sorry if this is an incredibly "cynical" take on it all. It's just, you know, as an executive in big multi-national corporations, this is the reality. Behind closed doors, all of us know this is the game, and we all laugh about it, but we never talk openly about it in public, because, you know, it sounds (and is) so horrible.
I can see your point and agree with many parts of it. But what if when you are about to finalize your purchase you are presented with a list of vetted and reliable charities. Places that do good in society and after you receive your watch you get status updates on what your funds have done or what they were used for?
Did you every buy Toms shoes or Warby Parker, they had a program that they would give a pair to someone in need.
No, no, no, no! If a brand offers to give a portion of proceeds to charity, I will avoid it like the plague! I will specifically buy another watch from a direct competitor, just to teach them a lesson.
Sorry if this is an incredibly "cynical" take on it all. It's just, you know, as an executive in big multi-national corporations, this is the reality. Behind closed doors, all of us know this is the game, and we all laugh about it, but we never talk openly about it in public, because, you know, it sounds (and is) so horrible.
The Nomos Tangente "50 Ans De Médecins Sans Frontiéres" is a great watch.
I see that as an awareness exercise and I also really like the look. I would have picked one up already if it was the neomatik rather than the alpha movement. It's still on the list for the future maybe.
Not diagreeing with your post, but it's a charity I support and a watch I like the look of so that makes it a bit different.
The charity still gets a regular donation from me regardless of if I buy the watch or not and so any extra to them is a bonus.
I'd be inclined to say no, but on the other hand if I could afford it I'd buy every single "Save the ocean" Model out there, is it a charity? I'm not really sure, but I kind of like the idea sometimes
No, no, no, no! If a brand offers to give a portion of proceeds to charity, I will avoid it like the plague! I will specifically buy another watch from a direct competitor, just to teach them a lesson.
Sorry if this is an incredibly "cynical" take on it all. It's just, you know, as an executive in big multi-national corporations, this is the reality. Behind closed doors, all of us know this is the game, and we all laugh about it, but we never talk openly about it in public, because, you know, it sounds (and is) so horrible.
But Orbis… 😳
I don’t mind when companies do this, but it also doesn’t do much for me. I prefer to give money to my own charities and get my own tax deductions.
Corporate social responsibility is needed, perhaps working with charities can be a part of that. The reality is, whether motives are cynical or altruistic, many charities around the world rely on support from big corporates. I feel it’s something profitable companies should do.
I decided to go read some of Robert Farago's old pieces on this topic. He reminds me that the company takes some percentage, typically way less than sales tax, and uses it as their tax-deductible donation. And also harps on the typical lack on transparency on the actual amount donated.
No, no, no, no! If a brand offers to give a portion of proceeds to charity, I will avoid it like the plague! I will specifically buy another watch from a direct competitor, just to teach them a lesson.
Sorry if this is an incredibly "cynical" take on it all. It's just, you know, as an executive in big multi-national corporations, this is the reality. Behind closed doors, all of us know this is the game, and we all laugh about it, but we never talk openly about it in public, because, you know, it sounds (and is) so horrible.
Something came to mine, what about all these brands now coming out with support Ukraine watches where all the proceeds go to some organization to help fend off Russia. Does this change ones mind due to the causing being different where its about life of death as opposed to cleaning the ocean or helping some villagers? Love to hear your thought.
I wouldn't base a decision on that. If I strongly wanted to support the charity, I would make my own additional donation anyway. Not every instance of this is purely cynical, but there are probably better ways to support good causes.
But Orbis… 😳
I don’t mind when companies do this, but it also doesn’t do much for me. I prefer to give money to my own charities and get my own tax deductions.
This, this, this. Your charity is yours.
I can see your point and agree with many parts of it. But what if when you are about to finalize your purchase you are presented with a list of vetted and reliable charities. Places that do good in society and after you receive your watch you get status updates on what your funds have done or what they were used for?
Did you every buy Toms shoes or Warby Parker, they had a program that they would give a pair to someone in need.
Okay, I have to admit that I do buy Warby Parker and Harry's Razors. But, that is in spite of their "oh, we give eyeballs to one-armed, blind squirrels" schtick. I buy Warby Parker glasses because they look nice, I can try them on at home, and I can do everything I want to do online, without having to walk into a horrid brick-and-mortar and talk to horrid people. Same with Harry's - their razors are cheaper than Gilette's. I almost didn't buy Warby Parker and Harry's, because of their whole charity BS.
What if a company were to donate to a charity that I support? None do. Why? Because they're not in it, nor are the charities in it, to actually do good in the world. If they were, they would calculate the absolute best way to save lives for the least amount of money - they would focus on efficacy and efficiency. No charities do that. Instead, it's all about pulling the heart-strings.
If they were to focus on efficacy and efficiency, what they would do is they would calculate the value of a human life, they would use scientific methodology to determine how each marginal dollar is being used, and its direct effects upon the recipients of such aid. They would use randomized controlled trials. They would do A/B testing. They would make ALL of their data publicly available for download and testing and scrutiny. Nobody does that...
Oh, wait a minute! There is a group of people who do that!
There is not a single corporation in the world that gives to the top charities listed on GiveWell's site. Why? Because these charities don't do "Let me pull your heart-strings, get your money, and then waste it on fine wine at galas." So, no CEO gives shareholder money to these top GiveWell charities, because why steal your shareholders' money and give it to a charity, if it ain't gonna allow you to sit with beautiful people (women), and get wined and dined and told how "wonderful and caring and concerned" you are?
Instead, these charities get a lot of their money from Silicon Valley types, who are autistic, have made a lot of money over the course of their careers, and couldn't care less about "social desirability bias," and instead just want their giving to actually save and improve lives - like me (at the very least, semi-autistic, Silicon Valley type, etc., etc.).
Ain't heard of any watch manufacturer giving proceeds to any of the charities listed there under GiveWell. If there is one, point me in their direction, and I'll buy 10 watches from them. Not even joking.
About 10 years ago or so, a cheesy watch seller that hawks its wares on a home shopping network donated a bunch of watches to soldiers, and the worth of said timepieces was hiked to almost comical levels when it was reported on the news.
So, no. I mean, it's nice when anyone donates to a worthy charity or cause. But cynical actions make wise people cynical. Don't hype me, please.
Remember the old days, when companies could be charitable without releasing chest-thumping press releases about it all?
Something came to mine, what about all these brands now coming out with support Ukraine watches where all the proceeds go to some organization to help fend off Russia. Does this change ones mind due to the causing being different where its about life of death as opposed to cleaning the ocean or helping some villagers? Love to hear your thought.
God, no! This is a watch forum! And I'm certain I must be on the verge of getting banned for talking about international affairs and politics!
So, weirdly enough, I know folks who are all in the whole foreign policy bureaucracy. If we (the general "we") truly cared about Ukrainian lives, there are 30 different things we could have done that would have prevented Putin from invading Ukraine - security guarantees, face-saving measures, etc., etc., etc. We (the general "we") don't give one S&^% about Ukrainian lives. Sure, we say we do. But, that's "stated preference." And, as any economist can tell you, "stated preference" is simply the technical terminology for "lies," because 99% of what comes out of our mouths, as human beings, is lies. Instead, we rely on "revealed preference." When it comes to my actions, I can't lie about my actions. If I did X, I did X. I can say, "I would never do X," but that's just lies coming out of my mouth.
In the case of the Ukraine, over the course of the past decade, there are any number of steps we could have taken to prevent the spillage of innocent Ukrainian blood. But, we didn't take those steps. Why? Because our revealed preference reveals that we don't care about the spillage of innocent Ukrainian blood. Do you know what we do care about?
On point #4, the military people I know are absolutely aflutter with giddiness over the Russian invasion. It's an own-goal of gargantuan proportions on the part of the Russians! Their entire military has been sucked into the Ukraine, falling apart piece by piece, in much the same way that the U.S. military adventure in Vietnam decimated the U.S. military. They're so happy that one wonders if maybe... maybe they were hoping that the diplomats and the politicians wouldn't do anything to avert an invasion, that they knew they'd make a lot more money working for the military contractors post-active-military service if Russia were seen as the world's greatest threat again, and that Russia would get stuck in a quagmire, effectively taking out their #1 threat. Hmmmm... nah, that's way too cynical! When I posed this question to my friends, they just laughed and said, "Nah... that's way too cynical, Omeganut! We're all white knights, we believe in rainbows and unicorns, we live virtuous and chaste lives, and we even eat all our broccoli because broccoli's got lots of vitamins and minerals."
So, buy a watch that donates money to Ukraine... to make up for the fact that our revealed preference was for Russia to invade and spill blood in the first place?
I know, I know, I know... You and I have no part in the blame. We didn't make these decisions. We're not politicians. We're not diplomats. We're not military contractors. We're not active-duty officers. Nonetheless, maybe we should have been paying more attention to what's really going on behind the scenes? I've gotta believe that if we had, players 1-4 couldn't have gotten away with what they got away with.
And ain't no way that buying a watch with blue and yellow colors is gonna make a difference.
Okay, I have to admit that I do buy Warby Parker and Harry's Razors. But, that is in spite of their "oh, we give eyeballs to one-armed, blind squirrels" schtick. I buy Warby Parker glasses because they look nice, I can try them on at home, and I can do everything I want to do online, without having to walk into a horrid brick-and-mortar and talk to horrid people. Same with Harry's - their razors are cheaper than Gilette's. I almost didn't buy Warby Parker and Harry's, because of their whole charity BS.
What if a company were to donate to a charity that I support? None do. Why? Because they're not in it, nor are the charities in it, to actually do good in the world. If they were, they would calculate the absolute best way to save lives for the least amount of money - they would focus on efficacy and efficiency. No charities do that. Instead, it's all about pulling the heart-strings.
If they were to focus on efficacy and efficiency, what they would do is they would calculate the value of a human life, they would use scientific methodology to determine how each marginal dollar is being used, and its direct effects upon the recipients of such aid. They would use randomized controlled trials. They would do A/B testing. They would make ALL of their data publicly available for download and testing and scrutiny. Nobody does that...
Oh, wait a minute! There is a group of people who do that!
There is not a single corporation in the world that gives to the top charities listed on GiveWell's site. Why? Because these charities don't do "Let me pull your heart-strings, get your money, and then waste it on fine wine at galas." So, no CEO gives shareholder money to these top GiveWell charities, because why steal your shareholders' money and give it to a charity, if it ain't gonna allow you to sit with beautiful people (women), and get wined and dined and told how "wonderful and caring and concerned" you are?
Instead, these charities get a lot of their money from Silicon Valley types, who are autistic, have made a lot of money over the course of their careers, and couldn't care less about "social desirability bias," and instead just want their giving to actually save and improve lives - like me (at the very least, semi-autistic, Silicon Valley type, etc., etc.).
Ain't heard of any watch manufacturer giving proceeds to any of the charities listed there under GiveWell. If there is one, point me in their direction, and I'll buy 10 watches from them. Not even joking.
This is a spot on response, very well thought out. What a journey we have had when we started there was no way you would buy a watch that was tied to a charity and now we end where you would if it is the right charity.
I thank you for your honesty and insight. You have given me a lot to thinkIabout. I have always been a believer that being human is always giving. Whether that's material giving or non material but a always giving something back to our society. Advice, food, money, etc.
About 10 years ago or so, a cheesy watch seller that hawks its wares on a home shopping network donated a bunch of watches to soldiers, and the worth of said timepieces was hiked to almost comical levels when it was reported on the news.
So, no. I mean, it's nice when anyone donates to a worthy charity or cause. But cynical actions make wise people cynical. Don't hype me, please.
Remember the old days, when companies could be charitable without releasing chest-thumping press releases about it all?
I think i remember this brand, yeah it was all for press.
God, no! This is a watch forum! And I'm certain I must be on the verge of getting banned for talking about international affairs and politics!
So, weirdly enough, I know folks who are all in the whole foreign policy bureaucracy. If we (the general "we") truly cared about Ukrainian lives, there are 30 different things we could have done that would have prevented Putin from invading Ukraine - security guarantees, face-saving measures, etc., etc., etc. We (the general "we") don't give one S&^% about Ukrainian lives. Sure, we say we do. But, that's "stated preference." And, as any economist can tell you, "stated preference" is simply the technical terminology for "lies," because 99% of what comes out of our mouths, as human beings, is lies. Instead, we rely on "revealed preference." When it comes to my actions, I can't lie about my actions. If I did X, I did X. I can say, "I would never do X," but that's just lies coming out of my mouth.
In the case of the Ukraine, over the course of the past decade, there are any number of steps we could have taken to prevent the spillage of innocent Ukrainian blood. But, we didn't take those steps. Why? Because our revealed preference reveals that we don't care about the spillage of innocent Ukrainian blood. Do you know what we do care about?
On point #4, the military people I know are absolutely aflutter with giddiness over the Russian invasion. It's an own-goal of gargantuan proportions on the part of the Russians! Their entire military has been sucked into the Ukraine, falling apart piece by piece, in much the same way that the U.S. military adventure in Vietnam decimated the U.S. military. They're so happy that one wonders if maybe... maybe they were hoping that the diplomats and the politicians wouldn't do anything to avert an invasion, that they knew they'd make a lot more money working for the military contractors post-active-military service if Russia were seen as the world's greatest threat again, and that Russia would get stuck in a quagmire, effectively taking out their #1 threat. Hmmmm... nah, that's way too cynical! When I posed this question to my friends, they just laughed and said, "Nah... that's way too cynical, Omeganut! We're all white knights, we believe in rainbows and unicorns, we live virtuous and chaste lives, and we even eat all our broccoli because broccoli's got lots of vitamins and minerals."
So, buy a watch that donates money to Ukraine... to make up for the fact that our revealed preference was for Russia to invade and spill blood in the first place?
I know, I know, I know... You and I have no part in the blame. We didn't make these decisions. We're not politicians. We're not diplomats. We're not military contractors. We're not active-duty officers. Nonetheless, maybe we should have been paying more attention to what's really going on behind the scenes? I've gotta believe that if we had, players 1-4 couldn't have gotten away with what they got away with.
And ain't no way that buying a watch with blue and yellow colors is gonna make a difference.
Very interesting outlook, politically. I suppose that's a discussion for another Sub.
Yeah i dont like it.When im buying a product i want the product,when i donate to charity i want to donate.Mixing these two will just result worse for both of them.
My charitable donations are unconditional. An organisation's donations shouldn't be conditional on me buying something.
Rolex and Tudor are owned by a charity.. does that count?
Rolex and Tudor are owned by a charity.. does that count?
I guess not. They don't really give anything back. Also they are employee owned.
No, no, no, no! If a brand offers to give a portion of proceeds to charity, I will avoid it like the plague! I will specifically buy another watch from a direct competitor, just to teach them a lesson.
Sorry if this is an incredibly "cynical" take on it all. It's just, you know, as an executive in big multi-national corporations, this is the reality. Behind closed doors, all of us know this is the game, and we all laugh about it, but we never talk openly about it in public, because, you know, it sounds (and is) so horrible.
interesting point of view 👍👍. i remember tom ford sell a watch for save the ocean using reusable plastic, thats a marketting gimmick. for 1000$
I recently bought this CW, the profit will go to Ukraine Red Cross. I thought it is a good way to raise fund for a good cause.
Yes it would. and did. I don’t know if it has an impact or if the donation is genuine but it felt right and made me appreciate these specific watches a bit more 👌🏻
My charitable donations are unconditional. An organisation's donations shouldn't be conditional on me buying something.
true indeed. yet there is no harm in them doing so, no? It should not be in conflict