There's Always a Catch
Generally chain letters aren't well received by those with day jobs, but we were all ears when a friend forwarded a link about something quick and easy that everybody can do to help fight AIDS. World AIDS Day was on December 1st, but LightToUnite.org is still up and running. As advertised, for every person that clicks on the site, Bristol-Myers Squibb (YAY: Helped cure Lance Armstrong; BOO: Accounting scandal) would donate a dollar to the National AIDS Fund. As of this afternoon, well over 1,000,000 people had participated.
When you visit the website, an introduction indicates a "maximum contribution of US $100,000," but it's easily glossed over in the animation. After you've been to the site once, the introduction doesn't play again (it probably knows you've been there thanks to cookies), and you never see that tidbit resurface. You won't see it in the "learn more" section, nor on bms.com or aidsfund.org.
Something about this doesn't feel right to LAist.
We salute BMS for doing a fantastic thing by donating $100,000 to a very important cause. That's a lot of money, but we wonder if they couldn't do a little more. Or at least be more direct about the terms of the program.
Email boxes are being flooded with quotes like:
Whether you want to stick it to big pharma b/c they ruined one of your summers, or whether you support AIDS research, this is a must do 30 second activity. Thanks in advance. Also, happy holidays. :)and
Today, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the pharmaceutical monolith that charges nearly $1,000 for a 30 day supply of one of its HIV/AIDS medications, is donating $1 to the National AIDS Fund for each person who simply visits their website and "virtually lights a candle." The tally is over 1,000,000 now.None of these emails mention a $100,000 cap, and even suggest that the ceiling is limitless. BMS can't control what other people say, but they can put the terms up somewhere that doesn't disappear after a few seconds. We were eventually able to verify the limit on a third-part website that keeps a record of medical press releases, and in BMS's archives. Why can't BMS be as direct on the main website?
To date, the good publicity is more than 10 times what BMS is paying for. Something tells us that a company pocketing billions per year could afford a little more.