Help settle a debate: Is the giving of a £20k luxury hamper to a Foodbank perfectly acceptable or grossly inappropriate? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Help settle a debate: Is the giving of a £20k luxury hamper to a Foodbank perfectly acceptable or grossly inappropriate?

£0.00 @
This debate has cropped up between myself and another HUKDer on this here thread: http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/decadance-hamper-harrods-20010-delivered-2087854?page=5#comments Now it's clear … Read More
Denziloshamen Avatar
2y, 5m agoPosted 2 years, 5 months ago
This debate has cropped up between myself and another HUKDer on this here thread:

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/decadance-hamper-harrods-20010-delivered-2087854?page=5#comments

Now it's clear me and the other chap/chapess are simply not going to see eye to eye on this, so hopefully some others can add to the debate without clogging up the deal post more than we already have done.

As you'll see, I'm of the opinion that donating £20k worth of luxury food will not serve the number of families £20k of normal foods would. The other side of the coin is that donating a £20k hamper is a great publicity stunt and political statement and that it will generate more donations through publicity.

I figured the obvious solution to still have the publicity stunt and media attention would be for Harrods to donate £20k of normal food. But it appears I'm wrong according to the other poster as the Foodbank should get both.

As far as I see it, that still means an inappropriate donation of £20k of luxury food has been made when the food bank really only wants proper donations.

Maybe I'm being blind, maybe the other chap is being pig headed. So I'm putting the debate out there to get other opinions on the matter.
Denziloshamen Avatar
2y, 5m agoPosted 2 years, 5 months ago
Options

All Comments

(33) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Yes
#2
Yes.
8 Likes #3
Why not just donate the 20k in a blaze of publicity and let the food bank get best value for that amount of money?
#4
Can see both sides. Sometimes theres no right or wrong, just different opinions. Cant see the point in starting this thread about it.
1 Like #5
I can also see both sides.....lets be honest, the food hamper was only worth 20k if you were buying it from them....it was probably a 60% mark up at the very least.

So I would say most of it was for publicity..but Id rather they donated that, than not at all.
#6
This hasn't actually happened. It was suggested that the HUKD community club the £20k together and buy the hamper to give to a Foodbank. I pointed out that the foodbanks would be much better off if we all just donated a couple of pounds of actual food. The debate stemmed from there really. I'm posting a thread in misc so that we don't bog down the other thread that neither of us posted. This is what the misc area is for, so wanted to gauge a more rounded opinion from a broader audience.
3 Likes #7
I agree with you Denzil.

Why not spend 20k on basic food that will go a lot further ?

Edited By: Monkeybumcheeks on Dec 17, 2014 09:27
#8
LindaC15
Why not just donate the 20k in a blaze of publicity and let the food bank get best value for that amount of money?

Was going to say the same thing.
#9
When you're living on the breadline only Beluga caviar will do...

I'm with you OP. I find the idea quite ridiculous.
banned#10
Let them eat cake
#11
Absolutely crazy idea! Mat my work I have out a box in the staff room for people to donate food for our local food bank and they actually have a list of foods that they are desperate for like soups bags of pasta baby milk etc I can't see any of that hamper being of any use and

I think it will only be bad publicity for them because if you think of what is in that £20k hamper compared to how much real important food you can buy for £20k you'll see what a absolute rip off it is!

They would have been better auctioning off the hamper and donation whatever they make to the food bank!
3 Likes #12
I think anyone in there right mind can see, donating 20k worth of food is far better than donating a 20k hamper, but if thats all you had to donate for some crazy reason then like mentoined it could be autioned off to raise money.
1 Like #13
20k of Mcdonalds meals would feed more families than a 20k hamper of fancy mustard etc!
#14
I say buy as much sensible food as possible to feed the families for as long as possible with a couple of little luxuries thrown in. Maybe Harrods should do a bigger gesture and rather than a £20k hamper feed 20k families a Christmas dinner :)
#15
Whoever decided to donate this is obviously out of touch with reality.

You would need to speak several languages to know what you were eating/drinking. The most appetising thing on the list is the Christmas crackers!

Why not donate £20,000.00 to the food bank so they can buy normal food that will stretch 20000 times further. I think it's an absolute insult.
#16
Giving a handful of people some fancy stuff is nice. It's better than giving them nothing.

Giving a thousand people a couple dozen tins of "regular" food is infinitely better.
2 Likes #17
Seems to be a lot of alcohol in that hamper, not really of use to someone whose family is on the verge of starving.
#18
20k to spend on normal food
#19
Give a man a gold plated fish and he'll probably shatter all his teeth, give a man a netful of fish and they will be rotten before he manages to eat em all.
#20
I was the HUKD'er that suggested it.

The point was to create a spectacle for the media that would garner attention and create even larger donations than the 20k would have. That's how the media works. Donating 20k directly would not nearly have the same effect as something like this going viral.

It's a play on the public anger on wealth inequality. The grossly overpriced hamper is a symbol of gifts the landed gentry love at this time of year. Public pressure would no doubt have the retailer refund and donate the 20k as well.

Some people are too simple to play to game though. Their wit only extends to donating 20k worth of beans to a food bank.

That's why we have wealth inequality - the rich oligarchy know how to play the game. Rest of us squabble amongst ourselves.

Love the comments about 'reality'. Your reality is as limited as your knowledge and ability.

The OP here doesn't care about any of that. Don't be fooled. He's just mad that I called him out for being a miserable 1uper, and it's bit him so bad he had to come make a new thread about it to feel better.

Go on, rub his back if you're so gullible.
#21
Vanderlust
I was the HUKD'er that suggested it.

The point was to create a spectacle for the media that would garner attention and create even larger donations than the 20k would have. That's how the media works. Donating 20k directly would not nearly have the same effect as something like this going viral.

It's a play on the public anger on wealth inequality. The grossly overpriced hamper is a symbol of gifts the landed gentry love at this time of year. Public pressure would no doubt have the retailer refund and donate the 20k as well.

Some people are too simple to play to game though. Their wit only extends to donating 20k worth of beans to a food bank.

That's why we have wealth inequality - the rich oligarchy know how to play the game. Rest of us squabble amongst ourselves.

Love the comments about 'reality'. Your reality is as limited as your knowledge and ability.

The OP here doesn't care about any of that. Don't be fooled. He's just mad that I called him out for being a miserable 1uper, and it's bit him so bad he had to come make a new thread about it to feel better.

Go on, rub his back if you're so gullible.

Has the donation of this hamper created more donations? It's all well and good saying that's the whole point but unless there's any evidence of this then it's simply speculation.
#22
Rhianne
Vanderlust
I was the HUKD'er that suggested it.

The point was to create a spectacle for the media that would garner attention and create even larger donations than the 20k would have. That's how the media works. Donating 20k directly would not nearly have the same effect as something like this going viral.

It's a play on the public anger on wealth inequality. The grossly overpriced hamper is a symbol of gifts the landed gentry love at this time of year. Public pressure would no doubt have the retailer refund and donate the 20k as well.

Some people are too simple to play to game though. Their wit only extends to donating 20k worth of beans to a food bank.

That's why we have wealth inequality - the rich oligarchy know how to play the game. Rest of us squabble amongst ourselves.

Love the comments about 'reality'. Your reality is as limited as your knowledge and ability.

The OP here doesn't care about any of that. Don't be fooled. He's just mad that I called him out for being a miserable 1uper, and it's bit him so bad he had to come make a new thread about it to feel better.

Go on, rub his back if you're so gullible.

Has the donation of this hamper created more donations? It's all well and good saying that's the whole point but unless there's any evidence of this then it's simply speculation.

What donation? It was an idea.

That's how things happen, they start with ideas. Then you try it and see.

From experience, yes, I know that viral charitable acts do have really great effects. Actually I don't want to go into that, as you'd have to be living under a bridge to not realise the amount of donations and policies overturned on the back of media stunts.

Wouldn't be surprised if something like this pulled in over 200k. Especially around the Christmas period.
#23
Anything is better than nothing. I see all sides... But sometimes it is not our job to judge.

Lx
1 Like #24
Actually, you guys don't seem to know the actual situation, as the OP has worded it in a way that changes things.

It was a deal posted as a joke by another member. An opportunity was spotted at that point to turn it into something bigger. A donation ride on the back of ghastly excess.

I understand how if you frame the argument as, is it better to donate 20k or a 20k food hamper full of alcohol to a foodbank? Then yes, that changes things.

But that's not the situation. The situation is one of creating a media spectacle and guilt tripping a retailer. It's far more powerful and nuanced a thing that what the OP is trying to reframe.

Anyway, you can dig up the original thread and catch the drift, and see the OP's actual nature. He is a mean spirited and miserly soul. You can see that from his other posts, though he has tried to redeem himself by appearing 'the voice of reason' after being called out.

He is not. He's a forum warrior, who tried to 1up an idea because he was too limited in wit to see the value of it.

No more replies from me, I wrote everything that needs to be said yesterday on the other thread multiple times over.

Either you understand how the media works and the immense value of viral social network stunts, or you don't.

It's not my place to bore you about it.

Cheers.
#25
OK, so the abuse from Vandelust is going to continue here. Plenty of people don't agree with you Vanderlust, but you continue to insist you are right. You will note that I have not waded in with my opinions here as I want to gauge what others think. people do know the whole story as I linked to the original post so that they could see the arguments that have been laid on the table.

The facts are all here and laid out. The vast majority of people here do not agree with you. Therefore, public opinion is that your idea is a bad one and you are wrong. You can't then turn around and tell everyone else who hasn't supported your idea that they don't know what they are talking about. And then you continue to make false statements about me to make you feel that you are still in the right.

There has always been inequality. Money makes money and the rich will (mostly) remain rich. We can't do anything about that. We can try and tax them more but they'll still be rich or find ways of reducing their tax bill. The poor do not have to remain poor though and can quite often find their way out of poverty with assistance from charities such as foodbanks.

If Harrods donated £20k of food, it would go viral and have much more public appeal than the idea of the hamper. It would inspire other companies to donate the same or similar and then the public would also see that and feel they could contribute on a scale that they could afford (even if it's only one tin of beans).

This public pressure for Harrods to refund and donate £20k as well, still means there has been a useless donation of £20k that the food banks do not want (one of the posters here has already stated the food banks do not want your suggested donation, they want baby milk so a mother can feed her baby, not fois gras and caviar!!). It also means that Harrods is receiving negative publicity over the original donation that they didn't make or want to make in the first place. Regardless of whether people or companies can afford to make a donation, they should not be bullied in to giving in to public demand They should be given the option to match the sales of these £20k hamper sales with similar value donations to foodbanks. Yes, you can argue that the charity has still won as they got a donation, but it was as a result of a cloud of bad publicity and the end result is a grudging donation to charity.

If you were able to work on your original idea and put it to Harrods (and every other supermarket even) that they could maybe consider counter balancing the gross consumerism we see at Christmas, there could then be the possibility of having a regular working relationship with the foodbanks for years to come. This would be more beneficial to everyone and something really good would have come of it.

You seem to not be interested in public opinion though. You are right, everyone else is wrong. You refuse to budge and you seem pretty peeved that you didn't get the moment of glory and the deluge of 'likes' your ego was so hoping to get (see, I can make up ridiculous accusations about you too!!). Political statements and public outcry are all well and good for a quick fix, but what you refuse to consider is that it does nothing to help the situation long term. People forget very quickly and move on to the next thing, the charity might get an initial flood of donations, but then those dry out and they are left high and dry as the public are now giving money to the next 'Ice Bucket Challenge'.

You have also failed to consider how grossly inappropriate the donation of ridiculous luxury items to a food bank is. OK, a few extras at Christmas might be nice. A donation of a simple Christmas pudding or an advent calendar would go much further than £5000 of expensive wines. Yes, the foodbank could auction it off, but doesn't that tell you that they don't want the donation in the first place and they would much rather have the money or the items they will have to buy with the money they raise with the proceeds of the auction?

No doubt you will continue to make some grand statements about politics, class and how communism is the only way forward. Whilst refusing to actually read the comments people are making. People have spoken, not just me, and the vast majority do not agree with you. When will you admit that maybe you got the idea wrong, no matter how well intentioned it was (note I am not denying your intentions were good, I have just suggested the method could be a better one. However you have publically stated that I am selfish and have never donated anything to a foodbank). Your actions are that of a bully who, when they can't get their own way, starts name calling. It's not very friendly behaviour and invalidates any of the good points you may make (and you have made one or two in between the insults, I think).

Now how about you actually go and read what people are saying and see if you can make this happen in a way that would appeal to public opinion


Edited By: Denziloshamen on Dec 17, 2014 14:33: 1
#26
Here's the link to the original posts again, just so I can't be accused of hiding any facts in the way I have worded this post:

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/decadance-hamper-harrods-20010-delivered-2087854?page=5#comments
#27
I'm with Denzilo on this one, if the media published the title '20k worth of food donated to food banks from Harrod's', I can't see how the quality of food would affect the publicity? No matter now ridiculously over-priced the food is, the word won't spreads to more than the people that read it. Therefore why spend the money feeding one family for a day when you could probably feed 200 for a week?
#28
What a monumentally stupid idea X)

It's illegal distribute alcohol to the public without a licence. Food banks don't have alcohol licences, they couldn't hand out that hamper even if they wanted to. Which they wouldn't, as many people using food banks have got themselves into difficulty due to addiction issues. The best they could do is take it to the nearest licenced auctioneer.
#29
Vanderlust
Actually, you guys don't seem to know the actual situation, as the OP has worded it in a way that changes things.

It was a deal posted as a joke by another member. An opportunity was spotted at that point to turn it into something bigger. A donation ride on the back of ghastly excess.

I understand how if you frame the argument as, is it better to donate 20k or a 20k food hamper full of alcohol to a foodbank? Then yes, that changes things.

But that's not the situation. The situation is one of creating a media spectacle and guilt tripping a retailer. It's far more powerful and nuanced a thing that what the OP is trying to reframe.

Anyway, you can dig up the original thread and catch the drift, and see the OP's actual nature. He is a mean spirited and miserly soul. You can see that from his other posts, though he has tried to redeem himself by appearing 'the voice of reason' after being called out.

He is not. He's a forum warrior, who tried to 1up an idea because he was too limited in wit to see the value of it.

No more replies from me, I wrote everything that needs to be said yesterday on the other thread multiple times over.

Either you understand how the media works and the immense value of viral social network stunts, or you don't.

It's not my place to bore you about it.

Cheers.
narcisist much or just head stuck up your own backside?
banned#30
Let them eat cake.
#31
If I was one of them poor people I would want this as no way would I eat the cheap garbage poor people are used to.
#32
Denziloshamen
OK, so the abuse from Vandelust is going to continue here. Plenty of people don't agree with you Vanderlust, but you continue to insist you are right. You will note that I have not waded in with my opinions here as I want to gauge what others think. people do know the whole story as I linked to the original post so that they could see the arguments that have been laid on the table.

The facts are all here and laid out. The vast majority of people here do not agree with you. Therefore, public opinion is that your idea is a bad one and you are wrong. You can't then turn around and tell everyone else who hasn't supported your idea that they don't know what they are talking about. And then you continue to make false statements about me to make you feel that you are still in the right.

----blah blah---
on the other side you seem to take offense that someone else had a different opinion than yourself so felt the need to create another thread to drum up support?

fact is the other fella could be right, effects wouldn't be really known until after he event and depends how well it was spun etc

foodbank could even auction the hamper to gain publicity a second time
#33
brilly
Denziloshamen
OK, so the abuse from Vandelust is going to continue here. Plenty of people don't agree with you Vanderlust, but you continue to insist you are right. You will note that I have not waded in with my opinions here as I want to gauge what others think. people do know the whole story as I linked to the original post so that they could see the arguments that have been laid on the table.

The facts are all here and laid out. The vast majority of people here do not agree with you. Therefore, public opinion is that your idea is a bad one and you are wrong. You can't then turn around and tell everyone else who hasn't supported your idea that they don't know what they are talking about. And then you continue to make false statements about me to make you feel that you are still in the right.

----blah blah---
on the other side you seem to take offense that someone else had a different opinion than yourself so felt the need to create another thread to drum up support?

fact is the other fella could be right, effects wouldn't be really known until after he event and depends how well it was spun etc

foodbank could even auction the hamper to gain publicity a second time

Not at all, my initial suggestion was to just give donations to a foodbank rather than all chip in and get the hamper to donate as some form of politcal statement. I've since seen that the publicity aspect is important for the foodbank, so I took some of the initial response and adapted my suggestion working with Vanderlusts original idea. I've never said the intention of the idea wasn't good, just the premise was not appropriate.

So, rather than trying to show up Harrods and make them feel guitly enough to donate, I suggested that maybe it would be better for them to match the value of these hampers to show they are in touch with those who can hardly afford food this christmas (and the rest of the year too). This takes the original idea but adapts it so that the foodbank gets what they need and Harrods would get good publicity rather than being bullied in to donating something as a result of bad publicity.

Vanderlust could well be right, but if we take the small sample of responses here as a basis for public opinion, it is clear that it is not a good idea and needs to be rethought. Vanderlust refuses to budge though and resorts to insults when everyone disagrees with him/her. There's no reason this couldn't actually happen if the idea is refined with everyone's input on how to make it work the best for all parties.

I can see how the auction thing could be good for publicity, but this means the foodbank is auctioning off a donation that they cannot use to get money to buy the food that they needed in the first place. Do you not think it might be better for the foodbank to receive the donation as food, make a publicity announcement about it, and then get on with helping those in need?

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!