Do you enter comps by companies whose practices you are against?

booklover500

Just wondering if any of you won't enter competitions because the company running it supports or does things that you think are morally wrong.

I clicked on the win tickets to 'The Play That Goes Wrong' saw that it was run by Shooting UK and moved on to the next one as I am a vegetarian and would never enter anything run by a company that promotes killing animals. I also passed up on entering one a few weeks ago to win a Barbour jacket (I think ) as the entry page said 'to celebrate the start of the new shooting season'.

Do any of you choose not to enter comps for reasons like this or because the company doesn't pay their taxes, is bad for the environment etc? Just curious.

sleepyjones

In some cases, I don't really get offended by much from a company perspective ... I won't enter anything that's run by a (for example) payday loan company, not specifically because I don't agree with the practices ... more because I wouldn't trust them to not sell on my details or call me every 10 minutes asking if I wanted a loan.

I don't enter the mumsnet / gransnet type ones but more because I don't think they'd choose a guy as a winner ... and I don't enter Rafflecopters or a lot of Gleam competitions 'cause I think a lot of them "are at it" ... but again not because of any moral (or immoral) practices that the promoter might participate in.

lynwestie

The only ones that I'm totally against are those run by Pay day loan companies.. i.e Wonga. I just refuse to give them the advertising.

Once I entered their weekly twitter comp and still regret it to this day.

mrsmorton_2

I'm with you, being veggie too I definitely wouldn't enter anything to do with hunting, shooting etc or some I've seen run by butchers etc where it is a cash prize rather than meat, wouldn't sit well with me morally!!

mjm3346

Apart from their actual business a company can be linked to or trade with others that you object to and it would take a long while to check all that out - a good number of apparent independents are also owned by or have a large conglomerate as the majority shareholder but they keep their "niche" branding.
If you don't check all that out then it's a "moral" choice only as long as it's not too much bother which isn't really very "moral".

WeAreGhosts

I don't enter any of the payday loan company ones, or ones that are for a certain demographic (I'm not gay, Jewish or a granny etc). I don't enter for anything that uses real fur, or promotes hunting.

But the one I really can't stand to see is Reader's Digest comps. Total youknowwhat of a company who diddled one of my relatives out of a lot of money and then couldn't see what they had done wrong. took a solicitors letter to get them to stop writing and begging.

Zanzib

I don't do the payday loans ones either.

Moneybot

Shouldn't that be "whose" not "who's"? I think here the apostrophe s is only used to show contraction as in "who is" rather than being the possessive.

Not totally sure so happy for a bit of input from any of my fellow pedants on the board (you know who you are).

WeAreGhosts

Yes, you are correct.

Who's = who is

Whose = eg "whose watch is this?"

Moneybot

WeAreGhosts wrote: »

Yes, you are correct.

Who's = who is

Whose = eg "whose watch is this?"

Thank you I thought that was the case.

I only remarked as the OP's username would have indicated they might be a tad more up on grammar. Mind you depends on the books I suppose.

WeAreGhosts

Ahh, bless 'em.