It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox: Like us on Facebook and help the SPCA of Central Florida

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I just saw this ad on TV. It seems as though Fox will donate $5000 to the Central Florida SPCA if they acquire 50,000 Facebook friends by midnight on December 29th.

www.myfoxorlando.com...

Help FOX 35 reach 50,000 fans on our Facebook page and FOX 35 & AT&T will donate $5,000 to the SPCA of Central Florida!

This holiday season, FOX 35 & AT&T are teaming up to help our furry friends at the SPCA of Central Florida. Simply like FOX 35’s page on Facebook, and if we reach our goal of 50,000 friends by midnight on December 29, 2011, we’ll donate $5,000 to the SPCA of Central Florida.

Visit the FOX 35 Facebook page at: www.facebook.com... to like us and help us reach our goal and tell your Facebook friends to like us too.

For more information on the SPCA of Central Florida, visit www.ohs-spca.org


I just don't like this kind of marketing. It's as though they're punishing the helpless animals if they don't get enough Facebook friends, which is a really low blow in my opinion.

I'm not on Facebook, but the fact that I refuse to use Facebook is keeping the animals from getting much needed food and supplies really bothers me. It's as though Fox is using guilt and pulling at the heart strings of animal lovers to get more clout and attention.

Besides, if I were to add them as a friend on Facebook just to get them to donate to the SPCA doesn't mean I can't unfriend them on December 30th. If I did, would they take their money back from the animals?

In my opinion (especially since it's the holidays), I think they should donate the money anyways even if they don't reach their goal of 50,000 fans. After all, the animals can't friend them, yet their the ones who are going to suffer if people won't friend Fox. That's a raw deal.

Thoughts?




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
That's pretty low. They can't get people to like them so they've basically put out a ransom note.

"If we don't get 50,000 likes on Facebook by midnight, Dec. 29, those animals will die! And it will be your fault for not liking us!"



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Just for having that idea I think they should forget Facebook friends (I do not and never will have a Facebook account), times that amount by 10 and give it to them now. Then they should start reporting real news.

I never did quite "get" the Facebook thing. Oh wait, its because I don't have any friends.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Wow! Thanks for replying and letting me know that I'm not alone with my views about this.

I was beginning to think I should've titled the thread "Friend us or Fluffy dies!"

I'm so glad you both feel the same way.

AHHH! There's that commercial again! Every commercial break, they show it.

I'll have to find a video of it and post it.

Edit to Add:
I can't find the video. I'm tempted to write to the SPCA though and make them aware of how horrible Fox's deal is. One time, Red Box sent me a text message saying that if I friended them on Facebook, I'd get a free rental. I sent them a message right away voicing my displeasure about this. They sent me an email stating that they wouldn't be running those kinds of deals very much, but it stood as is. I was pretty ticked off.

This whole Friends of Facebook thing is getting out of hand.

Now, even animals' lives are hanging in the balance.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 
So a TV station offers to give your organization a large cash donation. They make it a challenge. You take their offer to give your organization a large cash donation and turn it against them in the form of a public insult.

I've heard the term "ingrate" used to describe such behavior.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by grubblesnert
reply to post by Afterthought
 
So a TV station offers to give your organization a large cash donation. They make it a challenge. You take their offer to give your organization a large cash donation and turn it against them in the form of a public insult.

I've heard the term "ingrate" used to describe such behavior.




What? They didn't offer to give a large cash donation. As you said, They made it a challenge. People shouldn't have to answer a challenge so starving innocent animals can get the food and medication need to survive.
What is wrong with you? You sound a bit like a sociopath.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by grubblesnert
 


You are calling me an ingrate?

I'm saying that the SPCA should've put a clause in their deal saying that they'd get the money anyways even if Fox didn't reach their goal. It's just not cool to use defenseless creatures to improve your popularity.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 
I am not offer to give a thing nor am I issuing a challenge. Am I better or worse that TV35 for offering $5000?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by grubblesnert
 




Yes.
A sociopath is someone who tortures injured animals for pleasure which is basically what Fox is doing here.
They're saying "Like us on facebook or we won't give money to these poor defenseless animals." which is a pretty messed up to thing to do to most normal well adjusted people.

No Snort. What we're saying is fox should just donate the money to the animals without requiring people to like them do it. Just because some people don't like fox doesn't mean these animals should have to suffer.

edit on 16-12-2011 by Reptius because: replying



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by grubblesnert
 


Nevermind.

If they have the money to give, they should -- without the popularity challenge.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
What do you expect from the MSM, they are clowns and they have given up any pretense to be professionals laboring for love with the mystique of the so-called "fourth estate."

People who labor for love do it in places like ATS now.

The MSM is a joke, it is a propaganda organ for the emerging corporate-government order. Media consolidation and Taylorist managment systems have turned it into as effecient and soulless an operation as running a chicken de-boning assembly line. Everything is pre-tested and calculated for marketing effect. McNooz.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Hey, everyone!
If this thread gets 100 flags by midnight tonight, I'll feed my dog tomorrow.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


I agree, but knowing this doesn't make it any less infuriating.
It really is quite a shame what they'll stoop to these days and Facebook seems to make it all that much worse.
edit on 16-12-2011 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 
I'm quiting on you and the other ingrate Reptius.
Some people you just can't reach


The "sociopath" is signing off to spend sometime with his "Rescued" dog & cat
They are most certainly NOT ingrates



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by grubblesnert
 


Have a good night!
Thanks for the bump.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
How many people who disagree with the affiliate's promotion really liked FOX news before this? It's a rhetorical question. (I suspect the answer is "one.")

What I'm wondering (without taking any sides) is, would you take anything that FOX does and find a way to make it bad?

Would you feel better if FOX announced: "Due to opposition on ATS we will cancel our SPCA promotion?"



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The question I have is will the SPCA be worse, same, or better off with the charitable donation from the station? Now the same question but without the charitable donation from the station?

Faux anger that the station is going to kill 100 kittens if they don't get friends on Facebook is just childish. Really.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


To answer your question, yes, I do watch Fox. I will read their news, but they certainly aren't my main source for accurate reports. I'll usually take what they offer and cross reference it with other sites' info.

I guess since it's the holidays and there have been so many animals displaced due to the housing meltdown that this type of marketing makes it extra sour.

If they'd simply announced that they were donating to the SPCA out of the goodness of their hearts instead of how they are doing it, I would like them a whole lot more and have more respect for them.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


My main question is, does Facebook help more people, or do more people help Facebook?

Why is it so important that companies have as many "friends" as possible? I'm not on Facebook, but I'm figuring that friending Fox would mean that you'd be barraged with news updates as soon as they're your friend. Is this about right?

That's another thing, not everyone is or wants to be on Facebook, so their challenge is skewed and childish.
Be our friend or you don't care about the animals! Whaaa!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join