On Dec 21, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me. > Which they aren't. You're not paid by them and you're arguing FOR them. > > Well played, Google. No, I'm arguing against people who think this is evil are being silly. Including you. Sometimes donating money to charity is just donating money to charity. I really don't see Google getting more business because I posted to NANOG. Are you honestly arguing otherwise? I guess we should get upset at them if they take a tax write off too? -- TTFN, patrick > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:28:10PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore's said: >> On Dec 21, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Corey Travioli wrote: >> >>>> Another one from the "Evil Doer" >>>> http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/ >>>> Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ... >> >>> So what they are saying is because we as individuals are too cheep >>> to give to charity they are giving in our stead to shame us. Yup, that is >>> evil. >> >> I know it's off-topic, but I'm impressed with the idea that a public >> corporation can spend 8 figures on something that has essentially $0 ROI and >> multiple people here can find bad things about it. >> >> I'm shocked someone didn't say "but that's only 0.0000$WHATEVER percent of >> their profit!". >> >> Google does many things which can be argued as evil, or not, but I would say >> this is very much not one of them. >> >> -- >> TTFN, >> patrick >> > > -- > Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA > Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 > Front St. W. >