Monday
May312010
My BlogHer Accountability Post
Monday, May 31, 2010 
I'm disappointed and angry. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I have an amazing opportunity to tell women why they should and how they can be taken seriously as advocates of important issues. But that opportunity is now being sponsored by a couple brands owned by Nestle, a company that I protest against and boycott, and a company that I have criticized others for being involved with.
The Nestle Family Affair
In September 2009 a group of mom and dad bloggers were invited to Nestle's US headquarters in California to learn more about Nestle and its brands. It was an all expenses paid trip, with lots of goody bags full of Nestle product, and Omaha steaks sent to feed their families back home. The Nestle Family event web site, which features photographs, twitter handles, and blog URLs for all of the attendees, had this as an introduction:
Welcome to the Nestlé Family Bloggers Twitter Homepage
Nestlé understands the importance of listening directly to parents. That’s why on September 30 and October 1, we’ve invited 20 Mom and Dad bloggers to our U.S. headquarters to learn firsthand the things that are important to them and their families, and to share a little about us and our brands. Check out what they are saying by following the conversation below from Twitter. Visit this page daily from September 23 through October 7, to learn more about them, their families, their busy lives, and to hear about their experiences at Nestlé. Check out their blogs, too.
Nestle wanted to find out what is important to them and their families, to sell them on their brands, and hoped that they would say wonderful things about Nestle on twitter and on their blogs. This event was all about how Nestle could make its products more appealing to the mom and dad blogger community.
At the time, I wrote an open letter to the attendees. I said, among other things:
I was distressed to see women who I respect and women who are breastfeeding advocates had accepted the invitation. I wanted to believe that they must just not be aware of Nestle’s unethical business practices and that once they found out that they would, of course, decline the invitation and boycott the event. That was not the case. Some of you heard the concerns and said that you didn’t care. Some of you heard the concerns and said you would go anyways because you felt a dialogue with Nestle would be more productive. You are all skilled communicators. But having followed the Nestle fiasco for a long time, I know how ineffective dialogue has been in the past and I know that their public relations people will tell you a good story and try to take you for a ride.
After presenting evidence of a handful of Nestle's many unethical business practices, I concluded by saying:
At a minimum, while you are there, I hope you’ll listen with a critical ear and not take everything at face value. Nestle’s public relations machine is well oiled and they will find a way to “address” your concerns without really doing so. I would like you to tell Nestle in no uncertain terms that you do not support its unethical business practices. I would like you to tell them that you will not be using your blog, your twitter presence, or any other platform you are on to help market their products. I would like you to tell Nestle that you are going to boycott its products and ask your friends and family to do so too. Above all, I would like you to ask yourself how you feel about supporting a company that puts profits ahead of the lives and health of babies.
I stand by those words to this day. Both the words about how ineffective dialogue is with Nestle, which I proved by asking Nestle 18 questions and then posting their answers full of lies and doublespeak on my blog, as well as the words about what actions I would have liked the Nestle Family bloggers to take. As far as I know, some of them asked questions about Nestle's unethical business practices, a few of them didn't tweet or post anything positive about the company, but quite a number of them did post and tweet positive things about Nestle.
Speaking at BlogHer '10: Change Agents
In the fall of 2009, I purchased an Early Bird ticket for BlogHer '10, a conference that brings together more than 2000 primarily female bloggers to network and learn from each other.
While I had attended in 2009 and found the conference to be extremely rewarding both personally and professionally, the decision to attend again in 2010 was sealed when the Call for Ideas came out in October and noted that one of the six programming tracks was going to be on Change Agents:
Change Agents: Politics, activism, social causes, social change. Last year we learned specific skills to help us raise our voices. And then we saw how some bloggers are putting those skills into action with a series of inspiring case studies, both international and domestic. This is track to talk about what you are doing to change the world. On any kind of scale. Locally. Nationally. Globally. It's also the track to talk about what we could be doing to change the world.
This track is what my blog is all about and what I want it to be about. I knew right away that having this track at BlogHer '10 was a huge opportunity for me to share what I do and why I do it and to try to convince more women to become advocates. I also knew that it was a huge opportunity for me to learn from the other inspirational change agents in our community.
In January 2010, BlogHer invited me to be a speaker on one of the panels in the Change Agents track and I accepted. The panel I am on is called Radical Blogging Moms: Don’t Even Think About Not Taking These Moms Seriously:
We’ve explored how “mommyblogging is a radical act,” but what happens when truly radical moms blog? For these bloggers motherhood isn’t the topic, it’s a catalyst for a new level of activism. Does naming motherhood as a fundamental part of these women’s identities impact how seriously they are taken? At the intersection of motherhood and activism, you’ll find these bloggers raising their voices, raising the roof, raising a stink and raising the visibility of their target issues, all while raising their kids.
When I originally purchased my ticket (in the Fall) and when I agreed to be a speaker (in January), the sponsors of the event had not been announced and I know that BlogHer was (and possibly still is) actively seeking sponsors in the Spring of 2010. In discussions with BlogHer, I asked if there were going to be any sponsors for the speaking tracks (as there were last year). The organizers told me that there were no planned sponsors at that time for my panel, but that there could be. They asked me to provide a list of companies that I would deem offensive, and I did so. They agreed that it would be in everyone's best interest to avoid having a company sponsoring a session that featured a detractor and said that it shouldn't be an issue to make sure neither Nestle nor any baby formula company sponsored the panel I am speaking on. I didn't ask about broader conference sponsorship (but probably should have).
Nestle Sponsorship of BlogHer
A few weeks ago, I remember looking at the BlogHer sponsor list because I was thrilled to hear that Bloganthropy, an initiative that I support, was going to be a sponsor. At the time, I don't think that there were any Nestle brands listed on the sponsor page (but I can't be 100% sure). I first learned about Nestle brands sponsoring BlogHer when I read Mom Spark's blog post called Stouffer’s Sponsors BlogHer 2010. Will They Be Judged? (written on May 24, 2010 and pointed out to me on May 29, 2010). I was disappointed and angry that BlogHer would accept Nestle as a sponsor, but not surprised given that they have accepted advertising from Nestle on the website in the past.
I later learned, through e-mails exchanged with BlogHer that Stouffer's and Butterfinger, both Nestle owned brands, would be sponsoring BlogHer (although Butterfinger still isn't listed on the sponsor page as of May 31, 2010, further evidence that sponsors are being added at all times). Their sponsorship of the event will involve having a booth on the exhibition floor, putting some coupons in grab bags, and being listed in some newsletter items. They will not be sponsoring sessions, they will not be hosting big on-site parties, they will not be serving us a sponsored lunch, and they certainly do not get the opportunity to speak at the conference (nor does any other sponsor) as a result of writing a cheque.
The Meaning of Boycott
I do consider myself a boycotter of Nestle and have called on others to boycott too. There are a great many definitions of boycott in different contexts and many of them are pulled together and listed on the Answers.com Boycott page. One of them that I thought was fairly clear is:
An orchestrated way of showing disapproval, such as by not attending a meeting or avoiding a country's or company's products, so as to punish or apply pressure for change of policy or behaviour.
However, what I thought was more useful was the list of antonyms. The opposite of boycott is buy, encourage, support, use.
For me, boycotting Nestle means that I attempt not to buy, encourage, support or use their products. I am aware of the list of brands that they own and that I do not knowingly purchase them. I would never accept an offer to promote or support Nestle to my friends and family, on my blog, on twitter, or in any other business of personal dealings that I have. Essentially, I would not knowingly send any money Nestle's way or accept any money from Nestle.
That said, I do not bring my list of Nestle brands with me to every restaurant I go to and ask the server to verify with the chef to ensure that none of their products slipped into the ingredients (but if they had a "we serve Nescafe" sign, I wouldn't order coffee). I did not get on the next plane and fly home when I found out that the ice cream at the all inclusive resort that we went to was from Nestle. I didn't drag my children kicking and screaming away from the zoo after I realized there was a Nestle logo printed on the back of our ticket. I don't ask before biting into homemade cookies at a birthday party whether they contain Nestle chocolate or not. I do not refuse to shop in stores that carry Nestle brands (but I certainly don't purchase the Nestle brands when I am there).
Other people may go further than I do in their protest and I applaud that. Some people say that my protest is not really a boycott because it is not a pure boycott and perhaps they are right. I'm not that hung up on the semantics of it though. It is more actions and perceptions that concern me. Am I giving money to Nestle? Am I promoting Nestle products? I feel that, on the whole, the significant advocacy work that I do in protest of Nestle, which includes a personal pledge to avoid their products, more than balances out any regrettable minor slippage of Nestle junk into my life.
The difference between the Nestle Family event and the Nestle Sponsorship of BlogHer
In my mind, there are a number of differences between accepting an invitation to the Nestle Family event and going to a partially Nestle-sponsored BlogHer.
First, unlike the Nestle Family event, BlogHer is not just about Nestle and its brands. It is about our community.
Second, I am not going to BlogHer under any pretense or false hope that a dialogue with the Stouffer's or Butterfinger representatives could result in any change in the company's business practices.
Third, there would have been no way for me to attend or speak at the BlogHer event if I had waited until after the sponsors were announced to get a ticket. The tickets were sold out and the agenda was finalized months before the sponsors were announced. This is, obviously, different from the Nestle Family event where the attendees knew from the first moment that they heard about it that it was being paid for by Nestle.
Fourth, I have not given permission to the BlogHer sponsors to use my name and picture in their promotional materials.
The unfortunate commonality between the two events is that Nestle Family attendees and BlogHer attendees are getting something of value from Nestle in return for it having an opportunity to push its brand on them. In the case of the Nestle Family event, it was an all expenses paid trip to California and tons of free product. In the case of BlogHer it is covering a small portion of the ticket price for each person who is attending.
Accountability
I cannot, in good conscience attend BlogHer if I am going to be benefiting financially in any way from Nestle's contribution to the event. I would like, ideally, for BlogHer to tell them to get lost and to not accept sponsorships from unethical companies. I know, however, that they are not likely to do that. I should, ideally, rescind my Speaker's Agreement and refuse to attend the conference. However, BlogHer is not about Nestle. It is about us: the blogging community. I feel that if I refuse to attend BlogHer, Nestle will have won because it will still be there and yet my opportunity to tell my fellow bloggers why advocacy is important will be missed, as will my opportunity to learn to improve and strengthen my advocacy. I feel like I can, due to the nature of BlogHer, attend the conference and still protest Nestle's presence there (there will be no muzzle applied as I walk through the door).
There are 2400 attendees at BlogHer this year. Attendee registration fees generally cover about 1/3 of the true cost of attending BlogHer. The other 2/3 is covered by sponsors. According to e-mails exchanged with Blogher, the true cost of attending BlogHer this year is $600. That means that approximately $400 per person is being paid for by sponsors, for a total of around $960,000 in sponsorship funds. In my case, as a speaker, the full $600 of the cost of my attendance is being paid for by sponsors. There are currently 37 sponsors listed on the BlogHer '10 sponsor page. Although I do not have the exact figure that Stouffer's and Butterfinger paid, based on where Stouffer's is listed on the page (Bronze sponsor) and what I know about the extent of their sponsorship, I would say they are probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to the dollar value of their sponsorship. I also assume that, like Butterfinger, there are probably a few more sponsors still to be added to the site. So, if we assume there are about 40 sponsors and that Stouffer's and Butterfinger are both "average" sponsors, that would mean that they each account for 1/40 (or 2/40 together) of the sponsorship funds. That means that they spent about $24,000 each or $48,000 total to sponsor the BlogHer event. It also means that Nestle brands are contributing about $20 towards the attendance of each BlogHer attendee (or $30 for me as a speaker).
So what am I going to do? I plan to make a series of charitable donations totaling $600 (the full cost of my attendance at the conference) to organizations that are focused on breastfeeding, children's nutrition and family nutrition.
But I need your help in a few ways:
- I would like your suggestions for charities that you think are most in need that fit the description that I gave above (both Canadian and US charities). I have a few ideas of my own, but am looking for others too.
- I would like to encourage others who are attending to make a $20 donation (or what ever amount they can) in protest of Nestle's presence at BlogHer and in support of these causes. I would love to set up an anonymous mechanism for tracking those donations, but am looking for suggestions on how to do so (i.e. get a total dollar figure and number of participating attendees, without requiring individual people to tell me how much they pledged if they don't want to). Does anyone have suggestions?
Please leave a comment if you have suggestions on either front and I'll put up another post (probably sometime next week) once I've had a chance to mull over the best way to do this.
And more...
This is not the end of this issue, it is the start. This post was about my own personal accountability in this very unfortunate situation. Beyond refusing to be quiet and making a charitable contribution to cover off any personal financial benefit that could be coming from Nestle (or other potential sponsors that I disagree with), there will be more actions planned. I have some fires burning, so for those who are interested in a clear yet respectful protest of Nestle's presence at BlogHer '10, please stay tuned.
Image credit: rock and hard place by Leonard John Matthews on flickr
Reader Comments (174)
Her Bad Mother:
I focused on the why? really? how? in my last comment and forgot to address the other part of your comment.
With regards to your comment that I'm not "making the *strongest* statement", I guess that depends on how you define strongest. My statement to BlogHer, to Nestle, and to my own conscience would be *stronger* if I stayed home and I have so much respect for those who are doing that. However, I think my statements will be *louder* and heard *wider* if I do attend BlogHer. I don't know that the *strongest* statement is always the most *effective* statement.
For example, with regards to breastfeeding advocacy, the *strongest* statement would be to say that EVERY baby needs to be breastfed and that if their mother cannot provide that for them, then society should (e.g. through milk banks). However, I think it is more effective to attempt to dismantle the barriers that prevent mothers from breastfeeding their babies and to work on creating a positive image for breastfeeding, while maintaining that each mother has the right to make her own choice about how to feed her child. With regards to Nestle, the *strongest* statement would be to ensure I have no association with them whatsoever in any aspect of my life, but I think the most effective thing is to be out there as often as possible educating people about the ills of Nestle and doing work to counteract them. That is, of course, my opinion. I also respect those that take the hard line on breastfeeding and the hard line on Nestle.
This post is a wonderful preemptive strike at claims of hypocrisy, and the existing bandwagon has fully embraced it. Bravo! From a PR perspective, it’s brilliant. And it is completely understandable why you would receive a reprieve and garner such support from the same “stone hurlers” that chastised others in the same community that didn’t accept your/their view of the “cause.”
You were presented an opportunity that interested you and you went for it. Regardless of when you learned of Nestle’s involvement, you know now, well before the event. But unlike those you (and others like you) lectured, then proceeded to berate, your involvement (not simply attendance) is a perfect illustration why movements, such as this, repel as many as they attract. The “acceptable” levels of hypocrisy set by a select few (you should feel fortunate), reveal the kinks in the holier-than-thou, armor of morality. I’m sure donating the ticket cost makes everything square, good show. Your positioning in-between the “rock and hard place” has "strategically" afforded you an opportunity to speak to the flock. Any means to an end, right? There times you can seem insightful and others, just arrogant. Your decision is for "the protest" and others individuals for "personal" reasons. Aren't you protesting for personal reasons? Advocacy is choice, a VERY personal one.
I mean, really, lots of great point have been raised as to why you shouldn’t attend. But between people who support you as a person (or brand) and/or your own logic, going seems like the move to make. Kind of funny really, situation still seems oddly familiar. Though I'm sure you have prepared justification to the contrary.
I respectfully disagree with what you're doing here.
You contradict yourself in so many ways throughout this post. I can understand "you" boycotting the conference (which you're not really doing) because you don't respect the sponsoring company, but to expect others to do so, to impose "your" views on this matter, appears to me egocentric, at best.
I hope you're not trying to make a big issue out of something mediocre (in the spectrum of life and the state of the world) in an unconscious attempt to get your 15 minutes of fame on your platform, this blog.
Angelica @ Modern Familia
Were there Nestle-owned sponsors at previous BlogHer events? Or is this the first year that they have signed on?
I see your point on wanting to send your message to a new audience at BlogHer who may not be aware of you, but your loyal following online is far greater than 2400. Realistically, you won't be able to speak to all 2400 at BlogHer-just maybe only a few hundred if you're really, really busy.
Would you not make a bigger impact by showing your followers that you will have nothing to do with Nestle, in any form, than reach out to 200-300 unsuspecting BlogHer attendees who are there to further their blogging career/journey?
I have no emotional investment in this. I'm not attending BlogHer & never have, and, while I disagree with many things I've heard about the practices of Nestle and J & J, I really haven't done enough of my own research to make any real "stand."
After reading your post and the comments here, the arguments of Backpacking Dad and HerBadMother resonated most with me. I have to agree that not attending seems to make the most ethical sense to me (given your stated stance), & that it would send the strongest message to both BlogHer & Nestle. Speak loudly from your blog instead, rally others to join you from pulling from the event. I firmly believe that actions speak louder than words. If I was sitting in a session, listening to you speak out against Nestle, I would not be very affected, given that your ACTIONS (attending conference) were in conflict w/what you'd be saying you believe.
Quite frankly, any bloggers who have been outspoken about not supporting J & J and/or Nestle, but still attend this conference (or others w/their sponsorship), lose at least some, if not a lot, of credibilty with me.
I would be more impressed by your stance if you did not attend, & spent time & energy on ways to spread your blogging voice as far and wide as you can (news venues, online magazines, other blogs, linkups w/like-minded bloggers, Twitter, email campaign, etc.). Making donations to opposings orgs feels more like you're paying penance for not sticking with your resolve, more than it feels like walking the walk to me. For whatever that's worth.
No matter what, I appreciate your honesty & openness here.
But what's missing here is the message to BlogHer itself. If anti-Nestle activists go, even if you express your displeasure there's no real incentive for BlogHer to discontinue it's association with Nestle, because even if you're unhappy, you still go, you still give them your money. They won't change their stance because not matter how you & the rest of the anti-Nestle people feel, you still go so why shouldn't they continue to take Nestle money? Yes, you may reach a few more people, but not enough to really create a stink for Nestle. They'll still get far more out of their sponsorship than any negativity you bring. Better is for BlogHer to lose attendance because of their association with Nestle, for there to be negative PR because of a boycott and possibly a protest. THEN, they will make changes and come out of it a better, more responsive organization.
I've been in the activist world for more than 10 years, and I've been a part of and follow a lot of campaigns. While I respect where you're coming from, I have to say I think you're mistaken about having a bigger impact by going. It just doesn't work that way. I do think it's more about wanting to go, and that's ok if that's how you feel. But I don't think going to the event is going to have the impact you would like, especially without a lot of organizing of protests, t-shirts, leaflets, etc, which I don't see happening here.
I hope you get the results you want, but I'm afraid I just don't see it happening.
coffee with julie:
There have always been contentious sponsors. I don't think there were any Nestle owned brands last year, but I'm not sure about previous years.
Danika:
"But what’s missing here is the message to BlogHer itself. If anti-Nestle activists go, even if you express your displeasure there’s no real incentive for BlogHer to discontinue it’s association with Nestle, because even if you’re unhappy, you still go, you still give them your money. They won’t change their stance because not matter how you & the rest of the anti-Nestle people feel, you still go so why shouldn’t they continue to take Nestle money?"
Because I would like to think that the women of BlogHer have more sense and ethics than Nestle. I would like to think that we can change their minds too, if not for this year then for future years. Maybe I'm wrong, in which case this is most likely my last BlogHer. In the past, however, I have managed to convince them to change their ways. Things rarely happen overnight. Give us some time.
"But I don’t think going to the event is going to have the impact you would like, especially without a lot of organizing of protests, t-shirts, leaflets, etc, which I don’t see happening here."
You're obviously not privy to my personal e-mails then. ;)
I think also by going too you can most eloquently put a voice to the concerns being voiced re: appropriateness of sponsorship. Staying uninvolved ie. by not going, would not accomplish that quite so effectively IMO. I'm beginning to think that the radical feminism of the early seventies needs to be revisited - women are indeed becoming complacent on the whole, and it's not teaching our sons/daughters much about gender equality/valuing the family.
While the discussion and support here is great....it is clear that people won't not attend blogher...everyone wants their 'community bonding time' and 'love and hugs' and grab bags filled with stuff from said sponsors.
Are people actually speaking to the people behind blogher....do people not feel that blogher itself is losing its soul over money and marketing and basically using its HUGE popularity and loyal members and followers?
or are people sooooo now fine with free trips, free this and free that to not be able to speak up or care about who is sponsoring them?
I don't do boycotts I don't protest..but by god...for unethical advertising ALONE Nestle is one of the worst companies out there....what a HUGE COUP this is for them...this basically says that ALL THESE WOMEN LOVE US so all those other women with their petty little complaints don't mean a hill of beans.
That is what BlogHer is saying and that is what everyone who says NOTHING about this says too.
I have to say I am glad I have nothing to do with BlogHer now. I didn't like their advertising practices and I didn't like the way the mom track was nixed whatever others think or how good the schedules are....I don't plan on wanting to attend now ...not when I see things like this.
But again..I am one...CANADIAN. Nestle and Blogher don't give a crap about me.
I find it sad that BlogHer was happy to say yes.....with all their grandstanding for rights politics and so on....this makes it all feel fake in my view.
It takes away their credibility and the credibility of all their writers.......
This is the peak of the mountain of the issues of blogger and PR .....this really is the crux of it....and we can see that product and marketing wins
Crunchy:
There are people who are not going to attend. There are also people who are talking to BlogHer and expressing their displeasure and anger at this sponsorship, both privately and publicly.
Well said. Yes, I think this issue does hit at a much bigger problem than Nestle and #nestlefamily Bloggers v. Boycotters. Women's blogging, and so therefore BlogHer, is at a critical place in growth, and BlogHer is blowing it by following instead of leading. Their mission is lost -- they are accepting vaginal odor reducing products as conference sponsors!!!!! They are favoring--and becoming in their own right-- PR-friendly blogging that goes for cheap hits to traffic crap content instead of substance. This path may lead them to new PR bloggers looking to build moneymaking platforms, but they are losing the very thing that had a chance to raise the bar on quality all across the board, including of corporate sponsors. Elita canceling should be a giant wake-up call on diversity issues alone. I want to believe that they could reverse this, find the soul of their original vision and be exceptional leaders. I want to. I need to see something soon, though.
Maybe that's part of the problem
ditto....what will Blissdom do with sponsorship issues?
Okay, here's my two cents:
You knew that contentious sponsorship was a risk when you signed on. (And BlogHer organizers never made you promises to the contrary.) That much is clear.
And you've chosen to go to BlogHer despite Nestle-owned companies as sponsors - also another clear item, here.
But what's unclear to me is how or why you will protest Nestle while you are there as both an attendee and a speaker. (I'm referring to your words "have some fires burning, so for those who are interested in a clear yet respectful protest of Nestle’s presence at BlogHer ‘10, please stay tuned" as well as in one of your comments: "You’re obviously not privy to my personal e-mails then.")
BlogHer organizers manage to provide one of the most reasonably priced conferences as a direct result of sponsorship. I would imagine (1) the organizers have to expend quite a bit of energy to make this happen and (2) many bloggers would be otherwise unable to attend the event if sponsors were not offsetting the costs.
So to protest a sponsor while you are attending and participating at an event seems downright unfair to (1) the organizers who will have to manage the PR stink that kicks up as a result of whatever it is you are planning, and (2) all the bloggers who will not have the advantage of affordable entry rates in future years, since all sponsors (not just Nestle) could be scared off and not bother in future years.
Please don't jeopardize what is reputed to be (this will be my first year in attendance) a fantastic event for thousands of bloggers because you, as one blogger, have an ethical dilemma.
Julie:
"one blogger"
Really?
Do you think I'm the only one who cares about this issue or who has an ethical dilemma here?
If so, you are dead wrong. This is an issue for a lot of people.
I don't think it is unreasonable (or unfair) to ask BlogHer to come up with a sponsorship policy that would avoid a situation like this in the future. Because one way or another sponsors are likely to be scared off. There are plenty of potential sponsors out there that wouldn't agree to have their logo or their booth alongside Nestle.
This is more than one blogger......and while nobody wants to spoil fun for people....I think people attending have a right to question the sponsorship choices that the organization is making....either in public at the event or online.
Fun should not overwrite ethics in regards to an online organization that is so entrenched in 'rights' and 'fairness' and so on...
Having a co like Nestle onboard negates all that the bloggers involved feel strongly about....leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I am not even attending..now glad not to be.
Annie and Crunchy - Perhaps I should word my point another way: is it fair (to the org and its attendees) to accept an invitation to an event, only to be secretly planning to sabotage it in some way? That's all. I'll move along now. :)
I understand your reasoning, and it's clear that you feel the compromise you have come to is fair and reasonable. Certainly you have every right to make that decision.
I can tell you that from a reader's perspective, I'm very sad. I really, really hoped that you had said what you meant, and meant what you said. From the outside looking in, it looks like you can't turn down something this important to you. And honestly, I don't see that much difference between this and the Nestle Family bloggers. The truth is that they didn't care, and so they attended. And the truth is that you do care, but you will attend anyway. I am not really clear why it's worse that people who don't care about what Nestle does attended a function for the goodies and the perks. Seems like they were simply being true to their own value system, as well. Does donating to charity because you know what Nestle does and you disagree make it better somehow? I see that you think so, and I understand why, but I have to say I don't think so. It's one thing to not know or not care, it's something entirely different to know, to care, and to try to find a way to make it palatable. Well, to me anyway. I don't blog, so what do I know?
I hope you meet lots of new people and that you get the chance to share your brand of advocacy. I hope that you have an experience that makes you feel that you made the right choice and that it was worth it. But to a just regular mom, trying really hard to keep the boycott and trying really hard to raise my children right, it seems like you've sold out. I don't blame you. BlogHer seems like a cool thing, and I suppose it's professionally astute and all. I can see why you would want to go. I guess as a reader and not a blogger, maybe I can't understand how powerful you think you can be if you attend. I can't help but think that your attendance puts an astrick by your name, for those who don't like you and for at least some of those that do.
I just see that it's true that everyone has their price. And I guess I should be happy that your price at least was very high. I can see that in some ways I was looking for a hero, and of course, that's not what you are. So I apologize for expecting higher standards, and for being disappointed because I think it's probably really not fair to you. But I am disappointed, just the same.
Ariella
I hope you decide to go ahead and speak at BlogHer. Because we all have our own Nestles. To those of us in the diabetes blogging community, for example, we are concerned with the accuracy of the blood glucose meters upon which we rely to make hour-to-hour, day-to-day decisions about staying healthy (and in the case of type 1 diabetes, stay alive). There are controversies, such as some of the larger diabetes charitable organizations allowing sponsorship by companies producing fruit juice, soda, and "diabetic friendly" food containing artificial flavors and sweeteners. And the recent price war between Novo Nordisk and the country of Greece is definitely perking our attention.
We need inspiration from voices outside our "little" online community - just as I am sure there are others around the blogosphere who look to your inspiration for their own Nestles.
Secretly? I don't think Annie (and others) could be any more public or visible about their opposition and their plans to, if attending, protest as loudly as they possibly can while they're there. Not really an undercover classified operation here.
Julie:
I don't have any secret sabotage plans. I don't know how you turn "clear yet respectful protest" into "sabotage".
Rachel:
This is one of the main reasons that I am still attending. I think the world needs more activists and I hope to be able to inspire others to activism while I am there. For me, that is more important than staying home to protest Nestle paying for possibly 2/40 of the price of a BlogHer ticket. That said, I'm not going to let that issue drop either because it makes me really angry that I'm being forced to choose between my broader goals in activism in general and my personal ethics on the Nestle issue.
Ariella:
I appreciate your comment and your position. I do not think that this compromise is fair and reasonable. Not at all. But I also don't think that staying at home would be. I don't feel like there is a right answer in this case and I'm doing my best to deal with the situation knowing that there no choice that I make will make me feel good (and, for what it's worth, no choice that I make will satisfy all of my supporters or all of my detractors).
I know how much stuff costs but if I felt as strongly about a company as Annie and they were sponsoring an event I had planned on attending let alone speaking at, I would still pull out.
She can sell her ticket, and see if anyone wants to buy her room fees from her and I bet the airline would work with her so really she shouldn't be out money if that happens and worst case scenario if it doesn't is it really worth giving back to charity to appease the guilt you feel for attending an event sponsored by a company you feel so strongly about. That is how it is coming across to me and others.
I would rather give to charity on my own accord not because I CHOSE to attend something that a company I dislike that much is sponsoring. :0) and I understand financial difficulties with the best of them more than you probably think.
Toni:
I think Carol was referring to people in general and not me specifically. I can't sell my ticket because I didn't spend a cent on it and it is a free speaker's ticket. I haven't bought a flight yet and although I have a hotel room, I'm sure plenty of people would take it off my hands. I'm now spending $600 that I didn't plan to spend on a charitable donation because it is the only way that I can possibly make this palatable for myself. Yes, the $600 is to appease my guilt. But if I really felt that staying home would be more effective in terms of my overall advocacy role, I would do that. But I don't think it is.
Toni:
I should also say that if I had paid for a BlogHer ticket and I wasn't going to go to BlogHer, I would not be selling my ticket. That would be completely useless. I would basically be selling the opportunity for someone else to be marketed to by Nestle brands.
Toni - I was speaking in general of the financial difficulties that people have the potential to face by "putting their money where their mouth is". Can I ask what airline(s) you fly? They will certainly work with a customer to change dates and destinations - for a price. The cheapest this has been for me within the last two years was $75.00 per ticket but recently I overheard (it was hard not to since the lady sharing was screaming at a gate agent) that the cost for ticket changes is now $300.00 at US Airways.
Are there people who can get out of their BlogHer obligations whole? Sure - depending on what they are willing to do. Are there some that would be forced to take it in the shorts to exercise an option they feel compelled to take? Yes. Are there some who can minimize their costs of not going - Uh-huh. Are there people who, because of the cost (and not just the $$$) feel their best option is to go to this conference. Yes.
My point in answering the way I did above, and returning here is to say "A decision not to go to BlogHer can be more costly to the advocates than they can personally bear (as they determine it for themselves)." I don't understand attempts to minimize to $0.00 what is a reality many advocates are grappling with.
Annie's cost analysis for this situation is more complicated for her than your decision to go to the Nestlé Family Event or, apparently, your cost analysis for a decision to go to BlogHer 2010. That's OK. Saying "If I felt as strongly as Annie about this I wouldn't go." is only illustrative of what *you* would do. By her own admission Annie is clear that there are no good choices for her. Each has a cost attached. She's obviously aware of those costs and willing to accept whatever happens as a consequence of this decision and she has my admiration for that.
I highly doubt that anybody here cares what I think, but yes: Shawn and HBM are ABSOLUTELY right. The only statement to be made here is to boycott and inspire others through that action. There is no integrity in going to the conference. And to say you're going to donate to charities to make up for it, frankly, is insulting.
It's fun to be a vegan and get all up in people's faces about eating meat until somebody points out how much you like your Louboutins. Put your money where your mouth is.
You are being a hypocrite plain and simple. it would be one thing if you had written a little post about your displeasure with Nestle Corporate practices. You manned a full blown attack on twitter, blogs, and the attendees of the event, and on every aspect of Nestle's philosophy that you could "find questionable"... It lasted for days, weeks, and took up pages on this site. I thought you handled most things well and while I didn't agree with everything and still don't, I could respect the way you presented your opinions.
At this point I agree with those who say you are justifying your attendance in your own mind and to us as well. I still don't get it.
I can't believe how rude some people are being here. This blog is Annie's cyber-home. If you want to be nasty, you should go do it in your own blogs. You would not visit someone's physical home and stand there and spout ugliness--not unless you have no class at all. Those of you who went to the Nestle event and feel embarrassed and guilty about it are spilling a lot of venom in a way that only makes you look small.
I think you need to focus less on what Nestle might think and more on BlogHer. I, too, love BlogHer and will be attending my fifth conference in a row this summer. That said you say that you are attending because of the community that BlogHer provides and you are part of. BlogHer has agreed on a sponsorship from a company that a large part of their community - the one they represent - takes issue with. By not attending the conference you are showing them that the community means it when they say boycott and are truly against a company. If you were to back out then BlogHer would take notice that a "powerful blogger" and huge voice within the community takes issue with who they have as a sponsor. Like I said, Nestle won't notice until BlogHer realizes that people are concerned and they tell Nestle of the concerns.
Is this going to happen? Probably not but if you want to be influential (and like Catherine said, only like 20 people attend a session and you are much more influential via your blog) then sometimes it sucks but you have to put your money where your mouth is.
I really don't understand how some of you see it the same to attend Nestle's premises, with paid airfare and paid hotel etc. vs attending a conference on topics that are not about promoting Nestle and receiving sponsorship of about $30. Yes, there is an ethical dilemma about receiving even on cent from Nestle, but the bigger dilemma is whether to abandon the good that she could do at the conference compared to sitting at home just to spite Nestle. Nestle will never care. BlogHer will care if enough bloggers speak out about some kind of vetting process for eliminating unethical sponsors from the list. Believe me, by showing more integrity BlogHer can attract other sponsors who prefer to have their names seen alongside more ethical companies. If they refuse to do so, then they risk boycott.
Did you see this post from a Nestle Family Event attendee?
http://juststopscreaming.com/2010/06/nestle-boycotters-attending-event-sponsored-by-nestle-color-me-confused
Just thought you'd want to see how "the other side" views your attendance. I'll sum up for people who don't feel like clicking over and wading through: She thinks you're being hypocritical.
Now, there are problems with her argument, sure, like the fact that she doesn't contrast a Nestle-only event with BlogHer, which is a lot more than just Nestle-centric, and she doesn't point out that tickets to BlogHer were purchased months in advance of the sponsorship revelation. She doesn't, in fact, mention BlogHer by name, even when referencing the title of your post.
AND, of course, as a recipient of much vitriol from her own attendance at a Nestle event, her point of view is firmly biased against the boycotters.
But, but — it's interesting to note that she is taking you as a spokesperson for the Nestle boycotters, and basically calling all of us out on our hypocrisy. I have issues with her argument, but that's unfortunately the message that's getting across to those who don't share our views.
I will be interested to see what your protest at the conference looks like, and if that changes any minds from the other side.
This was a very interesting article. I have to do my research, but I like your passion about the subject. It is good to know that you are will to fight for what you believe in. Keep it up because it is an inspiration to us all. cleverlychanging.com When life roughs you up, take the chisel to it; character is developed in the kinks.
I have posted a response to Toni's blog and added this to by article on Nestlé sponsorship of BlogHer with links to supporting information. See:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog310510#comment-38
Here's an extract:
Nestlé's response to its Twitter disaster has been to recruit a Public Relations agency to try to improve its image in cyberspace. An independent image rating agency has found Nestlé to have a particularly poor image.
It is probably on the advice of the PR agency that Nestlé's Stouffer and Butterfinger brands have come forward as sponsors to the forthcoming BlogHer event late in the day. When people were buying early-bird tickets and accepting invitations to speak, no Nestlé brand was listed as a sponsor, people who bought such tickets have said. Now that BlogHer has decided to take Nestlé on as a sponsor it has created a dilemma for those who had already arranged to attend and particularly the PhD in Parenting blogger who was booked to speak specifically on the whole Nestlé issue.
It has been a masterstroke by Nestlé to set itself up as a sponsor because it now has some people demanding that Nestlé critics do not attend on the grounds doing so would make them hypocrites. If critics do attend to expose Nestlé then the company no doubt hopes the focus will be on whether they should be there or not, rather than the company - just as it prefers the discussion about the #nestlefamily event be whether people were rude, rather than Nestlé's behaviour and its inadequate answers. Nestlé has an anti-boycott team so they are no doubt chuckling to themselves because their job becomes a whole lot easier when arguments erupt over other issues - and this is an important lesson for critics to learn: try to keep focus on Nestlé.
I can certainly see both the pro-boycott side and Annie's side. What I'm having a tough time getting right now, though, is the attitude from people that this is somehow at all like the Nestle Family drama. It is as if someone was getting all sorts of awesome freebies from their corner drug dealer and got mad when someone else brought up the ethical problems there. Then when that person ended up having to get a prescription for Prozac, the first person was all, "Oh so I guess drugs aren't so bad after all! Maybe you should have shut up about me and my dealer!"
This situation is not like the Nestle Family situation, and attempts to conflate the two are just making people look defensive and petty, and bringing the discussion about the BlogHer situation down to that level.
Otherwise, I'm not personally involved in BlogHer (haven't blogged in a year or so, never used BlogHer ads or went to a conference), but the sneaky unethical sponsorship behavior certainly has made me lose any respect I ever had for them.
I referred in my analysis to UNICEF Deputy Executive Director, Stephen Lewis at the time, deciding to attend a nutrition conference where he had been invited as keynote speaker after finding it was sponsored by Nestlé. This is reported on page 155 of Marion Nestlé's book Food Politics (no relation to Nestlé). See:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zvzTIUV9XNwC&lpg=PA155&ots=4rTabLwNzA&dq=%22stephen%20lewis%22%20nutrition%20nestle%20montreal%2097&pg=PA155#v=onepage&q&f=false
What he said may be of help (as quoted) as he challenged organisers over their acceptance of sponsorship from makers of infant formula and pandering to the:
"obdurate self-interest of infant-formula companies who continue to ply their activities we know are essentially hostile to breast-feeding... there is no justification for nutritionists, of all people, taking money from companies that peddle milk power for babies - period... This congress consists of believers in nutritional excellence. It seems therefore to us that it is somehow antithetic to receive money from interests that are hostile to good nutrition and whose marketing practices or commercial interests run counter to the nutritional excellence everyone in this room would want to achieve... The congress should find other sponsors."
People can debate whether he was a hypocrite for going to an event sponsored by Nestlé, or he used it well as a platform to expose the companies and challenge conflicts of interest.
But note that these issues continue to be raised - including at the World Health Assembly in May this year - because the practices continue. As well as debating whether to attend or not, please do send a message to Nestlé to help us stop its latest baby milk marketing scam:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510
If you have already done so, you can ask others to do the same. Let's try to use this opportunity of Nestlé being in the spotlight once again to force some changes.
If I felt so strongly about a company that I felt compelled to attack other people over their personal decisions (which is typically against my own value system), I certainly would not attend an event that company sponsored. No amount of charitable donations would make me feel OK about it. I may find myself in the vicinity to protest and mingle with friends, but I wouldn't accept the sponsorship.
But my values are my own, just as your values are yours. If you feel ok with what you've decided to do, that's really what matters. We each have to find our own ways to live our lives and sleep comfortably at night. Attacking other people rarely, if ever, wins them over to a different side of thinking.
I do hope, though, if you feel so strongly about attending BlogHer, that you think twice about protesting the sponsors ON THEIR DIME (charitable donations don't change that). This is the sort of thing that makes other sponsors uncomfortable about signing on board and while you may be able to afford the $600 registration cost if there are no sponsors, others can't. If you want to protest, sell your ticket and do it outside of the conference environment. Protesting BlogHer sponsors as a BlogHer attendee is utterly disrespectful to the group as a whole.
Huh? What this is like is someone attacking illegal drug users, but then deciding to use marijuana (illegally) because they've got cancer and it provides pain relief. You can sort of see the justification, but it still seems a bit hypocritical...
Christy:
I guess we see things a bit differently.
1) I think there is a big difference between questioning people's decisions and attacking them. I questioned other people's decisions, but I didn't attack them. I am okay with people questioning my decisions here (and I may or may not agree with them).
2) I cannot sell my ticket. I have a speaker's ticket. It is not mine to sell.
3) Even if I had a ticket I had paid for myself, and chose not to go, I wouldn't sell it. That would defeat the purpose of not going completely.
So you want to get your message across to a group you think is important. And you do not want to take money from Nestlé or be associated with them in any way.
Here's an idea: cancel your speaker slot, go to the conference, do guerilla warfare. Speak to the most influential people, hand out leaflets, speak outside if you want to.
That way you won't ruin your credibility.
I would like to go back and read all the comments, but there are so many!
My two cents:
I'll make an analogy (stick with me). I follow Talib Kweli on twitter. He is an antiracist, socially progressive rapper. He happened to have a show planned in Arizona right after the passes their new immigration laws. He asked his followers on twitter if he should boycott the state and cancel his show, or go and perform for the people his fans who presumably did not support the law. In the end he decided to go, because "people need music."
I think this is similar. People need your voice. The blog sphere, particularly the mommy blog sphere, is overrun with people who, to be blunt, never think or write about issues of race, poverty, and everything that is implicated by the Nestle boycott. If you go, you bring that voice and that perspective to the people who want to and need to hear it. Plus, there are probably people going who have no idea about any of this, and would be exposed to new information through you.
I would go as you have planned, and put effort into spreading the word about why it is important to boycott or at the very least think critically about nestle. You can encourage people not to eat or use their freebies (from the one blogging conference I attended, I assume they might have snacks for people), you can even make protest buttons or bring information about Nestles unconscionable practices. While it's true you can't really hurt their empire, economically speaking, you can make their sponsorship more about what they do wrong then the yummy stuff they make.
Point being, as a progressive bordering radical mother and antiracist advocate, your voice and your stance on this issue is one I would want to hear if I was attending. That is more important to me than you staying behind.
It's a masterstroke anyway. Because Nestle can now show that if they're just a TINY bit involved in something, say, $30 worth or so, it's totally fine to attend if you're an activist. That's a pretty major win. Boycott us, sure, ok, no problem. But not for this teeny tiny bit over here... that's totally fine. Nothing to see here.
Aside from those who are already fans of this blog, and even I see, from some who are, the majority of opinion I see online from regular folks (not just the Nestle Family bloggers) is "duh...this is hypocritical" and it hurts the overall cause and the overall boycott. Well gee if even THIS blogger is attending, maybe it's not so bad if I buy my weekly Butterfinger. I mean, I totally told people at work today to boycott Nestle, so overall, I'm doing good, right? My $1 for a chocolate bar won't be missed in their bottom line... it's all ok.
People will be able to point to this for years to come. It is the action of attending that will be remembered, not perhaps the handful of people that might have their interest mildly piqued about the boycott because someone was wearing a protest teeshirt at BlogHer. Not to mention those who will be utterly turned off by someone trying to make a political/boycott statement about a sponsor at an event they're attending.... that will certainly be viewed as rude at very least, and I imagine there will probably be a backlash as well.
Complicated justification aside... this whole thing leaves a very bad taste in most mouths who read it without the intent to comfort someone they see struggling with a moral issue. Can we have compassion for the struggle? Yes. But do we have to then say "oh it's probably fine"? I do not think so.
Bastral:
It is kind of a masterstroke and one that really sucks, because to avoid everything that is supported by Nestle in any tiny way, I would have to live off grid.
Not a bad idea, really.
Also like this comment a whole lot.
Jan:
By "go to the conference" do you mean inside or outside of the conference?
If you mean inside, I don't have that option. The conference is sold out and my ticket is a speaker's ticket. If I cancel my speaker's slot, I can't go inside. Also, Nestle would still be paying for part of my ticket, so what is the difference really?
If you mean outside, my access to 'the most influential people' would be much more limited outside the conference than inside the conference.
Me too! Well said!