Monday
May312010
My BlogHer Accountability Post
Monday, May 31, 2010 
I'm disappointed and angry. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I have an amazing opportunity to tell women why they should and how they can be taken seriously as advocates of important issues. But that opportunity is now being sponsored by a couple brands owned by Nestle, a company that I protest against and boycott, and a company that I have criticized others for being involved with.
The Nestle Family Affair
In September 2009 a group of mom and dad bloggers were invited to Nestle's US headquarters in California to learn more about Nestle and its brands. It was an all expenses paid trip, with lots of goody bags full of Nestle product, and Omaha steaks sent to feed their families back home. The Nestle Family event web site, which features photographs, twitter handles, and blog URLs for all of the attendees, had this as an introduction:
Welcome to the Nestlé Family Bloggers Twitter Homepage
Nestlé understands the importance of listening directly to parents. That’s why on September 30 and October 1, we’ve invited 20 Mom and Dad bloggers to our U.S. headquarters to learn firsthand the things that are important to them and their families, and to share a little about us and our brands. Check out what they are saying by following the conversation below from Twitter. Visit this page daily from September 23 through October 7, to learn more about them, their families, their busy lives, and to hear about their experiences at Nestlé. Check out their blogs, too.
Nestle wanted to find out what is important to them and their families, to sell them on their brands, and hoped that they would say wonderful things about Nestle on twitter and on their blogs. This event was all about how Nestle could make its products more appealing to the mom and dad blogger community.
At the time, I wrote an open letter to the attendees. I said, among other things:
I was distressed to see women who I respect and women who are breastfeeding advocates had accepted the invitation. I wanted to believe that they must just not be aware of Nestle’s unethical business practices and that once they found out that they would, of course, decline the invitation and boycott the event. That was not the case. Some of you heard the concerns and said that you didn’t care. Some of you heard the concerns and said you would go anyways because you felt a dialogue with Nestle would be more productive. You are all skilled communicators. But having followed the Nestle fiasco for a long time, I know how ineffective dialogue has been in the past and I know that their public relations people will tell you a good story and try to take you for a ride.
After presenting evidence of a handful of Nestle's many unethical business practices, I concluded by saying:
At a minimum, while you are there, I hope you’ll listen with a critical ear and not take everything at face value. Nestle’s public relations machine is well oiled and they will find a way to “address” your concerns without really doing so. I would like you to tell Nestle in no uncertain terms that you do not support its unethical business practices. I would like you to tell them that you will not be using your blog, your twitter presence, or any other platform you are on to help market their products. I would like you to tell Nestle that you are going to boycott its products and ask your friends and family to do so too. Above all, I would like you to ask yourself how you feel about supporting a company that puts profits ahead of the lives and health of babies.
I stand by those words to this day. Both the words about how ineffective dialogue is with Nestle, which I proved by asking Nestle 18 questions and then posting their answers full of lies and doublespeak on my blog, as well as the words about what actions I would have liked the Nestle Family bloggers to take. As far as I know, some of them asked questions about Nestle's unethical business practices, a few of them didn't tweet or post anything positive about the company, but quite a number of them did post and tweet positive things about Nestle.
Speaking at BlogHer '10: Change Agents
In the fall of 2009, I purchased an Early Bird ticket for BlogHer '10, a conference that brings together more than 2000 primarily female bloggers to network and learn from each other.
While I had attended in 2009 and found the conference to be extremely rewarding both personally and professionally, the decision to attend again in 2010 was sealed when the Call for Ideas came out in October and noted that one of the six programming tracks was going to be on Change Agents:
Change Agents: Politics, activism, social causes, social change. Last year we learned specific skills to help us raise our voices. And then we saw how some bloggers are putting those skills into action with a series of inspiring case studies, both international and domestic. This is track to talk about what you are doing to change the world. On any kind of scale. Locally. Nationally. Globally. It's also the track to talk about what we could be doing to change the world.
This track is what my blog is all about and what I want it to be about. I knew right away that having this track at BlogHer '10 was a huge opportunity for me to share what I do and why I do it and to try to convince more women to become advocates. I also knew that it was a huge opportunity for me to learn from the other inspirational change agents in our community.
In January 2010, BlogHer invited me to be a speaker on one of the panels in the Change Agents track and I accepted. The panel I am on is called Radical Blogging Moms: Don’t Even Think About Not Taking These Moms Seriously:
We’ve explored how “mommyblogging is a radical act,” but what happens when truly radical moms blog? For these bloggers motherhood isn’t the topic, it’s a catalyst for a new level of activism. Does naming motherhood as a fundamental part of these women’s identities impact how seriously they are taken? At the intersection of motherhood and activism, you’ll find these bloggers raising their voices, raising the roof, raising a stink and raising the visibility of their target issues, all while raising their kids.
When I originally purchased my ticket (in the Fall) and when I agreed to be a speaker (in January), the sponsors of the event had not been announced and I know that BlogHer was (and possibly still is) actively seeking sponsors in the Spring of 2010. In discussions with BlogHer, I asked if there were going to be any sponsors for the speaking tracks (as there were last year). The organizers told me that there were no planned sponsors at that time for my panel, but that there could be. They asked me to provide a list of companies that I would deem offensive, and I did so. They agreed that it would be in everyone's best interest to avoid having a company sponsoring a session that featured a detractor and said that it shouldn't be an issue to make sure neither Nestle nor any baby formula company sponsored the panel I am speaking on. I didn't ask about broader conference sponsorship (but probably should have).
Nestle Sponsorship of BlogHer
A few weeks ago, I remember looking at the BlogHer sponsor list because I was thrilled to hear that Bloganthropy, an initiative that I support, was going to be a sponsor. At the time, I don't think that there were any Nestle brands listed on the sponsor page (but I can't be 100% sure). I first learned about Nestle brands sponsoring BlogHer when I read Mom Spark's blog post called Stouffer’s Sponsors BlogHer 2010. Will They Be Judged? (written on May 24, 2010 and pointed out to me on May 29, 2010). I was disappointed and angry that BlogHer would accept Nestle as a sponsor, but not surprised given that they have accepted advertising from Nestle on the website in the past.
I later learned, through e-mails exchanged with BlogHer that Stouffer's and Butterfinger, both Nestle owned brands, would be sponsoring BlogHer (although Butterfinger still isn't listed on the sponsor page as of May 31, 2010, further evidence that sponsors are being added at all times). Their sponsorship of the event will involve having a booth on the exhibition floor, putting some coupons in grab bags, and being listed in some newsletter items. They will not be sponsoring sessions, they will not be hosting big on-site parties, they will not be serving us a sponsored lunch, and they certainly do not get the opportunity to speak at the conference (nor does any other sponsor) as a result of writing a cheque.
The Meaning of Boycott
I do consider myself a boycotter of Nestle and have called on others to boycott too. There are a great many definitions of boycott in different contexts and many of them are pulled together and listed on the Answers.com Boycott page. One of them that I thought was fairly clear is:
An orchestrated way of showing disapproval, such as by not attending a meeting or avoiding a country's or company's products, so as to punish or apply pressure for change of policy or behaviour.
However, what I thought was more useful was the list of antonyms. The opposite of boycott is buy, encourage, support, use.
For me, boycotting Nestle means that I attempt not to buy, encourage, support or use their products. I am aware of the list of brands that they own and that I do not knowingly purchase them. I would never accept an offer to promote or support Nestle to my friends and family, on my blog, on twitter, or in any other business of personal dealings that I have. Essentially, I would not knowingly send any money Nestle's way or accept any money from Nestle.
That said, I do not bring my list of Nestle brands with me to every restaurant I go to and ask the server to verify with the chef to ensure that none of their products slipped into the ingredients (but if they had a "we serve Nescafe" sign, I wouldn't order coffee). I did not get on the next plane and fly home when I found out that the ice cream at the all inclusive resort that we went to was from Nestle. I didn't drag my children kicking and screaming away from the zoo after I realized there was a Nestle logo printed on the back of our ticket. I don't ask before biting into homemade cookies at a birthday party whether they contain Nestle chocolate or not. I do not refuse to shop in stores that carry Nestle brands (but I certainly don't purchase the Nestle brands when I am there).
Other people may go further than I do in their protest and I applaud that. Some people say that my protest is not really a boycott because it is not a pure boycott and perhaps they are right. I'm not that hung up on the semantics of it though. It is more actions and perceptions that concern me. Am I giving money to Nestle? Am I promoting Nestle products? I feel that, on the whole, the significant advocacy work that I do in protest of Nestle, which includes a personal pledge to avoid their products, more than balances out any regrettable minor slippage of Nestle junk into my life.
The difference between the Nestle Family event and the Nestle Sponsorship of BlogHer
In my mind, there are a number of differences between accepting an invitation to the Nestle Family event and going to a partially Nestle-sponsored BlogHer.
First, unlike the Nestle Family event, BlogHer is not just about Nestle and its brands. It is about our community.
Second, I am not going to BlogHer under any pretense or false hope that a dialogue with the Stouffer's or Butterfinger representatives could result in any change in the company's business practices.
Third, there would have been no way for me to attend or speak at the BlogHer event if I had waited until after the sponsors were announced to get a ticket. The tickets were sold out and the agenda was finalized months before the sponsors were announced. This is, obviously, different from the Nestle Family event where the attendees knew from the first moment that they heard about it that it was being paid for by Nestle.
Fourth, I have not given permission to the BlogHer sponsors to use my name and picture in their promotional materials.
The unfortunate commonality between the two events is that Nestle Family attendees and BlogHer attendees are getting something of value from Nestle in return for it having an opportunity to push its brand on them. In the case of the Nestle Family event, it was an all expenses paid trip to California and tons of free product. In the case of BlogHer it is covering a small portion of the ticket price for each person who is attending.
Accountability
I cannot, in good conscience attend BlogHer if I am going to be benefiting financially in any way from Nestle's contribution to the event. I would like, ideally, for BlogHer to tell them to get lost and to not accept sponsorships from unethical companies. I know, however, that they are not likely to do that. I should, ideally, rescind my Speaker's Agreement and refuse to attend the conference. However, BlogHer is not about Nestle. It is about us: the blogging community. I feel that if I refuse to attend BlogHer, Nestle will have won because it will still be there and yet my opportunity to tell my fellow bloggers why advocacy is important will be missed, as will my opportunity to learn to improve and strengthen my advocacy. I feel like I can, due to the nature of BlogHer, attend the conference and still protest Nestle's presence there (there will be no muzzle applied as I walk through the door).
There are 2400 attendees at BlogHer this year. Attendee registration fees generally cover about 1/3 of the true cost of attending BlogHer. The other 2/3 is covered by sponsors. According to e-mails exchanged with Blogher, the true cost of attending BlogHer this year is $600. That means that approximately $400 per person is being paid for by sponsors, for a total of around $960,000 in sponsorship funds. In my case, as a speaker, the full $600 of the cost of my attendance is being paid for by sponsors. There are currently 37 sponsors listed on the BlogHer '10 sponsor page. Although I do not have the exact figure that Stouffer's and Butterfinger paid, based on where Stouffer's is listed on the page (Bronze sponsor) and what I know about the extent of their sponsorship, I would say they are probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to the dollar value of their sponsorship. I also assume that, like Butterfinger, there are probably a few more sponsors still to be added to the site. So, if we assume there are about 40 sponsors and that Stouffer's and Butterfinger are both "average" sponsors, that would mean that they each account for 1/40 (or 2/40 together) of the sponsorship funds. That means that they spent about $24,000 each or $48,000 total to sponsor the BlogHer event. It also means that Nestle brands are contributing about $20 towards the attendance of each BlogHer attendee (or $30 for me as a speaker).
So what am I going to do? I plan to make a series of charitable donations totaling $600 (the full cost of my attendance at the conference) to organizations that are focused on breastfeeding, children's nutrition and family nutrition.
But I need your help in a few ways:
- I would like your suggestions for charities that you think are most in need that fit the description that I gave above (both Canadian and US charities). I have a few ideas of my own, but am looking for others too.
- I would like to encourage others who are attending to make a $20 donation (or what ever amount they can) in protest of Nestle's presence at BlogHer and in support of these causes. I would love to set up an anonymous mechanism for tracking those donations, but am looking for suggestions on how to do so (i.e. get a total dollar figure and number of participating attendees, without requiring individual people to tell me how much they pledged if they don't want to). Does anyone have suggestions?
Please leave a comment if you have suggestions on either front and I'll put up another post (probably sometime next week) once I've had a chance to mull over the best way to do this.
And more...
This is not the end of this issue, it is the start. This post was about my own personal accountability in this very unfortunate situation. Beyond refusing to be quiet and making a charitable contribution to cover off any personal financial benefit that could be coming from Nestle (or other potential sponsors that I disagree with), there will be more actions planned. I have some fires burning, so for those who are interested in a clear yet respectful protest of Nestle's presence at BlogHer '10, please stay tuned.
Image credit: rock and hard place by Leonard John Matthews on flickr
Reader Comments (174)
What a great plan :) Keep that muzzle off and tell it like it is!
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'm also curious how receptive you think people will be to a protest, however "respectful," at BlogHer.
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
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.
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...
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!
I think Annie's desire to experience BlogHer outweighs her dislike for Nestle. Plain and simple. (IMO)
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.
That's exactly the way I see this, too.
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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?
@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.
My response on my own blog, including a linkback here: http://dou-la-la.blogspot.com/2010/05/my-response-to-bloghers-nestle.html
I, too, give a big thumbs-up for sending funds to Best for Babes!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
"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?
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...
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..