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
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 166 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t envy your position and in Mom Spark’s post I mentioned my view of boycotts. I do believe that the choice of BlogHer to allow this sponsorship is in poor taste after that recent storm eruption. I may not agree with you (most of the time) but I do commend you for finding a way to hold your ethics high and use this opportunity to highlight something – in a positive way.
I think life is full of rocks and hard places and the difference is the transparency with which we live and act upon. Thanks for openly sharing this process with us as you navigate these choppy waters. I wish I could go and meet you–but have decided to keep my 4 week postpartum self at home
Good luck!
I admire the thought you’ve put into this, Annie. You always speak your mind with such class and intelligence.
You don’t owe anyone an explanation. So it’s very cool to me that you have explained so much here, and in such detail. I hope those that don’t necessarily get this are at the very least appreciative of the time and effort you’ve spent detailing your stance.
I think your ultimate explanation & decision is an honorable one. I am so thankful I am not put in this situation, and I think it’s an unfortunate set of circumstances, but you know now people will for sure have more awareness about Nestle practices. I hope all debate and discussions remain civil and pleasant. And I do wish you the best as you continue to make a difference.
Steph
I’m still processing this post; my gut is that you’re making the best of this unfortunate situation and handling it well. Kudos for your thoughtful response.
I’d suggest Best for Babes for the donations! Anyone who hasn’t heard of BfB can read our Credo & Mission here: http://www.bestforbabes.org
I too was going to suggest BFB
I, too, give a big thumbs-up for sending funds to Best for Babes!
You’ve handled this with such class and thought. Kudos. You’re turning a tragedy (Nestle sponsorship and in a larger sense Nestle’s DEADLY actions) into hope and will help so many. Sometimes, we can’t control life’s circumstance, but we can chose to let that tragedy multiply into multiples of good. That’s what you’re doing. I’m sure you’ve thought of it, but a donation to Best to Babes would be awesome. And, why not get creative and look for off the beaten path opportunities to make a difference, sponsor a mom to visit Washington and speak to her representative about breastfeeding legislation, or work with an organization to set up online breastfeeding consultations, or find an organization working in the countries that feel victim to predatory Nestle marketing and send a lactation consultant there to work with women.. I can’t wait to see what you come up with.
I’m not sure that the “If I don’t go Nestle will have won” line of thought holds up to philosophical scrutiny to justify attending. Let’s find out.
(1) What you want is to not benefit from Nestle dollars.
(2) What you want is to not contribute to Nestle’s products being purchased or supported.
(3) What you want is to apply, organize, or participate in pressure on Nestle to change their behaviours.
1 and 2 are about what you want, personally, and what you can affect, directly. Neither of these is compromised by your participation in BlogHer despite the Nestle sponsorship (although 2 would be if I weren’t certain that as part of your speaking at BlogHer you’ll be trying to counteract the positive image Nestle will portray at BlogHer).
But 3 is a group goal, and part of holding 3 in your heart is being committed to group action even after all of the personal actions and costs have been balanced out. You DO sacrifice 3 if you attend BlogHer because no matter the personal choices you make afterward (donating money, articulating anti-Nestle messages to a broader audience) you choose to sever your connection with the group boycott.
Maybe in the end you disagree that concerted action is the best way to pressure Nestle into changing their behaviours. Maybe you think that you, as an individual, can do more to pressure Nestle by speaking at BlogHer than by not attending. But one thing you can accomplish by not attending that is over and above the personal action of not receiving money from Nestle or otherwise supporting them is to inspire others to also not attend. A group effort does require inspiration, and it’s hard to inspire a group to do something other than what you yourself are doing. Even if you think you are personally, and subtley, not supporting Nestle by attending, there is no insipiration in a call to subtlety.
How powerful is the voice of a speaker who refuses to be bought? I think it’s more powerful than the voice of a speaker who itemizes their deductions from the devil.
(N.B. I don’t care about Nestle or the boycott.)
Wow, this is a very thoughtful good point, Backpacking Dad…
Steph
I disagree. Nestle wouldn’t care a bit if phdinp didn’t attend–it would make no difference at all except perhaps to please those who already believe in the boycott. By attending and speaking out phdinp can use Nestle’s own money to promote this boycott and other acts of advocacy. She is emphatically not severing herself from the group action, and she is taking great care to keep herself clean, so to speak.
I agree. More power in going to the event and speaking out than in staying home.
I would like to suggest you donate money to the Australian Breastfeeding Association. You can read about the Association’s vision, mission, values and objectives here:
http://breastfeeding.asn.au/aboutaba/purpose.html
And about the products and services the Association offers here:
http://breastfeeding.asn.au/products/index.html
Actually, Nestle *would* care if Annie didn’t attend, because she is influential, and by making the statement, through her actions, that she will not attend a conference sponsored by Nestle she sends the message that such sponsorships won’t be tolerated by the communities that feel strongest about them. The only way that conferences will ever avoid such sponsors is if such sponsorship deter attendance. Shawn is right: the strongest message is to not attend, and to be vocal about why, and to encourage others to do same (a real life audience at a conference like BlogHer is a fraction of the online audience, and everyone who attends a panel at BlogHer would read a post *about* that panel – speaking there in person doesn’t extend one’s reach.) Nestle absolutely benefits from the attendance of its boycotters, because the attendance in itself confers legitimacy. This is precisely why such companies seek such sponsorships.
I admire Annie’s efforts here to be morally accountable, and I think that she’s doing a commendable job, and if a Nestle protester *is* going to attend, this is the most accountable way. But the strongest and most effective statement is still boycott of the conference. I’m not recommending that, because I love BlogHer and want to see it supported, but I think that in discussions like this, we benefit most from utmost honesty – HERE is where we draw a line and accept something morally problematic. This is where comparisons to the Nestle event are most apt – some of those bloggers declared their lines, and there was some discourse about not tolerating such lines. But the discussion is no longer, accept no lines; it’s now, where’s the line? BlogHer is a fascinating and important case, because we love it so and because it does so much good – which is, as I said above, EXACTLY why Nestle would seek sponsorship. It knows our lines. It knows that refusing to attend to BlogHer is a hard, perhaps impossible, one to cross. It knows that most of us will say, well, I wouldn’t attend a Nestle Family event, I won’t buy Nestle products, but I will attend BlogHer. THAT’S why it wins here. We contort ourselves all over the place to make it okay to attend an event to which Nestle’s name is attached, rather than just saying no. So Nestle succeeds. Sure, protest will occur – BlogHer never muzzles anybody, and Nestle knows that – but it still got what it wanted. Shawn’s right. We need to be open about that truth.
I keep pursuing this because I used to teach morality in politics (ha!) and I used to push my students to consider *exactly* these sorts of questions: when and how do you compromise? How do you extend that to tolerance of others’ political morality? So on some level this is me being a political philosopher and pushing the question, because that’s what I would have done with my students. But it’s also because this is morality in politics playing out in real life, as it always does, and it’s these cases that push us to ask the hard questions about where we really draw our lines.
maybe I am clueless about this, but how big a share of their potential market is really at stake here? Speaking as an economist, I have a feeling that Nestle has already written the boycotters off and is perfectly content with the money they are making without this group of consumers. This is actually a fringe group, yes? Nestle is a huge multinational. They don’t need to court the boycotters, because the boycott is a financial mosquito in their world.
I don’t mean to suggest that Annie is not influential within this sphere, and I am all for tilting at windmills: I am not saying that the voices and actions of the anti-Nestle activists are unimportant nor that the boycott is pointless. I am always inspired by this sort of political activity. I’m just saying that probably the vast majority of consumers worldwide are completely unaware of the whole issue. Nestle is an example of what is wrong with allowing businesses to get so big. If consumer action can’t really hurt a company, it is too big for the good of the people.
Of course, I have been living in Central America and I haven’t had babies for a decade, so possibly I am just out of touch. I can remember boycotts and protests against Nestle way back before I started my family, though…
Backpacking Dad:
But 3 is a group goal, and part of holding 3 in your heart is being committed to group action even after all of the personal actions and costs have been balanced out. You DO sacrifice 3 if you attend BlogHer because no matter the personal choices you make afterward (donating money, articulating anti-Nestle messages to a broader audience) you choose to sever your connection with the group boycott.
I don’t feel any accountability to group action. I participate in group action when I think it is beneficial, but I am not bound to it. I’m a socialist, not a communist.
How powerful is the voice of a speaker who refuses to be bought? I think it’s more powerful than the voice of a speaker who itemizes their deductions from the devil.
I think that me refusing to speak would appease some boycotters and some critics. But I don’t think it would be powerful. In terms of itemizing the deductions from the devil, I want to and an privileged to be able to make a charitable contribution for the full amount of my conference participation, so I didn’t need to itemize anything. I itemized it to give others an idea of what Nestle’s contribution to their own ticket might be.
See my reply above: refusing to attend absolutely is the strongest statement, for the reasons that I outlined above. That doesn’t mean that you have to make that statement – it just means that the terms of the discussion are not, how you make the strongest statement, but why you make the statement that you choose instead.
This isn’t about you, of course – I hope that you know that – you’re making a more thorough accounting of your choices than I think anyone else would, and you have all of my respect for that, and then some. If I were still teaching, I would totally use you as an example of how a person sensitive to the ethics of activism and questions of morality in political action really grapples with an issue. But I still think that Shawn is right, he’s absolutely right, and it’s worth keeping that on the table so that we can really consider, seriously, what’s at stake in these situations, and to figure out how they’re best prevented.
Her Bad Mother:
But I still think that Shawn is right, he’s absolutely right, and it’s worth keeping that on the table so that we can really consider, seriously, what’s at stake in these situations, and to figure out how they’re best prevented.
I’d love to be a part of that conversation as it relates to Blissdom Canada.
ditto….what will Blissdom do with sponsorship issues?
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.
I think Annie’s desire to experience BlogHer outweighs her dislike for Nestle. Plain and simple. (IMO)
Consumer boycotts do not mean that every recipient of the target’s funding for advertising needs to be boycotted in order to be ethically consistent, and I’m glad to see a higher level of thinking than a superficial all-or-nothing notion. I hope people continue to think about this issue in deeper ways. You’ve done a great job of defining the differences between a Nestle-corporate event and an event of which they are one advertiser of many, and you’ve distilled a pricetag to each set of BlogHer attendee eyeballs on the conference commercial they have bought. Thanks for that, it is very helpful. And the idea of going above and beyond by creating a sort of carbon emissions fund to benefit maternal and infant health? I’m very excited about that. My most recent charitable donation was to Oxfam, but I’ll gladly contribute to whatever group of funds you identify.
I really appreciate your support Deb.
@BackpackingDad — There are many goals to consumer boycott that you didn’t state, including public awareness and decentralizing power, including their power to dominate media through buys.
Wow, this sucks. I think it will be helpful for others to understand your process in making your decision, but in the end, it’s YOUR decision. Your transparency and authenticity are very revealing though…thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Quite a tough position! I know you asked for US and Canadian charities, but may I suggest an alternative? I live in Chile and am part of LLL. This year, there is a leaders’ conference in Cordoba, AR. We’ve never been able to afford to send a leader, but it’s so close this year that we’re working hard to do so, but funds are tight all around. If you’d consider sponsoring a leader, that could really help us and our community. I’ve blogged a bit about a Nestle campaign in Chile here:http://elyisoutofmybelly.blogspot.com/2010/05/visit-your-pediatrician-starring-scp.html
It is definitely a case of being between a rock and a hard place. I appreciate your thoughtful response. I have been thinking about this ever since I read Mom Spark’s post. I am not attending BlogHer and am not sure how I would feel if I were… I have participated in some form of boycott since I was in elementary school, although I have learned much more and attempted much more as I’ve grown older. That includes what would be ideal and what is practical. There is often no good solution to certain situations, and this, I think, is one of them. Go with your conscience and that is all anyone can do.
First I just want to say that I think that what you are doing is great. I think all the work you do in educating people about the practices of Nestle is commendable. Personally, I like this charity – Merlin – http://www.merlin-usa.org/Where-we-work/Ethiopia.aspx They work in Ethiopia to help the health conditions. Among other things they work with lactating moms at keeping them healthy and at educating all women that breastfeeding is best for their baby. And as you know Nestle works to convince moms of just the opposite – I just spoke to a woman who said the ad I saw is still there and roughly translated it says “Breastmilk is best for healthy women – for the rest NAN provides baby with a healthy start.” I know they are talking about AIDS (and maybe that is actually what it says as the woman I spoke to said she could not be sure if healthy would translate to HIV-) but still.
Our family donates to the Dr. Jack Newman Breastfeeding Clinic in Toronto, Ontario when we have the funds. This is an unbelieveable service and he even supports mothers via email, answering evenings and weekends as well!
I even know someone who had several back and forth emails with Dr. Newman in the wee hours of the morning… she was in breastfeeding crisis, but got the support she needed.
I’m so sorry you are in this position. I agree with backpacker dad but I don’t envy you the difficult choice. I think that BlogHer would have to take notice if their speakers started dropping out due to unethical sponsorship. That would send a huge message.
Either way, PayPal has a charity function that would allow you to take donations and then send them to worthwhile organizations. This would let you know how many and how much was donated.
Good luck.
I agree with your reasoning and I’m glad that you’ve decided to go to BlogHer. I thought your Nestle posts were great – your open letter helped inspire me to learn more about the Nestle boycott and write
my own Nestle post. So if you had decided not to attend, I would have totally understood your decision but also would have felt like a really valuable voice was being silenced.
For donations, I like to support Jessie’s/June Callwood Place. http://www.jessiescentre.org/
They are a great pro-choice resource for teenage moms and their famillies located in downtown Toronto.
There has to be some way to convince BlogHer to drop them from sponsorship.
Threatening boycott. I’m really ambivalent about that, because I love BlogHer – ambivalent to the point that I cringe every time I make this point – but if this were any other conference I’d be shouting it, loudly. But the fact of the matter is that companies like Nestle sponsor events like this because they know that we’ll not boycott. There’s greenwashing, and there’s conferencewashing. This is conferencewashing.
I think this is a great compromise to an unfortunate situation. It sounds as though you’ve put a lot of thought into this. My first reaction was “oh no, she’ll decide not to go,” but I’m glad you’ve found a way around it and I like your idea of donating $20 to a charity. I vote for Best for Babes or the National Milk Bank.
I think this is a very thoughtful post. And I say this very respectfully and gently. But, do you think it’s possible that you really want to go SO very badly, that instead your powerful human brain is trying to figure out ways to justify still attending? Because if there is one thing we humans do really well, it’s justify our choices to ourselves. Raises hand. Guilty as charged. (Witness people who still are actively buying Nestle products… there are myriad reasons they can give you why they do, even after they are told of why to boycott)
If such a big blogger name such as you were to announce she were not going, who else might be inspired to also be brave, suck up the plane ticket booking or whatever, and do something REALLY REALLY HARD, for the good of the suffering babies. It’s not really that hard for those of us who are privileged women to just buy a different brand of coffee or chocolate bar. Probably a mild annoyance, at best, to try and remember the various brands. But gosh…. how HARD would it be to not go to the BlogHer conf? I agree, it would be very hard. But would it be RIGHT? That is the question.
With great respect for you and the work that you do.
I agree. I have tremendous respect for the work you’ve been doing against Nestle, and this just feels wrong. By not going, your immediate effect wouldn’t be upon Nestle, but indirectly it would. I do think it’s important for BlogHer to feel pressure for accepting their money.
I plan green events. I know how hard it is to put events on and how hard it is to get sponsorships to cover the costs of the events. But I will never accept money from a company that has such a history of unethical behavior or that would offend a portion of my attendees, and certainly not one that would offend my invited speakers.
As you’ve said, Nestle’s PR machine is very good. They are doing this so they can say they are supporting mother bloggers.
I really think you should consider not going, and start a campaign encouraging others not to go unless BlogHer returns Nestle’s money.
I was on the waiting list for BlogHer. I recently received notice that I’ve been accepted. I’ve never been, but I’m seriously considering not going because of this…and I haven’t been actively pushing for a boycott.
With all due respect…I understand and respect the thought you’ve put into it, but I do think it undermines the work you are doing for you to go.
KJ:
If I really felt that it would be better for the cause for me to not go to BlogHer, then I would refuse to go.
Am I doing this in order to justify this to myself (or to anyone else)? I don’t think so. I believe I can make a bigger difference to the cause by going to BlogHer than by refusing to go. That said, I did feel I had to find a way to deal with the financial situation – i.e. Nestle paying for some of my ticket. I’m doing that by making a charitable donation that is about twenty times Nestle’s contribution to my ticket and also encouraging others to do the same.
But (again, so gently said, because I do so, so respect you, and respect what you’re doing here), why? really? how?
Your online audience is what it is. Your influence is what it is. Panels at BlogHer sometimes attract only a few dozen people. Sometimes far less. And anyone attending that panel would be, as they say, the converted, and the *online* converted, who would read anything that you wrote online, anyway. So how does attending have the stronger impact, when it reinforces the very reason *why* companies like Nestle seek these sponsorships – because they know that we’ll all attend no matter what?
Again, you’re going above the call of duty, and that’s more than most would do. But you’re not making the *strongest* statement. Again, if I were teaching (sorry!), I would be having my class discuss how it is that there’s an important compromise here. Probably the most ethically defensible compromise, but that’s what makes it fascinating to a political philosopher
Her Bad Mother:
I do have *my* online audience. They are wonderful.
But last year at BlogHer I met numerous people all weekend long that had never heard of my blog. I expect it will be the same this time. Whether at my panel or at any other event all weekend long, I know that not all of the 2400 people who are attending are aware of me or my activism on this issue. I know that if all of the anti-Nestle activists decided not to attend, that we would have a clear conscience and the respect of our own activist community (and I do respect those who have made that decision tremendously). However, what we would not have is the opportunity to reach the 2400 people (minus a few, because I know some people who are boycotting BlogHer will NOT be re-selling their ticket) who are at BlogHer, except perhaps a bit by injecting tweets into the #BlogHer10 tweet stream during the event. If all of the anti-Nestle activists stay home, then the 2400 people at BlogHer will dance the night away each night with not a care in the world and not be any more aware of the Nestle protest than they were before they walked in at the beginning of the weekend. I want people to go and have fun, but I want them to learn something about Nestle’s unethical business practices while they are there and I want them to be inspired and enabled by what is happening on the Change Agents track to become activists themselves.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Maybe that’s part of the problem
I definitely don’t envy your position, and I support your decision. While KJ has some interesting points, I feel like your presence and associated Nestle protest will speak louder than your absence.
Regarding charities, my suggestions are:
Newman Breastfeeding Clinic and Institute: http://www.drjacknewman.com/ Although those who attend the clinic itself are primarily from Toronto, the Institute trains Lactation consultants from all over, and the online information and support is available to anyone.
Second Harvest: http://www.secondharvest.ca/ Also based in the Greater Toronto Area, so maybe not as far reaching as you’d like, but I love that they both reduce waste and promote nutrition by providing fresh surplus produce to those in need.
Just another plug for the Newman clinic to receive funds – at one point in my 14 week attempt to get my baby to latch, I wore Boycott Nestle stickers on my breasts!
My little one was around 12 weeks at the time, and very distractible. The stickers were placed as an attempt to draw her interest to my breasts… it worked briefly, though controlling the giggles was a massive challenge.
There are lots of Boycott Nestle posters throughout the clinic, and rolls and rolls of stickers…
Okay, I can see that BlogHer might take notice and consider their sponsors more carefully if lots of speakers dropped out. On the other hand, they might just invite others and pretend it never happened. I think being there as a subversive element is a great way to deal with the situation. Nestle paying to bring people to a conference to speak out against their corporation and lead a protest against them? It’s delicious.
As far as a charity, I suggest providing some scholarships to LLL so that people who are struggling financially, in underserved communities –precisely those least likely to breastfeed–can join and participate.
How do you reconcile this statement “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” and this one “I should, ideally, rescind my Speaker’s Agreement and refuse to attend the conference” with still attending? I don’t envy the position you’re in, but I think all of us who were vocal during the #NestleFamily event look like giant hypocrites if we decide to attend BlogHer. To me, the “radical” thing to do would be to not go. I also think that Nestle doesn’t care whether you go or not, but BlogHer does. By choosing not to attend, you’d send a strong message to BlogHer to choose who they align themselves with more carefully.
You obviously have more at stake in this than I do. I was just attending because I thought it would be fun and I wanted to meet the women that I spend so much time communicating with online. But I think you want to go a lot more than I do, and would really like to justify attending. I hate that BlogHer has put us in this position, because I believe they knew full well that having Nestle as a sponsor was going to cause problems for many of us. I’ve emailed Elisa and asked that in light of my demonstrated boycott of Nestle if my ticket price could be refunded. But still, it’s not so simple. I made arrangements with a friend to room with her and I’ve already given her a deposit on the room. What if she can’t find another roommate? Ethically I’d still be responsible for paying my portion of the room. Is it fair to my family if I spend hundreds of dollars on a conference and then don’t attend? I don’t think it is. Even if BlogHer refunds my ticket price or I’m able to sell it, and even if my friend is able to find another roommate, I still have to deal with all of the drama and stress of making this decision.
I agree with Artemnesia that I think the best thing would be to get BlogHer to cancel the sponsorship and the next best thing is not to go.
There are no easy answers here and I found out about this the same way you did, on Mom Spark’s post. I think that post was ridiculous in some ways, but I think her point, put up or shut up, is actually valid.
I hate that if I can’t untangle myself from my financial obligations, I will probably end up going and both feel and look like a giant hypocrite.
Elita:
How do I reconcile it? I can’t fully. Which is why this is an ethical dilemma for me. But I am attempting in every way that I can to counteract the negative presence of Nestle at the conference with positive actions, like making a $600 personal donation to charities that try to counteract the damage that Nestle does (which goes WAY above and beyond any financial contribution that they made to my presence there) and by continuing my work educating others both at the conference and outside of the conference.
I’m also curious how receptive you think people will be to a protest, however “respectful,” at BlogHer.
Gasp. I agree with Elita. You would be terribly missed at BlogHer by the community and the organizers. That is the most radical, most powerful, most commendable (imo) option.
I don’t have issues with Nestle but am trying to imagine being in your shoes – about something that I am so passionate about. I, like so many here, do not envy you. All the best Annie – do what feels good to you and dismiss what people think. This is, after all, your blog – your life.
What about going to NY, sharing the hotel, but NOT actually “attending” BlogHer?
I’ve not been, but I’ve heard about people hanging out in the lobby. Would it be possible to do a good amount of activism there?
Tough decisions, for sure.
I really appreciate you sharing with us all that you have learned and what your current plan is. This is a troublesome situation for many of us. I like to think that my role with regard to Nestle (including the twitter storm) has always been around educating others. I’m an activist, that’s what I do. I want to think that it would make more sense for me to attend BlogHer so that I could continue educating others, but is that just me trying to justify attending when I, you, & all of us Nestle boycotters should really be boycotting the conference? It’s such a difficult decision and I know it’s not one any of us will make lightly.
I’ve always prided myself on staying true to myself and my values. I’ve rejected monetary offers before from companies I couldn’t fully support. If I attend BlogHer, even if it is to help educate others about Nestle’s practices, will I turn into a hypocrite?
Lots to think about.
Annie, I don’t at all envy the position you are in! So, so tricky. But as others have mentioned, I do kind of love the idea of Nestle dollars being used to support the attendance of one of their most vocal and persistent opponents.
I, of course, recommend the BfB recommendation. Would you consider also supporting an organization that works towards eliminating child sex slavery? Love146.org comes to mind.
For what it’s worth, you continue to inspire and motivate me towards more fierce and effective activism. My appreciation of and respect for you will not change one bit no matter the outcome of this situation. You are an incredible role model for so many of us! Keep up the great work, mama.
I think it’s fantastic that you came out with this post at all. It would have been easy to just ignore it all and hope you’re readers didn’t notice the connection.
I understand your dilemma, but don’t think your participation will benefit Nestle (but it will benefit hundreds of other women in attendance–your participation that is).
Really impressed!
I have to admit when I looked at the sponsor page I was disapointed — but you know me I was especially afraid that they would try and feed us Stouffer’s products. Because of you I re-started my Nestle boycott this year and got the kids involved and I am obviously not the only one. So, you have done a lot of good. Does going to BlogHer dirty you a little? I am afraid it does from an ethical standpoint BUT I also think that you will bring a lot of people onside when you speak on the panel and when you talk to people that you meet. So, in the end I don’t know but I guess it’s ok to not know and live in the grey once in a while. And I am looking forward to meeting you in person.
And you know who I’m going to suggest, right? http://www.drjacknewman.com. Hospitals won’t fund him, governments won’t fund him but he is the breastfeeding guru.
My thought is that it is a good way for them to shut you up. Are they willing to pay $24K so that you and other like-minded Nestle boycotting women are essentially removed from the picture? Maybe? Then they just smell like roses for sponsoring the event. Go make a stink! Don’t be silenced by inattendance and not able to be the “agents of change” you want to be. Don’t underestimate that maybe their sponsorship has multiple agendas. You will touch more lives by going than by not going.
Good points Kate!
That’s exactly the way I see this, too.
EXACTLY! I think that you will make a bigger impact by going and exposing more people than those who read your blog to these ideas.
2400 people at a conference in a country of 300 million people. Maybe when the conference has 24,000 attendees then a boycott would be noticed. Or matter.
So go, do what you have to do.
Well, based on that logic, should we only do the right thing (and I’m NOT definitively saying I know what that right thing is, in this case) when it wil be noticed? I think it always matters. Even if it affects only yourself and your own conscience or soul.
I would like to suggest LLL as a possible beneficiary of your funds. LLLC is funded separately from LLLI, and both are non-profits that are perpetually low on funds. Your money could certainly help them.
I boycott Nestle, but not strictly. For example, when I was at a work meeting and someone pulled out the Nestle Halloween candy, I didn’t decline. But I wouldn’t buy it myself. So, I am probably operating at the same level that you are. I also see a big difference between attendance at Nestle Family and attendance at BlogHer. I would likely still attend myself.
Having said that, I think that you’re using much of the same logic that I saw bloggers attending the Nestle Family event use. That is, that by still attending you are refusing to be silenced. I think we should, at least, give those attendees the benefit of the doubt. While I don’t think that anyone is going to change Nestle’s practices, not everyone has the same experience with their history. Idealism, even if misguided, isn’t necessarily wrong. I wouldn’t attend the Nestle Family event myself, but I think we should be very clear that it’s Nestle that’s the problem here, and not people who may or may not somehow benefit from them, with full knowledge or not.
I don’t envy you. I do think everything you have said here makes sense. I have mixed feelings about boycotts– sure, it makes complete sense to not support a company that is being unethical. But it can also cross a line and become almost… petty, without any clear benefit. I think you are absolutely right in saying that, if you decided not to go, Nestle would win (or at least, they won’t be hurt by it at all– you’d be the only one who lost there). I don’t think you need to answer to anyone else here, or to their notions of what a boycott is or isn’t. You have the possibility to do some real good at BlogHer, it sounds like, and it would seem an injustice to give that up.
Who benefits if you sit at home instead of going? No one. Even Nestle benefits in a way b/c you won’t be there to speak up about them at the event. Who benefits if you go? All the women who will listen to you and be inspired to become agents of change. (I think Kate above has a point, that this might even be a way for Nestle to quiet those like you who would speak against them at this event)
As for charities, one of my current favorites is charity: water http://www.charitywater.org. They build water wells in developing nations so that communities may have clean water to drink, rather than having to walk miles to collect dirty, polluted water. They are an amazing organization, founded just 3-4 yrs ago here in the US.
Annie, this is a tough one and I can see how either decision would be justifiable. I think there may be much to be gained from speaking out about your advocacy on Nestle at BlogHer, but I can also see that refusing to attend would send a message to both Nestle and BlogHer. I don’t envy you the decision.
In terms of good organizations to donate to, I like LLL, which operates around the world (including here in Lesotho!). Partners in Health also does good work with mothers and babies around the world.
Thank you for being such an excellent example of what it means to have integrity.
As for suggestions on tracking donations, Stephanie Pearl McPhee @ The Yarn Harlot (http://www.yarnharlot.ca/blog/) has tracked over $1,000,000 in donations to Medecins Sans Frontiers. As far as I know she tallies each donation via email, but she might be able to give you some tips.
Annie, As a speaker is it as simple as just saying “Hey BlogHer, you are letting Nestlé be a sponsor so I’m going to need to drop out as a speaker.”? I have to believe that because of the difference in this situation there are repercussions for you beyond what would have been felt by the attendees of the Nestlé event because those repercussions would be incurred with 3rd parties rather than with Nestlé itself and Nestlé alone.
I really hope that you and other BlogHer bloggers are successful in getting the organization to change it’s mind before the conference begins.
Would it be possible to simply “sponsor” yourself with BlogHer and pay your entire way? I know that the DH and I would chip in if that were a possibility you were considering so that you could go into that conference knowing that you had covered all your costs yourself.
I would also like to second the idea of sponsoring Dr. Newman’s clinic. You get the double whammy for your money of supporting a fellow Canadian who in his turn supports women the world over.
Carol:
Perhaps there would be a way for me to pay my own way to the conference by giving BlogHer the full $600. The thing is, if I do that, the money spent by Nestle on sponsorship wouldn’t change and neither would their presence there. In addition, I would be giving $600 to a company that agreed to have Nestle as a sponsor. Personally, I think that my $600 is better put towards charity and if you and your DH would like to support me, I would love to have you do so by supporting one or more of the charities that I will list in my follow-up post.
kudos to you for thinking it through and posting your honest thoughts about the situation.
I cannot say that what you are doing is right or wrong as in the end it is only up to you to make this decision.
I agree with you in your assessment of Nestle, I stay away from their products also.
I appreciate your honesty in addressing the situation, what more is there to say. You are doing the best you can and I think it’s amazing that you have really taken the time to think it through and then post your thoughts in complete transparency.
I suggest donating to La Leche League.. they made the total difference for me in a successful BF relationship with my son who is now 20.
Thanks for your great post.
I agree with so many others that your presence will do more to highlight the issue than your refusal to attend.
To be honest I struggle to see the benefit in not attending. Sure, if enough people did it, BlogHer might rethink things. Then again, they might not. I think when you get to the point where a boycott is keeping you from what your truly passionate about due to an indirect sponsorship arrangement it’s crossing over into the ridiculous.
I get that those most invested in opposing Nestle would feel a whole lot more comfortable if a Nestle company wasn’t sponsoring – and they would like it even more if BlogHer was more sensitive to their audience. But it shouldn’t stop people from living their lives.
Great post. To keep things focused, I’d be looking mostly at orgs like Baby Milk Action and Ban The Bags.
lauredhel:
I agree that organizations like that are great in terms of counteracting the formula marketing practices. I was thinking more broadly because the scope of Nestle’s unethical business practices goes beyond that and, in particular, the Stouffer’s brand that will be represented at BlogHer is extremely high in sodium and other unhealthy ingredients and yet they promote it as appropriate food for toddlers and other children.
I appreciate your predicament. I would like to add an additional suggestion for action – for bloggers to send a message to Nestlé. We are still trying to stop Nestlé’s latest global marketing strategy where the company claims its formula ‘protects’ babies. You, I and Nestlé knows that babies fed on baby milk are more likely to become sick than breastfed babies and, in conditions of poverty, more likely to become sick.
Send a message to Nestlé with one click at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510
You can add that link to your Facebook page using the share button on the page.
You can send it to a list of friends and add the link – or the youtube clip – to your blogs.
Nestlé’s ‘protect’ strategy has been rolled out in 120 countries. It will be a significant step to protect breastfeeding if we can raise enough heat over the coming months before and after the BlogHer Conference to persuade Nestlé to remove the ‘protect’ logos from its formula labels. We have achieved similar things in the past, but it takes action and exposure.
So I ask everyone who reads this post to go to the link and send a message to Nestlé and then use one or more of the methods to spread the word:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog260510
I’ve written more about the BlogHer sponsorship issue at:
http://info.babymilkaction.org/news/campaignblog310510
I have also contacted BlogHer, but not received a response at the time of writing.
Baby Milk Action relies on membership support and sales of merchandise to keep operating, so people may like to take a look at our online Virtual Shop for information and items that may help in raising awareness about Nestlé before, at and after BlogHer:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/shop/
Our partners in North America are the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy:
http://www.naba-breastfeeding.org/
And Infact Canada, which promotes the boycott:
http://www.infactcanada.ca/
I need to confirm with them whether they would wish to be added to your list of possible recipients, as, poor as we are, we have always debated whether or not to accept money arising from Nestlé sponsorship – to what extent it is tainted money.
I really like your article about the sponsorship issue, and I must say while I still think for integrity’s sake it’s better not to go, and to send a message to BloghHer, but if she is to go, then I say go with both guns blazing. Have litterature, have a t-shirt made about boycotting Nestle and get as many attendees as possible to wear then (every day) and have people outside the location giving out literature.
What a great plan
Keep that muzzle off and tell it like it is!
Good for you!!! I agree that attendance is important in an event such as this. Words must be spoken, and you have been given a huge opportunity to make those words powerful and meaningful!
as for charitable donations, I can name you one that stands head and shoulders above most others and is in definite need of financial help:
The Newman Breastfeeding Clinic & Institute (NBCI) In Toronto Canada. Dr. Jack Newman is the worlds leading authority on Breastfeeding and Lactation medicine, yet he receives absolutely no funding from the Canadian Government and is in SERIOUS danger of having to shut the doors to the clinic forever due to lack of financial aid. http://nbci.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=19
You make excellent points in your post, and I agree that it’s disappointing that BlogHer accepted the Nestle sponsorship, but the bottom line is, you really, really want to go. So go. Because let’s face it, just like Nestle’s campaigns, this is mostly about spin. It’s admirable that you live by a well-defined set of values, but it’s not always easy.
Maybe I’m naive, but I actually see this sponsorship as a good thing.
Would a large scale conversation about nestle have happened without their sponsorship? Probably not. Now, there is an opportunity for the hundreds of women who will be attending BlogHer to become aware of people’s objections to Nestle, to become aware of the practices they carry out that are causing people to reject them. To ask questions about Nestle’s practices and why there is a boycott. To hear the other side from people who aren’t boycotting or from the Nestle representatives themselves.
The entire point of BlogHer is to give women a voice, an opportunity to be part of a conversation. To simply have one part of the BlogHer audience say “they shouldn’t be there” means that a conversation about Nestle won’t happen. Having them there means it will. Plenty of people there will not have heard of the boycott. Plenty more will disagree with it. But either way, having them there means there’s an opportunity to talk about it, which is the most important thing to do, IMHO.
I’m sure that BlogHer was well aware of the controversy when they accepted the sponsorship from the Nestle companies. I don’t know that much about them, but is it possible that they were looking for controversy as a means of more publicity? If this gets a lot of bloggers up in arms, it raises awareness of BlogHer quite a bit, right?
My first impression upon reading your post was that more can be accomplished if you go, but IMHO you should go loudly, declaring your opinions and objections with full force and making them heard.
And I second the opinion above of donating to La Leche League. There are a lot of great organizations doing a lot of great things today, but I don’t think that many of them woud be here if La Leche League hadn’t pioneered the way.
Good Luck!
Negative attention is still attention. As I see it, your attendance is neither a support or nod to Nestle, but supporting, educating and furthering the cause of women having a strong voice in this world. Any hint of hypocrisy of your attendance is wiped out by a) your awareness, b) your integrity by discussing this in a public forum and c) your commitment to balance out the financial aspects of your attendance by donating to an appropriate charity. If only more people were mindful of their choices and actions, this would be a very different world.
While I understand that not every person is going to agree with every BlogHer conference sponsor. I hope you and other attendess do not vilify or attachk anyone who speaks to Nestle at the event like what happened on Twitter with Nestle Family event for a very personal reason – I don’t want to be called out when I talk to Nestle and ask them my questions about their company in person. I don’t have the luxury of Nestle contacting me with my concerns like you have been fortunate to do. I’ve been studying the baby formula situation since I first learned about it as a college case study. At one point I wanted to work for the UN (the WHO is part of the UN) and I know how resolutions work and that if a UN member countries doesn’t agree with any resolution they don’t have to sign it and if they don’t sign on they don’t have to follow it (unlike a negative vote in the US Congress and the bill is signed into law.) I visited cocoa plantation in the third world. I’ve studied Fair Trade and found that it isn’t all peaches and cream and fair to it’s workers in all countries like I was first led to believe (and practically cried when I found out based on my personal experience of visiting a cocoa plantation.)
I want to ask them questions in person. I want to make my voice heard. I don’t want to others to automatically assume that since I might be speaking to a Nestle rep (or any sponsor rep for that matter) that I’m a sellout who hates children.
Last year was my first Blogher. There were two last year that I found objectionable. One company in particular that I do not agree with their business practices and they tried to put a family member’s small business out of business. No one called for huge boycotts of them. I couldn’t in good conscious even go to their booth and take advantage of some of the fun things and people they brought in for the conference because I disagreed with them but I never told them. I never asked them questions and I never politely mentioned why I had issues with them. I really regret not having that conversation. I vowed that if I was in that situation that I wouldn’t let it pass again.
Condo Blues:
If you wish to speak to the Stouffer’s and Butterfinger representatives at BlogHer to express your concerns, I would encourage you to do so. However, I wouldn’t expect any answers or explanations from them, as the staff manning those booths probably do not have any decision making power within their own brands, nevermind within the larger company of Nestle. I do think, however, that it is useful for EVERY Nestle staff member at every level to hear what people think about the company. So by all means, go ahead.
I think it would be an awesome UP YOURS to Nestle if some of your donation went to Baby Milk Action
I agree you should go. I almost wonder if by Nestle sponsoring this event, they are hoping the more vocal bloggers supporting the boycott will pull out and there will not be an anti-Nestle presence there.
It is a rock and hard place – there’s also a battery chicken farmer and a company that wants to sanitise the septic pit that your fanny (i’m using european terminology here) allegedly is, among the sponsors.
I’m surprised at the Stouffers sponsorship (seems ill thought out), a little uncomfortable at the egg sponsor (though they are also moving to barn production) and completely outraged at the vaginal deodorant link (our bodies, ourselves)! Weird choices for a conference ‘empowering’ women.
c’est la vie – go empower/enlighten please.
ebbandflo aka pomomama:
I agree. I was uncomfortable with some of the other sponsors too, which is why I decided to make a charitable contribution for the full amount of my conference attendance cost, rather than just for the amount being contributed by Nestle.
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.
I think you have made a decision that is sound, both morally and ethically. And, although it sounds like you are still struggling with it, you have obviously done so much to make sure that all parties are being thought of in this difficult situation. I think your influence as a blogger/mother/woman, coupled with your awareness of your actions and those of BlogHer/Nestle make your decision the only sensible option.
My suggestions for charities are pretty basic – in Canada, Le Leche League doesn’t seem to have a pretty big presence in the hospitals so maybe funds would help with that? And I think any funds that support volunteer doula programs in prisons are funds well spent.
Good luck!
Lyndsay:
Thank you for your comment. I’m struggling with it only because I don’t think there is a good solution to this dilemma, for me personally or for the anti-Nestle movement. Either going to BlogHer or staying home has both positive and negative repercussions for me personally and for the anti-Nestle movement. This was the best solution that I could come up with to deal with a horrible situation. But it isn’t a perfect solution, by any means.
I think you are trying to make a very black and white issue (or should be for you) gray to work for your situation. As someone who was attacked for going to Nestle everyone who “claims” to be boycotters or what not should not want to be a part of ANY thing Nestle is linked with or that is what I would think. Or do we change the rules to suit what fits best for us at that moment. If that’s the case then well I would question the boycotter’s or non supporters of a companies real motives. If they can go from black and white to Oh let me change the rules to fit this situation so easily do they really stand behind the cause they are supporting or not supporting.
Toni:
Changing the rules to suit what fits best for us personally is one thing. Changing the rules to suit what will have the most impact in a protest is another thing. My decision to attend BlogHer is a strategic one (not a personal one). My decision to contribute $600 to charities that work against the damage Nestle does is a personal one.
Okay but still attending a conference that in some way is sponsored by a company you boycott and don’t like their “doings” isn’t that hypocritical or is it okay because you are giving back to charity?
If ever some of the companies l feel as strongly as you do about Nestle sponsoring an event I planned on attending you can bet I would be pulling out, because I would not want to be involved with said company in any way due to the fact I feel as strongly about them as you do Nestle. I guess that’s where we differ I couldn’t make myself go to something the companies I disagree with are a part of (whether it was simply a 5.00 sponsorship or the whole dang conference).
But it’s ultimately your decision and what you can and can’t live with right
I guess from my point of view it seems hypocritical, but I assume it would seem the same way to you if I had been voicing such strong opinions on a company and then decided to be okay with going to (or speaking at) an event they are sponsoring in whatever capacity. It’s just confusing to me that’s all 
@Toni – Not everyone has the option or ability (accrued privilege) to write-off the costs associated with a decision not to go. A basic estimate that includes ticket ($200 for BlogHer Fri-Sat only), hotel for 3 nights ($300 + hotel/tourist taxes if you found a roommate and feel ethically bound not to leave them high and dry) and plane ticket ($250 – $400 average) has people pondering if they can/should ask their families to make this kind of sacrifice.
That is a good point. However, after the conference shouldn’t all association with blogher cease as far as ads and future conference participation?
If the nestle family participants had attended because they thought they could make a bigger difference by going and asking questions than by staying home would you have excused them. If they donated equivalent money to a charity would that have erased the conflict? I ask only because I would hate for this to erode your activism on the subject.
As other commenters have said, this is with a great deal of respect for you and your work, but I would be remiss to not say that I think your attendance runs counter to your espoused views. I guess what it boils down to for me is: blogher has aligned itself with nestle. Period. You attending their conference will make them money. By association you will expand your readership and thus your revenue (I’m certainly not saying that is your purpose – just an outcome). It isn’t just about dropping out to protest nestle but to protest blogher.
The whole thing just sucks. You are in a horrible situation. I hope you don’t attend but that if you do you never regret it.
“That is a good point. However, after the conference shouldn’t all association with blogher cease as far as ads and future conference participation?”
There are too many “What if?”s still out on the loose in my opinion. Here are a couple of the most obvious ones.
What if BlogHer listens to all these bloggers of strongly-held convictions and makes a public statement to not partner with Nestlé to sponsor conference events again?
What if BlogHer decides to allow Nestlé to sponsor specific events but not be a conference sponsor?
seems like an excellent idea to put BlogHer on notice–tell them that in the future people won’t agree to attend nor speak until all sponsorships have been announced or a policy statement excluding Nestle has been issued? Let them know they put people on the spot and are no longer regarded as an organization to be trusted?
I agree. I understand everyone’s anger at Nestle (obviously) but I’m so frustrated at BlogHer.
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.
Annie – I am right there with you girl. I agreed to host the green party at BlogHer this year, but now feel between a rock and a hard place because Johnson & Johnson is a BlogHer conference sponsor, in addition to Nestle. And there are several other problemmatic sponsor.
I realize I should have been more aware and more cognizant of the BlogHer sponsors. Last year, I was extremely frustrated with Michelin sponsoring the green panel at which I spoke. While I know it was made clear that the panelists had nothing to do with the sponsors, I was still uncomfortable. And I know that Johnson & Johnson had a space in the exhibition hall. But I just didn’t think about it when I agreed to host the Green Affair party this year.
I was pissed last year when those fragranced laundry balls were placed in our rooms. I really didn’t want to inhale the hormone disrupting phthalates in those bloody things. But swag has been addressed (allegedly) and I just didn’t think about the sponsors.
Now, I’m seriously conflicted. I think BlogHer is a marvelous way to educate other bloggers about the problems of products from companies like Johnson & Johnson, or the serious issues with Nestle. But I don’t want my attendance to send any message that I support those companies. And it seems like taking a stand and refusing to attend would at least send BlogHer a message, even if it would not mean much to the companies.
Lots of food for thought.
@jennifer taggart – i was wondering how you and the other “green angels” were feeling about both nestle and j&j in light of the green affair party. have you voiced your concerns to blogher?
My response on my own blog, including a linkback here: http://dou-la-la.blogspot.com/2010/05/my-response-to-bloghers-nestle.html
My vote is LLL, sponsoring attendees to their conference.
Of course, I also want to put a plug in for my own cause, the Hyperemesis Education and Research Foundation (www.helpher.org), which advocates for and supports pregnant women with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) and also funds research into this potentially deadly disease. We save lives of babies and women over there. Money to support our efforts is always welcome.
As for your dilemma, I have not reached a conclusion yet, but I think you are on the right track. Solving the $$ question while still attending is the real conundrum ethically. You don’t have to leave a party because someone you despise is there, but you can’t let that person pay for part of your ticket.
Annie, I appreciate your post. This is not an easy decision. Others have said it so well before me, but I will try to say it again.
I think attending will achieve more then not attending. If you don’t go your voice won’t be heard in all the posts about the fun and excitment of BlogHer. If you do go you will have an opportunity to raise questions about Nestle and sponsorsphip in general.
This is my first BlogHer so I didn’t know what to expect. I will still be going even though I am not a fan of Nestle and try not to buy their products. Would I not go because I just found out they are a sponsor? No. But I will be watching for them there.
One great thing that I hope/wish will be a result of this conversation is that it will make bloggers (who take strong black/white stances on matters of opinion) more tolerant when others make decisions that they don’t necessarily agree with.
Despite the most well thought-out reasoning and writing, those of you who were especially vocal against the Nestle family bloggers will come out looking hypocritical (at least a little bit) by attending an event sponsored (even if only in part) by Nestle.
Just like there are very real and legitimate “shades of grey” in your justification, perhaps the Nestle family bloggers justifications for why they attended their event had merit too… at least it’s worth considering.
Well, as a result of reading this blog months ago and investigating more about Nestle I began my boycott of Nestle products. Nestle has already been losing money from my family buying products from its competitors. I don’t think I am the only person who started to boycott Nestle after reading your blog and being directed to more info about Nestle’s unethical business practices. You have made a difference, and you will make a difference by attending the BlogHer conference and donating $600 to charities to counterbalance the effects of Nestle.
Bloggers need to direct attention to the BlogHer organizers who accepted Nestle as a sponsor. Were they so hard up for sponsors that they had to accept a company that many of their members have ethical problems with? In the future, the list of sponsors should be finalized before tickets go on sale so that people can decide whether they will attend or not. If BlogHer continues to accept unethical sponsors, then bloggers may be forced to boycott the conference in the future.
You should open a discussion post on Blogher.com and a public poll and see how people and bloggers react. Would be interesting!!!!
Camila:
A poll about what? I have no desire to create a poll about what *I* should do, I’ll make that decision for myself. But I’m not sure if that is what you were suggesting or not.
Regards deciding not to go – particularly those who are listed as speakers or hosts – if you advise BlogHer of this decision now would this not give them a fair amount of time to select other speakers in your places? Ones who might be less likely to use their 5 minutes (or however long) to make attendees aware of the conflict this sponsorship has created?
It sounds childish, but I’d be somewhat tempted to see how the organisers react to this storm… and if they’re found wanting (close to that already) simply not turn up without warning.
Sophie:
Yes, I could advise them that I will not be there and they would replace me with someone else on the panel. There are plenty of others who could sit in that seat.
i gree with your decision, no matter what happens, no one has a right to breach your moral or ethical code, i agree with your anger at Nestle, in most of the cases, it has been observed that big companies have big names but they dont prove that they are worthy of so much popularity and good name as its all a sham..
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 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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I used the words “one blogger” because this post is about you and your decision (i.e. one blogger). Other bloggers may simply choose not to attend now, and therefore, they don’t have any ethical dilemma.
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.
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.
Dou-la-la: To my knowledge Annie has not sent a letter to the BlogHer organizers advising them of her protest plans. So, in that case, sure maybe it’s not “secret,” but it’s not exactly transparent either. (i.e. Dear BlogHer organizers. Disappointed in your choice of sponsors. As a result I will be doing A, B and C as a form of protest. I understand this is not generally expected from your invited speakers, so I wanted to advise you of this in advance. Now that you have been advised, I will understand if you choose to rescind my invitation to speak.)
Julie:
My plans are not final yet, but I will advise BlogHer of what I have planned. My letter will be a bit different from your proposed format though.
Well, in that case, then I think you will have been transparent with BlogHer and no one (including me of course) could accuse you of having been rude or disrespectful to the organizers or other attendees. It will now be in BlogHer’s hands.
Julie:
I don’t have any secret sabotage plans. I don’t know how you turn “clear yet respectful protest” into “sabotage”.
Annie – I was using the word “sabotage” to refer to an “inside job” (i.e. when workers damage an employer’s tools) as opposed to protesting from the “outside” (i.e. a picket line). I was not trying to suggest that you were going to mount some outrageous, enormous disruption.
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
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Mike Brady – Yes, Nestle sponsorship may have come “late in the day.” But BlogHer does have an ongoing relationship with Nestle, doesn’t it? (As I understand it, Baby Milk Action focuses its boycott on the Nescafe brand and I found this example of a BlogHer promotion of Nescafe dated for March: http://www.blogher.com/spon-disc-tasters-choice-2.) So conference sponsorship, which is likely BlogHer’s most expensive activity by far, with Nestle-owned companies can’t be that much of a surprise.
As for Annie – I make no judgement of whether she goes or doesn’t go. Her choice. And I don’t envy her position. But I do think it’s rude (to both the organizer and the other attendees) to show up as an invited guest and then protest on their space. I don’t see how there is any “clear” way to protest that is also “respectful” when you are an invited guest.
Note: Annie has just reponded above that she WILL be advising BlogHer of her protest plans. This satisfies my concerns that an on-site protest is disrespectful to the organizer and attendees. So now I am (happily!) out of this conversation.
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 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.
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…
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.
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.
Not a bad idea, really.
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.
I think Jan brings up an interesting point. Especially when you consider that “outside” you could attract media attention, which is influencial. Whereas “inside” you only have access to those who are influencial out of the attendees.
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.
Also like this comment a whole lot.
Me too! Well said!
Lucie’s comment resonates with me.
Tough dilemma, for sure.
I’ve been contemplating hanging out in the general area, and/or buying a cocktail ticket. Hearing about the Nestle sponsorship definitely gave me pause. I don’t yet know what I’m doing, but I imagine I’ll be up for some respectful protest.
Please forgive me if this was already mentioned, but…
Is there anyway that you could *buy out* the sponsorship for your panel? Find out how much Nestle paid total, and see if BlogHer would cancel their sponsorship and instead allow you to sponsor yourself? Do you think you could raise the money in time?
That way it wouldn’t even be an issue. If it can be done anyway.
I don’t envy your position at all. That being said, if the sponsorship couldn’t be *bought out* I would still go. You said yourself that you are probably considered more of a protester than a boycotter. Are you looking to fully boycott Nestle to the level that others have, or are you planning on keeping your protest more the same? If you are looking to fully boycott, then don’t go. Otherwise, have information available to those that attend about Nestle and the boycott…pass out the info as the attendees walk in the room…and begin your presentation.
I will admit that I don’t know much about your blog as I only just found you about 30 minutes ago, but I do know about the boycott. I learned about the boycott through LLL and checking out a book called Milk Money & Madness (which I recommend, if not give, to my expectant mom friends). I plan on reading through your blog some more tonight, so far I am glad I found your blog!
Amanda:
Just to clarify, Nestle is not sponsoring my panel. They are sponsoring the conference as a whole.
Any word from BlogHer yet?
kgirl:
There are some quotes from Elisa from BlogHer in the post on Sheposts:
http://sheposts.com/content/blogher-10-picks-nestle-sponsorship-what-will-boycotters-do
Thank you to everyone who commented on my BlogHer Accountability post. I wanted to let you know that I put up a post announcing the charities that I am supporting with my $600 donation. I hope that some of you will join me in making a donation of $20 or some other amount that fits your budget and goals.
Here is the post:
http://www.phdinparenting.com/2010/07/15/decision-contra-nestle-unsponsored-blogher-ticket-price-donation/