Wrigley's Chewing Gum sponsorship of An Taisce National Spring Clean campaign

Judgement Day

The title says it all and you couldn't make it up! I heard the radio ads for the campaign and checked out the website for myself http://www.nationalspringclean.org/ and if you scroll down to the bottom of the page there's Wrigley's logo. It's difficult to think of an organisation more ill-suited to sponsor such a campaign other than perhaps the manufacturers of spray paint. Am I the only one who finds this leaves a bad taste in the mouth - sorry.

krudler

How's it Wrigley's fault if people are too ignorant to put their gum in a bin?

ScumLord

I don't see how wriggles are doing anything wrong. Surely they should be commended for owning up to the fact their product contributes to the mess rather than just ignoring that it happens.

kneemos

krudler wrote: »

How's it Wrigley's fault if people are too ignorant to put their gum in a bin?

Because it's the only substance people can spit out and it sticks to the pavement.

shopaholic01

That fact that so many people just spit out their chewing gum onto roads and pavements would suggest that a manufacturer of same is probably the ideal sponsor.

Judgement Day

Oh dear, do I have to spell it out, it's not Wrigley's that are at fault, it's An Taisce. Sadly they have a record of taking money from such sources as readers of their magazine in the 1970s will remember. From Wrigley's point of view it's a clever stroke as they appear to be doing something civic minded.

PogMoThoin

Judgement Day wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds this leaves a bad taste in the mouth - sorry.

Yes.

floggg

OP, you need a hobby.

Judgement Day

floggg wrote: »

OP, you need a hobby.

I do and one of them is giving out about things that annoy me.

ScumLord

Judgement Day wrote: »

Oh dear, do I have to spell it out, it's not Wrigley's that are at fault, it's An Taisce. Sadly they have a record of taking money from such sources as readers of their magazine in the 1970s will remember.

Take a look around government websites you'll find it's common enough practice to get a company "sponsor" their campaigns. Not just in this country either.

Judgement Day

ScumLord wrote: »

Take a look around government websites you'll find it's common enough practice to get a company "sponsor" their campaigns. Not just in this country either.

I have no problem with An Taisce seeking sponsorship but it's crazy stuff letting Wrigley's enhance their reputation when their wretched products are defacing every town in the country.

YFlyer

Biodegradable chewing gum should be compulsory.

shopaholic01

Judgement Day wrote: »

I have no problem with An Taisce seeking sponsorship but it's crazy stuff letting Wrigley's enhance their reputation when their wretched products are defacing every town in the country.

The products aren't defacing anything, it's the people who chew them.

If I drive a car into a wall who do you think would be responsible - me or the
car manufacturer?

ScumLord

Judgement Day wrote: »

Oh dear, do I have to spell it out, it's not Wrigley's that are at fault, it's An Taisce.

Judgement Day wrote: »

I have no problem with An Taisce seeking sponsorship but it's crazy stuff letting Wrigley's enhance their reputation

Flip flop.

MadsL

Judgement Day wrote: »

Oh dear, do I have to spell it out, it's not Wrigley's that are at fault, it's An Taisce. Sadly they have a record of taking money from such sources as readers of their magazine in the 1970s will remember. From Wrigley's point of view it's a clever stroke as they appear to be doing something civic minded.

Judgement Day wrote: »

I have no a problem with An Taisce .

I have fixed your post, not the first time you have made baseless allegations against An Taisce and refused to acknowlege that you are wrong.

Now here is some vague slur about taking a donation 43 years ago and a bizarre attack on Wrigley's for trying to help clean up some of the mess left by the Irish people, one of the most littering nations I have come across.

Mods, this a personal vendetta post as the OP posting history will attest.

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=Taisce&forum=&user=171218&date_from=&date_to=

Judgement Day

ScumLord wrote: »

Flip flop.

Sorry?

MadsL

floggg wrote: »

OP, you need a hobby.

Yours appears to be passing judgement.

humanji

Judgement Day wrote:

I have no problem with An Taisce seeking sponsorship but it's crazy stuff letting Wrigley's enhance their reputation when their wretched products are defacing every town in the country.

Wrigley's currently have a campaign about binning chewing gum. Since so many people spit chewing gum onto the ground, and removing it is one of the things a community spring clean would be doing, it makes perfect sense for them to sponsor it. If anything, it's a great idea.

kneemos

shopaholic01 wrote: »

The products aren't defacing anything, it's the people who chew them.

If I drive a car into a wall who do you think would be responsible - me or the
car manufacturer?

If after you drove your car into the wall the car manufacturer sponsered a road safety campaigne as a PR exercise how would you feel?

mike65

McDonalds are making 8-10 year olds healthier as well.

Judgement Day

MadsL wrote: »

I have fixed your post, not the first time you have made baseless allegations against An Taisce and refused to acknowlege that you are wrong.

Now here is some vague slur about taking a donation 43 years ago and a bizarre attack on Wrigley's for trying to help clean up some of the mess left by the Irish people, one of the most littering nations I have come across.

Mods, this a personal vendetta post as the OP posting history will attest.

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=Taisce&forum=&user=171218&date_from=&date_to=

GTFO - you're unreal. I have no vendetta against An Taisce but I have plenty of issues with the way the organisation is run. I don't know what donation you're talking about from 43 years ago. Perhaps if Wrigleys were genuinely concerned with keeping the streets clean they wouldn't have campaigned against the proposed chewing gum tax. http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2005/0104/58375-presswatch/

Anyway, I've the dinner to cook, so off you go and trawl through my posts for vendetta evidence. :rolleyes:

shopaholic01

kneemos wrote: »

If after you drove your car into the wall the car manufacturer sponsered a road safety campaigne as a PR exercise how would you feel?

I'd regret not having seen it sooner. You can blame products for the way consumers choose to use/discard them. All businesses advertise, sponsorship is a part of that.

kneemos

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I'd regret not having seen it sooner. You can blame products for the way consumers choose to use/discard them. All businesses advertise, sponsorship is a part of that.

Just like breweries encourage people to drink responsibly?

shopaholic01

kneemos wrote: »

Just like breweries encourage people to drink responsibly?

As do supermarkets/off licences that sell alcohol. Consumers are responsible for thier own alcohol consumption, motorists for their own driving etc.

Perhaps you could give your own personal objection to Wrigleys sponsorship, instead of just asking me questions?

kneemos

shopaholic01 wrote: »

As do supermarkets/off licences that sell alcohol. Consumers are responsible for thier own alcohol consumption, motorists for their own driving etc.

Perhaps you could give your own personal objection to Wrigleys sponsorship, instead of just asking me questions?

You're probably right people are responsible but it's the most enviromentally damaging substance on sale,nobody's addicted to it,it's not nutritional,all it does is create a mess,the manufacturers getting involved in a clean up is hypocritical at best.

shopaholic01

kneemos wrote: »

You're probably right people are responsible but it's the most enviromentally damaging substance on sale,nobody's addicted to it,it's not nutritional,all it does is create a mess,the manufacturers getting involved in a clean up is hypocritical at best.

Perhaps it is hypocritical, it may be a cynical exercise on their part 'We're trying to encourage people to dispose of gum correctly' etc while advertising their product at the same time. The purpose of any form of advertising is to manipulate consumers. However, it might actually work so what's the real harm?

ScumLord

Judgement Day wrote: »

Sorry

It's ok, I forgive you.

MadsL

Judgement Day wrote: »

GTFO - you're unreal. I have no vendetta against An Taisce

I see, you just post a lot of misinformed nonsense abut them, is that it?

but I have plenty of issues with the way the organisation is run.

And most of them are entirely misinformed.
One of those relates to misinformed nonsense about Booterstown marsh which you seem to feel is run incorrectly by being flooded, despite this being the actual best-practise for such wildlife habitat.

Judgement Day wrote: »

An Taisce have managed to destroy the bird sanctuary at Booterstown

Another is your mistaken belief that An Taisce own Lord Cloncurry's Towers.

Another is that An Taisce have not continuously called for great protection of Aldborough House.

I don't know what donation you're talking about from 43 years ago.

Neither do I??? You brought up some reference to a donation in the 70s - I have no idea what you are on about. But now you claim to to not know what you yourself were accusing them about.

Perhaps if Wrigleys were genuinely concerned with keeping the streets clean they wouldn't have campaigned against the proposed chewing gum tax.

Maybe Aviva aren't that interested in Sports?

Charities should take money from the Devil if it means that good things get done, it is not up to charities to police the morals of the donators. Equally they should not be immune from criticism because of those donations.

Judgement Day

MadsL wrote: »

I see, you just post a lot of misinformed nonsense abut them, is that it?



And most of them are entirely misinformed.
One of those relates to misinformed nonsense about Booterstown marsh which you seem to feel is run incorrectly by being flooded, despite this being the actual best-practise for such wildlife habitat.



Another is your mistaken belief that An Taisce own Lord Cloncurry's Towers.

Another is that An Taisce have not continuously called for great protection of Aldborough House.


Neither do I??? You brought up some reference to a donation in the 70s - I have no idea what you are on about. But now you claim to to not know what you yourself were accusing them about.


Maybe Aviva aren't that interested in Sports?

Charities should take money from the Devil if it means that good things get done, it is not up to charities to police the morals of the donators. Equally they should not be immune from criticism because of those donations.

Is it a heavy burden being the fount of all knowledge? :P

PS There are so many inaccuracies in what you've stated above that I can't be bothered replying. As for 'the remains' of Lord Cloncurry's Towers at Maretimo, nowhere have I stated that they belong to An Taisce - not that it matters now as they will be demolished as a danger to rail traffic eventually.

Judgement Day

ScumLord wrote: »

It's ok, I forgive you.

Don't give up the day job.

MadsL

Judgement Day wrote: »

Is it a heavy burden being the fount of all knowledge? :P

Easier to criticise when the burden of actual facts doesn't have to be carried.

Once again you suggest some vague impropriety or mismanagement, and then run away when pressed for details.