5E Wendy’s sponsoring Critical Role?

Harzel

Explorer
We really are living in a dystopia...
I'm not sure how far we can go with this convo here, but while I think I understand your sentiment, I disagree, at least to the extent that things are not really, actually any worse than they have ever been. I think it's just that the obviousness of the problems and who they affect most tend to swirl and change over time. Even having nasty stuff raised to the surface and exposed can be a form of progress.

EDIT: But I am not saying one shouldn't call out stuff that is problematic.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I'm not sure how far we can go with this convo here, but while I think I understand your sentiment, I disagree, at least to the extent that things are not really, actually any worse than they have ever been. I think it's just that the obviousness of the problems and who they affect most tend to swirl and change over time. Even having nasty stuff raised to the surface and exposed can be a form of progress.

EDIT: But I am not saying one shouldn't call out stuff that is problematic.
Doctorbadwolf said it well. Things have always been bad in one way or another, and the ways in which they’re bad now are perhaps more bearable than the ways they have been in times past. I could say more, but I’ll leave it at that.
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
I was surprised that it wasn’t originally a charity match-up, like with 826-LA. Glad they did the right thing in the end, and hopefully they’ll think harder about who they want to get into bed with in future.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I was surprised that it wasn’t originally a charity match-up, like with 826-LA. Glad they did the right thing in the end, and hopefully they’ll think harder about who they want to get into bed with in future.
I mean, I wasn't really aware of the problems with Wendy's before this week, because I never think about Wendy's. Now, I know to avoid them. So, backfired?
 

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
I mean, I wasn't really aware of the problems with Wendy's before this week, because I never think about Wendy's. Now, I know to avoid them. So, backfired?
Yeah, it seems so. But it also left a mark on the Critical Role team too, which is unfortunate.
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
They do not pay or treat their workers as well as other fast food companies, is the big one. Some sketchiness about their supply chain, too. Not a super-duper ethical company by the standards of the fast food industry.
What they said, but also, they interfered with/opposed work to protect the people who work the farms that provide their produce.

They also have strong ties financially to political figures and organizations that are in direct and unreconcilable opposition to the espoused ideals of the CR team.

That’s about all that can be said without “discussing politics”. If you google “wendy’s Controversy”, it should bring up results that will further illuminate the situation.
I see Wendy's like a lot of large corporations is Lawful Evil. And like a lot of the large corporations is run by things who are doing a poor job of pretending to be human.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I see Wendy's like a lot of large corporations is Lawful Evil. And like a lot of the large corporations is run by things who are doing a poor job of pretending to be human.
Well, the thing about this is that Wendy's is noticeably worse than McDonalds, Burger King and other large fast food conglomerates. It's not that they are failing against some Platonic ideal of ethics: they are failing at the standards being met regularly by other similar organizations.
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
Well, the thing about this is that Wendy's is noticeably worse than McDonalds, Burger King and other large fast food conglomerates. It's not that they are failing against some Platonic ideal of ethics: they are failing at the standards being met regularly by other similar organizations.
Were the designers even paid? Or were they just "paid" with exposure?
 

Parmandur

Legend
Were the designers even paid? Or were they just "paid" with exposure?
The designers of this game are marketing professionals who work at the agency Wendy's has under contract, who happen to be huge nerds. They weren't exploiting the game designers. But they exploit farmers and line workers in restaurants, in ways definitively worse than their competition. Which is news to me, The More You Know...
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
The designers of this game are marketing professionals who work at the agency Wendy's has under contract, who happen to be huge nerds. They weren't exploiting the game designers. But they exploit farmers and line workers in restaurants, in ways definitively worse than their competition. Which is news to me, The More You Know...
I am glad we do not have that piece of shite company in Australia.
 

jgsugden

Explorer
Objecting to Wendy's is a dangerous precedent for a commercial D&D game. D&D, WotC and their parent Hasbro, are built on the back of questionable labor, IP and corporate social responsibility challenges. From Derpy the My Little Pony to last year's holiday labor controvsery, WotC and Hasbro are far from pure. If you care about the past, the beginning years of TSR's ownership of D&D is full of exploiting authors and questionable IP practices.

Also, embarassing a sponser that has given you money can be very destructive.

I understand Matt's post, but it is not something I'd have encouraged them to do.
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
Objecting to Wendy's is a dangerous precedent for a commercial D&D game. D&D, WotC and their parent Hasbro, are built on the back of questionable labor, IP and corporate social responsibility challenges. From Derpy the My Little Pony to last year's holiday labor controvsery, WotC and Hasbro are far from pure. If you care about the past, the beginning years of TSR's ownership of D&D is full of exploiting authors and questionable IP practices.

Also, embarassing a sponser that has given you money can be very destructive.

I understand Matt's post, but it is not something I'd have encouraged them to do.
As we say in Australia we need to keep the bastards honest.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Objecting to Wendy's is a dangerous precedent for a commercial D&D game. D&D, WotC and their parent Hasbro, are built on the back of questionable labor, IP and corporate social responsibility challenges. From Derpy the My Little Pony to last year's holiday labor controvsery, WotC and Hasbro are far from pure. If you care about the past, the beginning years of TSR's ownership of D&D is full of exploiting authors and questionable IP practices.

Also, embarassing a sponser that has given you money can be very destructive.

I understand Matt's post, but it is not something I'd have encouraged them to do.
I really am not concerned with purity, since I have a healthy respect for the distinctions of material and formal cooperation with evil, and remote and proximate cooperation as well. I know that if I spent time worrying about everything every company did, that would be crazy. However, knowing that cheap hamburger place A has gone out of their way to do bad things, while cheap hamburger places B and C have not, I will go for B and C every time. Simple as that.

Hasbro, however, is actually a model for corporate ethics. I know D&D fans like to talk about them like they are Haliburton or Apple or something, but Hasbro is recognized yearly as one of the most ethical companies in the US.
 
Last edited:

Harzel

Explorer
Also, embarassing a sponser that has given you money can be very destructive.

I understand Matt's post, but it is not something I'd have encouraged them to do.
I think Matt went out of his way to avoid criticizing (or even mentioning) Wendy's and even to avoid objecting directly to the toxicity of some of the criticism directed at CR. He focused on CR's experience of the whole thing, which is pretty much on-brand for him. Any implication about Wendy's is very indirect at best.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I think Matt went out of his way to avoid criticizing (or even mentioning) Wendy's and even to avoid objecting directly to the toxicity of some of the criticism directed at CR. He focused on CR's experience of the whole thing, which is pretty much on-brand for him. Any implication about Wendy's is very indirect at best.
I would be surprised if the sponsorship contract allowed the recipient to criticise their sponsor immediately after getting paid. That’s probably a shortcut to getting sued.
 

Advertisement

Top