Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/08/09
Thanks in particular to the following folks. Whether we saw eye to eye or whether they've poked both of mine out with sharp words, they've kept the discussion running and on the point of charity:
@Adhominem: @appletoad: @Brock Heller: @Chris: @jepzilla: @Jibba Jabba: @LindsayJoy's MBP is into S+M: @Mason Bushard: @NickelMD: @OG_Phenix: @rcast1986: @Scotland: @Shamoononon: @Star me or I'll peck your eye out: @taterpie:
Now, if those boys and gals or anyone else happens to have a moment after surviving this long bit of babbling, would you mind sharing how you think $30,000 could best be used for charity, outside of the Microsoft/CMN/Gameroom Giveaway scenario?
Straight donation to a cause? To set up a dunk tank fundraiser? How would you use the funds if given the choice?
09/08/09
That's a loaded question. Very few of us have $30,000 lying around waiting to be donated, so the best we can do is name a cause we believe in and invent some theoretical contribution on the spot.
Me? I'd contribute to no-kill animal shelters and neutering clinics in urban areas with problematic feral animal populations.
See? Random, academic, and irrelevant.
The question you're avoiding is, "Is Microsoft doing the wrong thing?"
Microsoft is donating $30,000, unevenly, to 170 childrens' hospitals. This figure, by itself, compares unfavorably to *any other aspect* of Microsoft's budget. The contribution is staged in a way that sensationalizes both the donation and the need for more, and encourages more donations from those generous enough to give.
You seem to take exception to CMN's method of publicizing the donation, which is your right, but I think you could be more honest about your objection.
"Point freakin' six percent"? That means you've got a figure indicating that MS blows five million on a typical ad campaign. From 1975 to 2006, Microsoft and its employees donated to charities FIFTY FREAKIN' THOUSAND PERCENT of a typical ad campaign, in cash and software.
[www.microsoft.com]
Obviously, software is of debatable cost to the company. Equally obvious is that Microsoft is still willing to draw just as much attention to its contribution to charity as it to the need for greater social responsibility among its corporate peers. That is Microsoft's prerogative.
I feel that Microsoft and its employees are giving back to the community to an adequate degree. Neither are they misers nor paragons.
09/08/09
The objection was simply the approach taken with this particular donation. As said above, Microsoft has done many incredible things (not even counting the employee contributions) and this appears to be a one-time hiccup in an otherwise good track record.
09/08/09
Personally were I to have $30,000, I would donate it to a singe cause in a small area, try to maximize the good with it in a limited number of locations. It's kinda hard to see how to really get a hospital excited about a $175 donation, even if it's known that you're doing it 170 times.
I think they should have either gone with a larger budget or a smaller target. That being said, I'm personally a fan of "matching donations" from large companies, which usually inspires people to give. So give away the kiosks free and start a fund that people can donate to, which Microsoft would match (up to a certain point).
That fund could be used to split evenly between all of the the hospitals, or could be used to build game rooms where CMN thinks it necessary. Either way, Microsoft should not be seen as the ones deciding who gets the prizes, they should simply be adding to the pot and providing kids with a 360 kiosk.
That's what I think I would have done.
09/08/09
You obviously feel very strongly about this. That's no bad thing. I happen to disagree with your article, for a number of reasons already stated by others in the comments. As such, I won't bother to enumerate them, except to say that notably, I don't think any hospital will be *worse* off because of this, and I would think that all of them, in fact, would be better, due to the increase in awareness, short lived as it may be. Is it the optimum configuration? I have no way to know, but it's a decent stab.
I would, however, like to say that while I disagree with your position, this article seems to have promoted discussion, which is a very good thing. I was glad to see that even though arguments, trolling, flaming, and even petty name-calling ensued, there was a decent thread of dialogue--something there is far too little of these days, especially on the internet. So, from that perspective, let me congratulate both you and the members you named, along with those who might've been omitted.
Now, to answer your latest question, I agree with CaseyG in that the question is somewhat academic. However, I don't mind throwing my $0.02 in.
Me? I tend to think that the most far-reaching and ultimately consequential issue is one of education. The problem with it is that there are significantly fewer short term, obvious consequences of investing in education. When $30,000 can either improve education to a perhaps imperceptible degree or, on the other hand, feed an obvious, definite number of people TODAY, the choice, in some ways, seems obvious. However, investing in education can potentially not only help ultimately reduce the number of people who will eventually be hungry, but have other huge impacts on our society and our world, as well.
It's no easy thing to decide the worthiest cause, and many people have very passionate views.
09/07/09
09/07/09
Don't worry, appletoad, you've made it abundantly clear you're a MS basher and apple troll. Pathetic.
As to your previous post about Apple generally giving to higher education - that move is a TOTAL marketing scheme. If you wanna give a prize for charity with a hidden agenda, Apple takes the cake.
09/07/09
Then after refuting his point, he changed his tactic to not agreeing with how the contest is being handled.
Appletoad: "They are doing something demeaning to the children though. They are putting them through a popularity contest to see who wins."
Appletoad: "We don't even necessarily have an issue that they all can't have game rooms. I personally just feel that the very public way of picking the winners is wrong"
09/07/09
And btw, I do agree to your point to some extent, such as why is it that Microsoft didn't give something to ALL of the hospitals? However, it is just like a previous comment, that if Microsoft is donating to one charity, why not ALL charities? It's just not possible.
09/07/09
09/07/09
I do not agree with your point at all.
09/07/09
09/07/09
Its as if the Super 7 decided to change their advertising to: "Super 7: Creating millions of losers each week" or "The RAV-4 now comes with 6 airbags which are useless in an oncoming collision".
There are still many children benefiting from this campaign. Its not like they are doing anything demeaning to the children. There is just a vote to decide who gets the big prize.
I would say a vote for an ultimate game room to a few hospitals is infinitely better than no prize given out at all. Why isn't there an article showcasing all the companies that have NOT given to the CHN in some way? I guess that doesn't lead to an opportunity to attack Microsoft in some way. I guess they can never do anything right.
"Microsoft invents cure for cancer, but you have to make a hole in your arm and stab yourself with metal to take it. Booooo!"
09/07/09
09/07/09
The Powerball lottery is discriminatory to all the people who buy tickets and don't win.
The FAFSA discriminates against children whose parents make too much money even though they had little to do with it.
See what I did there? You can make anything sound bad if you want.
An Xbox 360 game room giveaway is hardly demeaning. Do you get up in arms every time your town doesn't get voted Best Place to Raise a Family? Is it demeaning to all the other cities in the nation?
It's a fallacy to say that by rewarding or recognizing a person or institution, you're demeaning the others.
09/07/09
My point is that the lottery is a game.
This shouldn't be.
09/07/09
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the hospitals that receive the most votes win the game rooms. Perhaps these hospitals do work that is recognized in their field as outstanding? Perhaps these are some of the bigger hospitals that have more patients, thus more people voting in their favor? This is a better alternative than just giving it to a select number of hospitals, that's how you get scandals.
Yes, they are all worthy of it but that's not being debated. The game rooms are a nice perk to those who win but I'm doubting that hospitals who don't get it are going to be all that saddened they didn't get a couple of HDTVs and Xbox 360's.
If the few of you that feel bad a smaller hospital is being neglected, organize and vote for a smaller hospital. The link is posted.
09/07/09
09/07/09
But even you should agree that this article is complete horseshit and hardly makes Microsoft an evil villain or as Rosa puts it:
"This vile competition is on the level of tearing a teddy bear out of a child's arms and then ripping it apart into a pile of fuzzy remains on the spot."
09/07/09
This one particular approach is the mistake. Donating and charity in themselves are not.
09/07/09
09/07/09
09/07/09
09/07/09
09/07/09
09/07/09
09/07/09
Using Rosa's own logic, any time any company donates to charity, they're CHOOSING TO EXCLUDE everybody else in that same demographic subset who isn't receiving benefits. This simply isn't true and down right inflammatory. (which I suspect was the intent of the author)
The reality of the matter is that not every company has a sum of money large enough to be allocated to charity so that every hospital and every needy person in the land can get a piece of the pie. And when they do give something to help the sick and needy, they should be lauded not criticized.
What's really happening here, in my own opinion, is just more of the Microsoft hating that I've come to expect here at Gizmodo. No, I'm not talking about Apple fanboys specifically, just those that think it's cool to hate the establishment , including the author of this article.
In conclusion, shame on you Rosa. If you can't make the deadline don't make unsubstantiated stuff up to inflame the masses.
09/07/09
And you know kids, most of them count their chickens waaaay before they hatch... So this thing builds up hope and then dashes it against the rocks (potentially). Furthermore, the hospitals at the bottom that don't stand a chance may feel less cared about than the ones on top (my interpretation of Rosa's statement).
This voting thing is kinda tactless; it would be better to have just given the money to three hospitals without the hoop-lah.
09/07/09
"But they're toying with the hopes of children at 170 hospitals and frankly, I would really love to find whoever decided on this messed up vote-based competition approach and tear any Birthday, Christmas, Hanukkah, Easter, Summer Solstice, and un-freakin'-Birthday gift right out of his or her cruel, little claws. If you're going to contribute to a charity, especially a children's charity, you shouldn't turn it into a game with winners and losers."
Winners and Losers are false outcomes provided by Rosa People who don't win are no worse off than before the contest.
Second, has it been determined that it was MS and not CMN that set the rules of the contest? Would you rather MS not contribute anything at all? Should all companies dissolve all their scholarship funds because the applicants that aren't chosen are heart broken? LET'S NOT GIVE ANYTHING TO ANYBODY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T GET ANYTHING MIGHT BE SAD.
What this article really is, is well written anti-Microsoft propaganda.
1)She hides it behind the pretense of protecting the terminally ill children's feelings: MS R ABUSE CHILDREN.
2)She doesn't use facts: is CMN or MS behind the decision to use the vote? Are the children better or worse off because of MS's donations?
Text-book propaganda.
09/07/09
"That perspective aside, no one is demanding that Microsoft give away $1.7 million. Charity is charity, and it is wonderful that they're giving as much as they are."
09/07/09
09/07/09
LOL. Yes it really is as simple as you represent it. The fact that the author is criticizing a company's charity donations is completely asinine.
1)Is anybody benefiting from MS's generosity? Yes.
2)Is anybody worse off than before MS gave away said prizes? No.
3)Wtf is the problem.
09/07/09
The problem would be that the "anybody" here are children, sick children even. The difference between this and a random contest is that the former didn't choose to be stuck in that situation, the latter did. You cannot compare sick children to people paying for a chance to win something.
The problem here is that they are children, almost all of them don't have the ability to think like an adult, the whole "win and lose" thing for them can be very... painful. Especially when they did expect to get their brand new toy(s) in the near future, only then to find out only few of the children's hospital would get it. Think about when you were young and your parents didn't buy you the toy you wanted(tell me that did happen at one point, or I'll envy you for having such great parents). Or just remember the poor kid who got tricked into thinking he got a 360, got taped and posted on youtube, remember how angry and disappointed he was, and how the public(and even MS) felt that they have to get him the 360 for free.
Disappointments are still there even though you can't see it directly on youtube, I am sure those who actually looked forward to getting the game room, only to find out that their hospitals ain't as popular as they had hoped, are, well, quite upset.
09/07/09
09/07/09
09/07/09
It's more likely it went this way:
MS: "Hey Children's Miracle Network, we have $1.7mil, and we know kids want Xboxes, how do you want to spend it?"
CMN: "Let's do a contest, and the top 3 hospitals get awesome game rooms...sound good?"
If that's the case, are you willing to change the article to read something like "Children's Miracle Network is '...tearing a teddy bear out of a child's arms and then ripping it apart...'"?
I mean, the rules were obviously written by CMN lawyers, not MS lawyers:
"©2009 Children’s Miracle Network. All rights reserved. You may copy these Official Rules on the condition that it will be for your personal use and not for any commercial purpose whatsoever."
09/07/09
09/07/09
09/07/09
09/07/09
09/06/09
Yes, Microsoft could have executed this campaign in a ‘better’ way – like had each vote counted as an additional ballot in a draw for the top prizes (giving hospitals with the most votes a better chance at winning, but ultimately leaving it up to chance) – but at least they were trying to do something positive.
I can’t say the same thing about this article. Instead of praising Microsoft for this good deed (not to mention its long history of charitable giving), it’s bashing the company for a poorly executed effort and doing the whole charity-community a disservice in the process.
09/06/09
09/07/09
09/07/09