I'd like to open a can of worms - just a little bit.
Looking to see how folks on this board feel about corporate philanthropy and the cultural differences we see in that area.

The recent thread about the first ZR1 got me thinking about it.
According to the link... First ZR1 Rolls OFf The Line, "The profit raised by the sale of the car was donated to the United Way." That is $1-million that was given away by a company that is in dire financial condition. Mega-

Similarly, Ford has done something great with the "Warriors-in-Pink" program,
"$250 from the sale of each package will go directly to Susan G. Komen for the CureŽ."

Shelby has traditionally auctioned-off his "first" unit of each model.
Ford Helps Carroll Shelby Children's Foundation Raise More Than $1.1 Million
The Carroll Shelby Children's Foundation tipped its hat to the Ford Motor Company for raising more than $1.1 Million through the first three months of 2006. The funds benefit the charity devoted to children's organ transplants and research started by legendary racer, car manufacturer and entrepreneur Carroll Shelby.

Ford Drops the Top on 2008 Shelby GT-H Mustang
Ford said the first convertible GT-H sold for $250,000 at Saturday's Barrett-Jackson Auction in West Palm Beach, Florida. Proceeds from that sale will benefit the Carroll Shelby Children's Foundation.

2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8 Job 1 Sells for 400,000
"The muscle car with an attitude has been auctioned off for some USD 400,000 at a charity auction. All proceeds, which were paid by a gentleman named Craig Jackson, chairman/CEO of Barrett-Jackson Auction Company, will go to the notMYkid charity organization which helps kids deal with adolescent behavioral health issues. "

In addition to "auctioning the first of a new model", there is info about how GM, Ford, and Chrysler donated vehicles and voluntarilly suspended car payments for those suffering after Katrina. They seem to pop-up after every major disaster the same way - giving millions in equipment, man hours of volunteers, and actual cash. I think it's great, and shows thet they care.

OK - so there are samples galore about how GM and Ford and Chrysler are giving to charities and communities even when it hurts them the most. So what about companies that are awash in profits, growing like crazy, and taking market share away from the domestics? Are they "giving" like they should?

Take them by region... Can anyone help me put a balance on equivalent activity from Toyota, Honda, Kia, Suzuki, Acura, Lexus, Nissan, Mitsubishi, or any of the Asian brands?

Then how about we look at the European brands (even if they are/were owned by an American company) like Saab, Volvo, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, Alfa, Land Rover, etc

The criteria is that they must be selling cars here in the US market, and contributions must be to a valid US charity of some kind.

I could do a few hours research and satisfy my own appetite to know, but I find myself more curious as to what others' opinion and attitude towards the subject is - moreso than simply saying "Company "X" gives Y-dollars compared to Company "A" that is only giving"B-dollars".

In other words, what is the "public perception" of such philanthropy? Does it matter? Would GM and Ford do it even if it were not a publicity act?

IS there "parity" of any kind? Anyone have opinions? Facts? Links?

 

I dont have any facts or stats, but as a person that doesnt like Toyota or other foreign manufactures, even if they did do anything like that I would just dismiss it as them trying to pursued public perception of them as more of an American friendly company. They dont have the history of doing it like the domestics do, and theyre just doing what they think it will take to help build public trust to sale more cars and take more market share from the domestics, the ones that have been doing it from the start. The foreign makes will never have the same respect from me for one reason. It all goes back to times like that significant period back in the 40's when certain manufactures shut down operations to build vehicles and other equiptment for our US military, and certain manufactures built equipment with the intent of destroying our US military. End of discussion for me.

 

Try searching national parks and Ford motor company. I think they are the biggest donor in the history of U.S. National Parks.

GMC donated alot of trucks to NYC after 9/11, brand new, commerical grade.

As for the others, there was an article in the Nashville Tennessean about Nissans donations to local charities as they opened their new NA headquarters there. I didn't read it. Despite employing 6,000 employees at the local car plant there for 25 years I cant remember them giving anything to local charities previsously. I could be wrong. There was nothing at my university with 24,000 students, only 15 miles from the plant. I just looked at my wifes 2005 race for the cure shirt, her company, Sharpie, donated at the bronze level. "Your Middle Tennessee Ford Dealers" donated at the Platinum level. Hats off to them. Of the 30 companies, no nissan. There isn't even a Ford plant in Nashville.

Subuaru has been advertising its zero solid waste plant in Indiana. Although I think GM's Lambda plant in Lansing got some big green award last year.

In non automotive companies, local charities are shaking in their boots because of Anheusier-Busch takeover. AB gave over $13,000,000 locally last year. Its been in the paper alot lately. They have also donated over 16 million 12 ounce cans of water to U.S. diasters in the past 15 years. They recycle 99.9% of their solid waste. Locals are expecting Inbev to slash giving to local charities.

Besides what you've read in misleading emails isn't it true that target gives like three times more than walmart to charity?

 

A lot of car companies do the auction thing which really doesn't cost them all that much. Consider it an advertising expense.

 

Target gives 5% of store profits given locally, IIRC. That's from an annual report a few years ago, I think it's still the same?

Wal Mart is big with the United Way, I think. Don't know about %'s, though.

I'm of the opinion that GM and Ford *really* need to scale back the charitable giving. Companies that are not turning a profit, or at least breaking even, have no business giving anything away, unless they are *certain* (as much as one can be from advertising) that they will get a decent ROI. It's like a farmer giving away his only remaining meal, 10 meals before harvest- he'll starve before he can pick enough to feed everyone!

They need razor-sharp focus right now, so I'm not particularly concerned about their generosity when they are failing. To paraphrase the book "The Millionaire Next Door," the typical millionaire gives a fair amount, but always gives to his favorite charity first- himself!

It looks like Honda keeps a fairly low key- http://corporate.honda.com/images/ba...F_brochure.pdf

 

Opportunity costs. Someone would pay big bucks for that car even if it wasn't going to charity. Thus they "lose" the income.

 

I've read about the $1.1 million going to the SE Michigan United Way on three different web sites. I wasn't out searching for it, just browsing the news. Thats probably a good return for "giving away" the first car.

 

You just hit the emotion that stirred me to make this thread.

I think it is nothing short of galliant that Ford and GM and CHrysler keep giving even when it hurts SO bad. But do I want them to stop? Should they stop?

Personally, I don't want them to stop. I think it speaks volumes about the people running the companies right now, and where their priorities are. It also shows teh cultural difference between us Americans and some of the Asian companies. The base-culture of the company is in fact reflected in their daily activities IMO. European companies are the bigest dissapointment in this category IMO.

Interesting post.

 

I think it would be more of a fair comparison if you took a look at how/if other automakers are charitable in their home country. As you've pointed out, the big three have made alot of contributions locally and seeing that they are based here it comes to no surprise (even though they do so when they may not be in the best financial position).

So my question would be, does Honda or Toyota donate alot in their home country? If so, they are no different than the big three (giving back to those in their country). What would be a more fair comparison is how much does GM, Ford, Chrysler give in other countries, if at all vs what foreign automakers contribute here. It makes sense for a company to give back to those in their community/country but I wouldn't expect as much charity from foreign companies that may do business here although it would be a nice gesture.

 

The point is, how much does toyota contribute to this country? I don't care how much money they donate in their home country. That doesn't affect or help me in any way.

Also worth considering is, the US is their biggest market, so whatever they donate to their home market in essence comes from the US's pockets.

 

Same thing with AB...Damnit.

 

Actually, I find all of those points valid... do they give well in their home-countries, do we give well in their countries, etc.

But even that discussion just opened a new question for me...
IF the US is their biggest market, but they are giving LESS to domestic charities than our domestic companies are, doesn't that make it a "double-endemnity" for our own charitable groups to buy and support the foreign brands?!?! In essence, they would be hurting the businesses that help them the most, and helping the businesses that support them the least.

THIS is the kind of data that I think is totally missing from the corporate landscape today - both regular businesses and also for non-profits. Maybe they should begin to look at the bigger picture a little. Now with respect to the individual consumer paying retail for any car... I think they should look closely at what is supporting their community, jobs, and lifestyles too, but this thread is about corporate giving and philanthropy, so I'll stick to that genre for now.

 

Exactly right. Someone would have paid $1-million for that first Vette regardless of who the money went to., so GM could have kept that money for their own use. It would of course have been a taxable sale, but still... a TIDY profit for one car, and surely there is something they could use the money for.

When we talk about giving 100 vehicles to cities and state municipalitites for disaster work - that is BIG money they are taking a hit on then. Not to mention the millions of dollars in cash donations to the Red Cross, etc.

So I'm looking at the big picture, the mentality, the culture, not just a one-time car auction.

 

This is exactly was I was getting at, but it goes both ways unfortunately. This may be totally wrong but I believe I heard that GM Europe profits surpassed our domestic profits, so would that steer GM into possibly giving back to Europe more so than the past if at all.

Foreign brands are very big here as the american public just love to buy them up (well at least Honda and Toyota). Since they don't offer much incentive in the form of rebates or special financing and they still sell their product, it would seem as if they would be more willing to be charitable towards the people/businesses that keep them profitable. Or is being charitable at times more of a way to try to 'buy' loyalty from people which is why domestic brands feel the need to do so since they are viewed as inferior to foreign brands hence the possibility that Honda/Toyota don't donate as much or feel the need to.

 

Maybe the tax benefits/breaks are > than giving away some new trucks and a few million here an there?

Just throwing that out there...