Critical Role Wendy’s sponsoring Critical Role?

[Parmandur]

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]

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.

 

[Parmandur]

I am glad we do not have that piece of shite company in Australia.

Well, y'all might have laws against what they are doing.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Well, y'all might have laws against what they are doing.

Yeah we are quite lucky with that.

 

[jgsugden]

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]

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]

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.

 

[jasper]

For the record, Matt tweeted this

and they donated a bunch of money to an org for farmworkers.

ok how many of you who were troubled by the sponsorship are donating more than $10 to famer aid thingy?

 

[Harzel]

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]

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.