How to damage your brand in one smooth shot - Way to GoDaddy
jacquesmattheij.com
jacquesmattheij.com
Slaughtering an elephant might offend some of your sensibilities, but hunting in Africa is wide spread and as long as the elephant is not endangered, I don't think your outrage has a leg to stand on. The elephant was used as food and now crops are protected.
There are much worse things going on in America's food industry then this. In fact if anything if that elephant could feed the village I'd say this was actually a good thing.
I can understand how this might offend vegetarians but even then, it's not like the animal was wasted.
Our U.S. grocery stores have stock piles of meat stacked in open refrigerators, butchered behind closed doors. Animals are fed and bred to be slaughtered so we can have a juicy burger and fries. Out of sight out of mind I guess.
Now... MAYBE the CEO of a hugely popular brand should not have participated in such an activity and filmed it for sake of his company, employees and customers, but I'm certainly not moving my domains over this.
There are probably employees there that don't like what he did either, but I'm not going to punish them for the actions of 1.
Me neither. I'm moving my domains because this reminded me of the silent, seething rage I have for Bob Parson's face.
When I go to a site that registers and manages domains, I don't want to see your face. I also don't want to see ads about how great your company is. When I buy a domain, I don't want to wade through five pages of bullshit you put up in the hopes that I won't notice some default or will misclick somewhere and inadvertently buy your useless services. I just want to register and manage my fucking domains.
Seriously, GoDaddy is the expertsexchange of domains.
"It's not often that we would disagree publicly with a competitor, but we at Namecheap are very disturbed by this video of a competitor killing an elephant for sport. Check out the ABC News Report (Warning: Very Graphic!)
We've decided to throw our support behind our Elephant friends by offering domain transfers at a price where we actually lose money.
Show your protest by saying BYEBYEGD again and transfer your domains to Namecheap for $4.99 for the next 24 hours through 11:59pm EST on 3/31/11 (limit 10 per user, valid for all com/net/org domains).
On top of that, we'll donate $1 for each transfer to Save The Elephants at http://www.savetheelephants.org/
Use coupon code BYEBYEGD and let's help the Elephants together!
Regards, Team Namecheap"
Honestly I haven't done enough research, but I completely agree with the OP. I'd rather pay double than to have to sift through godaddys utter bullshit of a UI.
I've used godaddy, namecheap, and 1&1, but ended up switching all my domains to name.com. One of the best interfaces I've used as it doesn't try to abstract the DNS records from you. That was one of my biggest issues with 1&1 and godaddy - their interface made it so that I never knew exactly what my DNS settings were, just what the spoon-fed messages that I was given told me. The only "abstracted" thing that they do is provide a one-click solution for setting the dns entries for google apps (which you can still manually edit, as they appear in your DNS records). Here's some screenshots of the backend:
Seriously, try it. I liked them so much that I paid to have my other domains transfered to them. That alone should show you how much I enjoy it over the others I've tried.
I've heard they have a less powerful DNS interface but I run my own DNS servers so I've never noticed.
Godaddy's got plenty of other atrocities higher on my list, like the usability of their web panel.
First of all, controlling your public image is a good idea, most of the time. Unless you want to go totally over the top and take it too a Donal Trump level. Hunting probably belongs in the same class as politics, religion and sexuality: Don't talk about it too much.
Second, it's hunting in Africa. Trying to look like you're the protector of a poor village there is going to bring back things like the "White Man's Burden" into the mind of people reading and watching this. Not a good idea, part deux.
Never mind that shooting elephants is a last-ditch effort. As far as I know there are lots of other ways to drive them off, maybe not as easy (and "entertaining") as just shooting them.
On the other hand, it's the GoDaddy CEO. Not exactly a brand with a good publicity anyway, and they barely need it. Enough people go there because they like to save money and/or don't know any competitors. Regarding needs for good publicity, they're probably somewhere between McDonalds and Monsanto.
>Bob Parsons has always run his company the way he wants, and he has particular freedom to do so since he has zero investors and is the sole owner
Parsons does have the freedom to do what he likes but there are consequences to those actions. No one is questioning his freedom to do what he chooses.
> He does certain things for shock value...
True but I think killing an elephant and then posting a video about it is a bit different than showing scantily clad women dancing on the hood of a convertible. Both can be equally demeaning and morally questionable to certain parts of the population but let's be real here, killing an "innocent animal" is much more controversial than what is shown on TV almost every night.
> Slaughtering an elephant might offend some of your sensibilities, but hunting in Africa is wide spread and as long as the elephant is not endangered, I don't think your outrage has a leg to stand on.
Not sure if you read the article but Jacques specifically states there's a clear difference between a rich dude shooting the Elephant and a native Zimbabwean game warden doing it to protect his crops (which btw, there are many other ways of going about that than shooting it). The psychology behind the former doing it can be extremely powerful (and enraging) compared to the latter.
> There are much worse things going on in America's food industry then this.
Agreed. But that's missing the point.
> I can understand how this might offend vegetarians but even then, it's not like the animal was wasted.
I'd assume this statement was more offensive to vegetarians than watching that video. I'd assume that b/c I am one.
In a culture where steakhouses dot the roadsides, it seems odd to assert that killing an "innocent animal" is controversial at all. In some US locality where vegetarians make up the vast majority of the population, maybe, but does a place like that even exist?
I haven't seen the video; I'm just speaking to that one sentence, really.
Elsie = delicious;
That's a great point. I mostly agree with the GP, but the symbolism of Parsons' actions is really powerful.
So what if you're offended? That's no reason for the other side of a rational argument to change their argument in reaction to you being offended, so it's irrelevant.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the elephant ends up dead either way. If the Zimbabwean government can monetize a practice that would otherwise cost them money (viz., protecting crops from elephants) and simultaneously a dude with excess money can get some recreational activity out of it, it seems like it's a win-win.
There obviously are some issues with this, e.g., if the government's only interest is moneymaking rather than proper wildlife husbandry, then they're incentivized short-term to sell the rights to kill every elephant around. But no one is going around complaining that there's insufficient evidence of proper husbandry here; rather, they're complaining because a big mammal that lots of us read about in storybooks as kids just got shot.
I'd be pissed if this were a case where they obviously baited the elephants or were just slaughtering the animals indiscriminately. This obviously isn't the case, though.
I think you're confusing vegetarians with people who dig frugality.
All 'vegetarian' infers is dietary choice. The reasons for becoming one can vary greatly.
Isn't it more likely that he handed out the hats as a nice gesture to the locals, and he had no idea those same people would soon attack the dead carcass and start handing out its flesh?
You're assuming a very specific value system on the basis of a single, vague axiom.
There's no valid need to kill this animal. If the villagers themselves had taken care of it (or if a game warden had culled the animal as part of a considered program that benefits both human and elephant populations), I may feel differently.
Parson kills an animal under the guise of crop protection and to feed a village. Were I watching a local hunt for this elephant to feed their family I would feel that the death was justified. But we're really just watching a rich westerner tramp around in the dark so he can fire a gun.
Is this really the most rewarding thing Parson could think to do for local villagers in Zimbabawe? And even if so, I would expect some more humility from someone who claimed their actions were so noble.
Moral Hazard 101.
Tu quoque much? Murder, child abuse, blah blah, is widespread everywhere as well. Arguing this is somehow justifiable because something is "widespread" makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.
And implying that Parson's gutless little stunt is justified simply because this is great for his company puts you squarely in the ends justify the means camp. Inhabiting that miserable landscape, you and he will not mind when I declare open season and cull a few company CEOs and feed a whole village, too. Would you then say that's actually a good thing, too?
It's not like we'd be wasting the fucking meat.
How exactly does a greater world-wide population of one's species lower the value of one's life? Is it based on some cutoff beyond which extinction is assured? Or is it linear?Does maximizing the number of species on the planet really trump all concerns of suffering?
If so, this logic would also somewhat weaken the value of the life of a dog (300 million) in comparison to that of a cat (200 million)? And what about the value of your life or mine? There are 6 billion of our species.
Personally, I find it very hard to justify both eating animal flesh and outrage at animal killing. On occasion, I have an uneasy feeling that centuries from now humanity will look upon our current practices in a similar way as we look upon slavery... or cannibalism.
This is like seeing a change going in the Ubuntu distribution and saying it might offend Linux kernel developers. In other words, it's misinformed at best, and a worthless and argumentative statement at worst.
Had you actually read the OP, you'd have understood that the crux of the criticism has to do with mindless participation in an obviously bad system. That is, a system that turns a necessary but easily abused task into a profit center - thereby ensuring that it will be stretched to utterly unnecessary proportions.
It had nothing to do with hunting in general, or being a vegetarian in particular.
For the record, there's (a lot) more to the issue than a few meals. Even in the limited areas where elephant populations are not highly endangered, there's still substantial controversy around any practice that allows the ivory market to legitimately revive itself, since it not only provides cover for black-market ivory, it also fuels the kind of demand that leads to increased poaching in places where elephants remain truly endangered.
You should also know that what you saw on that video is the exception, not the rule. In the all-too-common cases where elephants are killed illegally, any stray documentary crews would also be killed, with all the bodies left to rot. The same goes for rhinos, tigers, and other magnificent creatures unfortunate enough to have one or two body parts valuable only to chronically egotistical douchebags.
Assuming that being thoughtful enough to read isn't too much trouble, you can start to educate yourself by considering this: http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/save_animals/elephant...
http://www.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?vid=501
As a citizen of a southern African country I can tell you that A) The educated locals are disgusted by this kind of hunting for sport as opposed to food and B) I can assure you that the "foreign currency" that it supposedly brings in is not converted to Zim dollars and spent on the local economy.
If any of those officials actually cared about the local economy (or actually intended to let the money reach it), they wouldn't have demolished those economies with their utterly unrestrained corruption and graft.
Honestly, believing propaganda like that makes you look as naive as the people who believe that the wives of abusive husbands "just happen to keep falling down the stairs."
Come on, uncool.
Additionally, the article you linked says (among other pros and cons)
Some countries, including South Africa, Zimbabwe,
Botswana, and Namibia, had been able to manage their
elephant populations and claimed that increased
populations were causing increased agricultural losses,
decreased revenue from hunting and increased conflicts
between elephants and local residents.
The money these countries get from allowing safaris does pay for the parks they preserve. The few animals killed (legally) do not have a significant impact on the population as a whole, and I'd argue have a significant positive impact on the parks as a whole.
Thanks for the perspective, though.
The point is that commercial big game hunting remains a very problematic issue, in that it fuels a man vs. beast mythos that gives trophies a value which encourages more hunting in areas where populations remain truly endangered. And again, it creates a legitimate source for ivory which has the nasty effect of providing cover to ivory gathered illegally.
Not only does that cover serve sellers with ivory in the market, it also applies to ivory in the possession of buyers who can more easily deflect the (totally justified) social stigma that was slowly starting to attach itself to the stuff.
It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic, and where responsible stewardship demands a more disinterested handling. The "glory" of big game hunting (and, specifically, its packaging for sale) is one of the prime reasons that many populations got endangered in the first place.
Even if the necessity to cull does return in certain areas, it's critically important to handle this without reviving the specter of the Great White Hunter. And it's just as important to ensure that any consumption remains entirely local. Letting commodities like ivory and hides slip out may bring short term gains, but only by serving markets that represent the antithesis of conservationism. The arguments you cite don't do nearly enough to acknowledge this aspect of the problem.
Separately, what you allow to offend you is your business. Personally, I don't mind lightly-salted language and a well deserved jab. Where I take offense is in seeing a demonstrably mindless response that veers wildly off-topic before landing in a thicket of unwarranted slurs getting upvoted to the degree that c2's did. And I hope I'm not alone.
In my opinion, Bob Parsons did nothing wrong, even if I wouldn't have posted a video about it. Heck, I also wouldn't have killed the animal. But to attempt to blame him to poaching and historical racism (the great white hunter line) seems a little out there.
Do you have any evidence that the legal killing, in this manner, actually has any affect on wildlife populations? Any reason to think that it actually does provide cover (data reasons rather than anecdotes)?
Again, it's not something that I would do, or even something that I approve. But to say that it's wrong, seems uncalled for. Then again, I also wouldn't use large breasted woman as the focus on my domain name sales company.
Also, I hate godaddy for how horrible their interface is. They have made major strides in their DNS hosting, which is all I'll use it for anymore.
Indeed, and in a very small way, advocacy for this kind of buck-passing you makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
The problems of trophy hunting, poaching, black-market animal parts, and wholesale extinction are all connected. They're all part of an outlook that reflexively sees wildlife as being worth more dead than alive. The thing supporting this view is a larger (and hugely problematic) outlook that views the Earth as an infinitely renewable resource, and only acknowledges financial limits when it comes to one's own consumption.
The good news is that a growing number of people look at this guy's 'adventure' and think "ick". Though you may not share that sense of moral revulsion, please be aware that it reflects an instinct that you and any kids you may have will ultimately benefit from.
I recall Zimbabwe is one of the countries that more or less _privatized_ elephants, and the owners of private hunting parks do not treat them at all as an infinitely renewable resource, exactly like a cow farmer doesn't. They don't have interest in over hunting, on the contrary their profit depends on having a healthy and stable population. I am not qualified enough to judge the long term effects, but Zimbabwe has had a stable/growing population of elephants for more than twenty years now.
While I don't like big animals hunting, I'd say this shows a completely different outlook from the one you refer to.
One guy killing one elephant for the sake of a minor and frankly uninteresting publicity stunt (and this guy being part of a small minority of company owners capable of doing this, since shareholders would never approve) does not ipso facto lead to a bunch of rich sport-hunters decimating the wildlife population of Africa as a revival of some sort of primal hunting instinct. That's absolutely absurd. I seem to recall this show back in the day called the "Crocodile Hunter" featuring the contest of a human with an endangered species in waaaaay more glorified terms than this.
// Being an Aussie -- we'd never really heard of Steve Irwin until he died. At which point he moved from being a tosser to being a national hero.
This is not a commercial big game hunt.
>It comes down to this: there are some areas where profit seeking tendencies are toxic
This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot the elephant left with nothing.
>Even if the necessity to cull does return in certain areas, it's critically important to handle this without reviving the specter of the Great White Hunter. And it's just as important to ensure that any consumption remains entirely local
So the fact he took video of it then means he's making a spectacle of himself? He's just trying to record something good he was doing.
>Letting commodities like ivory and hides slip out may bring short term gains, but only by serving markets that represent the antithesis of conservationism.
Neither of these commodities went anywhere except with the surrounding villagers.
>The arguments you cite don't do nearly enough to acknowledge this aspect of the problem.
Because it's not a problem, nothing was taken.
>Separately, what you allow to offend you is your business. Personally, I don't mind lightly-salted language and a well deserved jab.
You were objectively being an unprofessional, emotional twat.
>Where I take offense is in seeing a demonstrably mindless response that veers wildly off-topic before landing in a thicket of unwarranted slurs getting upvoted to the degree that c2's did. And I hope I'm not alone.
Mindless to who? You. Your entire rant that i've read is 100% mindless to me. Your opinion of what's mindless is just that - opinion, and it's subjective. Since you hate mindless responses I'll assume you think your response is mindful. I find this interesting seeing as how the majority of your post is about "jabbing" people and speaking emotionally.
>This was not profit seeking. Last I checked the guy who shot the elephant left with nothing.
Though it might be arguable that the hunt organizers/tour guides were profit seeking. Guiding someone to a place where they can shoot an animal for fun (with the guise of doing good) will bring them some money. Sure, it could have been beneficial to the community to rid a problem elephant and give the villagers additional meat - but Bob's desire to shoot something is doubtfully meant to be for the good will of the community and more so to fill his own desires of killing something.
shock value or not (and even if he did do the right thing), he still comes off as a dick.
This is just an excuse for a rich person to brag about killing an endangered specie with a gun. OOOO SKILL. If he did it with his bare hands, then I would applaud.
Really? You know that the majority of ecologists support Elephant Culling (killing elephant family groups wholesale from helicopters)?
> There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing them
There is an oversupply of elephants and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone elephant bull is no problem.
I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as elephants) because some groups (such as PETA) opposed elephant culling.
How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly an elephant fucks up a tree? Elephants are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).
And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have animals.
I fail to see how anyone opposes elephant culling can label himself as an ecologist.
--PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE--:
Let's be realistic here -- this wasn't a planned "cull", this was a once-in-a-lifetime hunt for a rich guy.
I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as humans) because some groups (such as the UN) opposed human culling.
How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly a human fucks up a tree? Humans are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).
And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have humans.
I fail to see how anyone opposes human culling can label himself as an ecologist.
Tragically enough, in Africa humans have natural predators.
As for pets, it's a cultural thing that we don't eat pets. The bible cautions against following culturally aberrant activities provided doing so doesn't infringe on your service to God.
I would hope you will have some respect for other peoples' beliefs in the future.
(Sorry if I am less than clear, I'm typing this on my iPad and I can't edit stuff in text boxes very easily.)
Some beliefs don't deserve respect.
Criticizing a group of people based on your own naivety of their beliefs is both ignorant and arrogant.
Read this:
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/an-tpr-are-10.html
Many passages in the Bible explain that humans are stewards of nature.
Probably not being killed for meat though but YMMV.
The Kruger National Park even had a programme where they even tried to use contraceptives for Elephant Cows... What is next? An abstinence program?
http://www.shakariconnection.com/culling-elephants-in-KNP.ht...
Having been to Africa and seen elephants in the wild up close, among other animals, I simply can't stomach that I'm supporting a bunch of fat white Americans flying half way around the world to destroy a magnificent animal simply because they can.
I'll be moving my domains away from GoDaddy asap.
They kind of own my domain names now, how can I simply change registrars?
Gandi: https://www.gandi.net/domain/transfer
1and1: http://order.1and1.com/xml/order/DomaininfoMove
NameCheap: http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/03/30/elephants/
Basically go to any registrars home page and either search for "Transfer" on the page itself or in their search box if provided. They will all offer it together with easy how to steps - and I am sure their support team will help as well. They want your business and will make it as easy as possible.
I've been using namecheap for a couple of years, and I'm very happy with them.
We had a bit of trouble with them on credit card billing... Also, we found it hard to use their interface to change configuration settings.
I paid and will avoid 1and1 for the rest of my life.
Another one to avoid like the plague imho is dotster - lost a domain via dotster, even though my payment was accepted and then returned a week later. Domain briefly showed up with whois information of the CEO, and then it changed.
It's simple! Just find the place in the GoDaddy UI to unlock your domains, then the other place to request the authorization code required to transfer the domains (you need to request this in an email per domain), then disable private registration if you have that enabled (but don't change your personal info, or you'll have to wait another 2 months), then wait for the correct registration info to propagate (wait a day to be safe, because if you do this wrong it really gets tricky), then start the transfer process at the competing registrar, and follow similarly byzantine steps with them.
At some point, GoDaddy will send you an email telling you that you can confirm the transfer, but they don't mention how. Instead, they give you the steps how to cancel the transfer. Follow those steps, if you can (make sure to click on the correct "My account" link or you'll never find the right forms) and just change the last step to say "confirm" rather than "cancel".
A few days will pass, and then your domain will be transferred!
Now, was that so hard?
http://blog.dnsimple.com/post/3167427271/preparing-domains-i...
Naturally I'd love if you used DNSimple, but this will work for transferring out to any other registrar.
Wake up, everyone. I hate asshats like the GoDaddy CEO just as much as you do, but this self-righteous indignation is at The View levels right now.
SMH. Downvoted because I prioritize humans over elephants.
There is no such thing as a valid concern. All my concerns are valid.
I've never seen an elephant in the wild and don't know Zimbabwe nearly well enough to know how much of a problem elephants in general (and this one in particular) are.
The whole attitude, though... Something akin to "here I am to save the day", or something like that... That I don't like, and it adds to the poor customer experience.
So, there. :)
I moved all my domains, ~30, from GoDaddy about 18 months ago. It was a slog. There was no "asap" to it. It took about 2 months to get them all moved over to namecheap. Transfers gets curtailed for various reasons and the current registrar is usually little help in solving the mysteries.
I'm telling you this not to take the wind from your sails but to prep you for a bit more effort.
The reason for my move was the full-on "retail experience" of GoDaddy. It just didn't work for me anymore. I wanted a more spartan registrar.
Admittedly, GoDaddy has a genius business model IMO. The confusing UI is what probably makes them their bucks.
Branding is important, and what you do with your brand is important. Actions speak louder than words. Google is still associated with "Do no Evil," but that's starting to wear a little thin as some of their actions belie the mantra. Similarly, you can get people chanting a slogan, but if you do something wrong, people will notice, and the backlash can be severe.
I would add that this:
> There is no way to explain all this in a way that does
> not make GoDaddy and it's CEO look good, and plenty of
> ways to interpret it as bad.
> There is no way to explain all this in a way that makes
> GoDaddy and it's CEO look good, and plenty of ways to
> interpret it as bad.As such, I'm not surprised that he turned his personal hunting exhibition into a marketing expense. He seems to have a deaf ear when it comes to brand management. And that doesn't seem to have hurt him in any meaningful way.
I'm not sure what lesson to take away from any of this, except that he runs his business differently than I do.
They appear to target the bottom 90% who needs a domain name. And, they very wisely get name recognition with non tech savvy business owners who often have the ultimate decision in which registrar to use.
Look at it from the vantage of a typical conservative small business owner here in America. Slaughtering a beautiful and rare animal is not deaf-ear branding - it's shrewd marketing. GoDaddy is not afraid to kill to solve problems. The association is powerful and on target.
> GoDaddy is not afraid to kill to solve problems
Upvoted for this comment alone. In this context, the whole event makes a lot of sense.
> Branding is important, and what you do with your brand is important.
There are more guns in Zimbabwe than most other parts of Africa. If the locals really wanted that elephant gone, it would have been machine gunned by two guys arriving on foot.
What really happened here is that a hunting party arrived, killed an elephant and left the carcass for the locals to eat.
What a hero.
PS: I spent my childhood and early 20's in South Africa and we hate this great-white-hunter tourist shit, but it sure pays the bills if you're the driver guide or booking agent.
Uhm... no.
Do you know how much money hunters bring into rural areas? Do you know what a big shitload of game farms they fund?
I would argue that American hunters are the biggest boon for animal conservation. I see many farms being turned into game farms. In certain areas you cannot throw a rock without hitting a game farm.
American hunters put their money where their mouths are and pay serious $$$. The so called "animal rights groups" pay basically nothing and expect animal nirvana.
The biggest problem is space (for wildebeest migration for example). You need large places - in many countries it is not possible.
Some private game farms can get quite big (easily over 20,000 hectares). And yeah, it may be small when compared to large parks but it still fulfills quite a few functions.
One example is ensuring genetic diversity - more space for animals, more genetic diversity.
Another is breeding programmes - a good example is breeding of buffalo that is free of Bovine TB (Bovine TB is dangerous for humans, spreads to domestic cattle and threaten buffalo populations.
1) Someone who has never gone hungry for a single day in his/her life.
2) Someone who has consumed 100s of chickens, many cattle, and many other animals so far... Most of which have been literally tortured all their lives.
3) Someone who has never gone to Africa to help, but sits around all day posting his/her opinion on how things there (and everywhere else in the world) should be done.
I'll give you a secret. Want to change the world? Change yourself. It's the only way. Stop complaining. Stop finger pointing. Stop exerting yourself on others.
But yes... I do agree that it would have been best for GoDaddy to not post this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
Not to mention that you are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions about the outraged people.
Making a valid and logical declaration based on personal experiences with the society he/she lives in is not a logical fallacy.
A logical fallacy is incorrect reasoning.
An opinionated, consumption-oriented, and selfish society is not one that produces people that have:
1. Either fasted, or have gone hungry (even the povery line class has been able to eat - a lot of food is cheap and there is also government and community help).
2. Do not consume animal products.
3. Truly help others (or anyone but themselves).
I agree that my reply to you was not very articulate. I originally started explaining why your points were not relevant to the question whether his behaviour was morally acceptable, but then I realised that I would essentially be explaining the above fallacies, even though there are already better explanations available.
I may have misread your post, but to me it looked like you were trying to invalidate people's criticism of his behaviour by making (speculative) statements about their behaviour or character. I know at least one person who is angry about this and is a strict vegetarian who has done lots of humanitarian work in Africa. Anyway, if I misread your post and that was not the point you were making, I apologise.
Agreed. There are people like this in the world.
But they are few, and certainly not the majority.
My issue is not with what is moral, but with how easily people blame and demonize others.
I'm not sure how you are getting that from what I have posted.
Few sentences later:
> [...] That doesn't mean they don't have a right to an opinion [...]
Pick one.
"Stop finger pointing. Stop exerting yourself on others."
Though I see how it can be read that I'm commenting about the readers in this thread.
For years we've been discussing social responsibilities of the enterprise (I've been on it since 1998 here in Brazil) and then we see something like this. If it has the potential to make one disappointed and wonder if she shouldn't give up the fight, it also makes one see that discussing the social impacts and actions of businesses is still tremendously important and necessary.
I'm proud to be on the right side of the fight. And I'm ashamed of having my domains hosted with the slaughterhouse registrar.
Make no mistake though, this is just as much a part of their branding strategy as their stupid, tasteless Super Bowl commercials. They'll probably make a token PR apology to hedge their bets here, but this reinforces their "brand" more than it damages it.
You aren't trying to say that showing some scantily clad women is equivalent to killing, are you?
[addressing a sibling comment] Yes, the actors in the ads are willing participants...and that matters why?
One useful way we have of responding to corporations is by not participating in their activity if we do not agree with them. And yet, this ability is horribly underused. Don't like sexism? Don't support companies that rely on it. Don't like violence? Don't support companies that participate in it?
I just find it interesting where people draw the lines.
@travisp I've heard this logic before. Your girlfriend perhaps eats beef. Ask her to take a chainsaw and chop a cow for her next meal. She'll tell you how the two things are different.
The real back-story is that Zimbabwe used to have a fairly urbanized population. Many young people worked in cities and larger towns (and only their parents had homes in rural areas).
Zanu-PF is strong in rural areas. The reason for this are numerous - it is much easier to co-opt tribal leadership, easier to organize genocide (e.g. Gukurukundi) and more difficult for opposition groups to organize in rural areas. The opposition (Movement for Democratic Change) had its roots in the trade union movement - which was undoubtedly urban.
By destroying the formal economy and urban settlements (e.g. Murambatsvina) Mugabe forced urban people to do one of two things: 1. Become illegal immigrants in South Africa. 2. Become subsistence farmers in rural areas.
With this he accomplished his goals – illegal immigrants in other countries can’t vote and those in rural areas came under his power.
So this is what you are sitting with now: a large formerly urban population busying itself with subsistence farming to try and eek out a living (while living in squalor with a low life expectancy).
> the american smartass bribed corrupted local government to let him shoot the elephant.
There are actually two problems. Firstly, all Zimbabwean game farms are basically completely poached of animals. People need food and bushmeat is as good as any.
Secondly, expensive game (such as Rhino) was hunted illegally.
I doubt the second case is of concern – since elephants are not that expensive.
(DNS is something I consider too important to delegate to the lowest bidder, but I am apparently a minority.)
You couldn't pay me enough to have to put up with the GoDaddy bullshit. I have no idea why anyone does. It basically costs nothing extra to choose a registrar that respects you and provides a non-ridiculous interface.
You don't see how a massive narcissist would find that fulfilling?
It doesn't really surprise me coming from this guy because the he is obviously obtuse (NASCAR sponsorship, Pamela Anderson ads etc.) but I found the graphic pictures of the slaughtered elephant far less confronting than the fact that he turned the life or death struggle of these desperate people into a sideshow spectacle for his PR exercise.
GoDaddy should have been out of business a long time ago just due to the horrid usability of its product.
Thanks god no. When I started publishing websites the webmaster forums were full with warnings about GoDaddy :)
It's not a crime to kill an elephant.
It's bigger than all that.
It's a sin to kill an elephant.
Do you understand? It's a sin.
It's the only sin that you can buy
a license and go out and commit.
That's why I want to do it before
I do anything else in this world.
Do you understand me?
Of course you don't.
How could you?
I don't understand myself.
If you want to argue about whether the elephant SHOULD have been killed, that's fine. There is plenty to debate there. But who does the shooting is of no importance.
That said he's right that as a CEO you represent your company--especially when you're handing out swag. Probably not a smart PR move.
What "matters" is that you have a picture and video clip that can fuel a he said / she said segment on all the 24 hour news channels and various organizations now have something they can spin for their own purposes. CEOs should know better.
And Lohan, she's still making movies. Where's the problem?
Ergo: the idea itself isn't sustainable, economically or morally.
Now its sustainable economically, if possibly not morally.
I like the free market too, but let's be reasonable here. We can dump money into Africa at far greater levels than they can sustainably support.
I wonder if a couple of fence (electric) might be a better solution than shooting the elephant. And all I saw in the video was a couple of square meters of trampled grass. I wonder what animal court in the world would give the death sentence for that.
And do you really think a poor village in remote Zimbabwe is going to have the electricity (and money) to put up an electric fence around all their fields?
Maybe they can't afford electric fences, but the GoDaddy guy surely could. Also now I remember in the Zoo they also don't have electric fences. It sounds doable to me - certainly not more effort than for example building those rice terraces other countries seem to manage.
Maybe these farmers really have no choice, which would be a purely political problem. They are definitely picking the wrong solution, though.
Even if your arguments are correct that the villagers are so poor that they have no choice (which I doubt), it all crumbles down when the rich hunters come into play. Surely they have enough money and tools to erect a wall.
I am pretty sure they did it without power tools, too, back in the day.
As a thought experiment imagine some rich guy offers a tremendous amount of money (let's say millions) to allow authorities to perform an execution of a death row inmate. To allow that would be playing with fire. The government now has a financial interest in having more inmates on death row, as opposed to simply serving the public interest.
But, seriously, if we as a society are so concerned about dwindling elephant numbers, why aren't we actively managing them as a luxury food source instead of leaving them to their own devices on the savannah where they frequently(?) tick-off the locals. Why aren't there enterprising elephant ranchers in the open spaces of Texas? I would think that mesquite-scrub country would be great elephant habitat. That rancher is going to make damn sure he has a sustainable population of elephants, because if he doesn't, there goes his livelihood. And, I imagine that the rancher could profit handsomely off of just the pure novelty of the product. I know I would pay quite a bit for elephant steaks.
I agree that in this particular case its a bad move to release this publicly because he is a leader of a major company and shouldn't invite such controversy.
yes. While i think all killers are bad persons, i see how a necessary killing may be up for debate. Jumping at the first chance to kill and doing it willingfully indicates that the person is a moral trash.
I have around 60 domains with godaddy, and after watching this I don't think I will go for any more. Let the unimportant ones expire this year, and I'll transfer the rest to somewhere else.
Can someone suggest me a good registrar?
They sure HAVE to notice it. I've already transferred my domains and I'll make sure I won't buy any from GoDaddy again.
GoDaddy already has one of the scammiest UIs I've ever come across (with a possible exception of, maybe, MySpace) and the recent elephant killing was the last straw!
He might notice, but he's making so much money that I really doubt he cares.
Name.com's interface is a little confusing and NameCheap have great customer service!
Firstly, I'm not really referring to this specific case. I think the video is tasteless and in many ways vile. However, I want to comment specifically on trophy hunting.
In my opinion, allowing big game hunters to pay for trophy animals is an important and integral part of animal conservation. In many impoverished African countries, their is little to no government funding to conserve animals.
Yes, there are risk factors. But personally, I believe the additional amount of animals that are killed due to the argument of excess demand is a lot less than the number of animals saved by the increased funding for poaching prevention.
Furthermore, I believe the economic benefits of this to the local community hugely improve the lives of the local people (who I believe are a lot more important than the elephants, as important as I think the elephants are), and that this improvement will decrease poaching.
To summarize: - I agree that Trophy hunting can have negative effects. - However, I believe the positives for animal conservation of Trophy Hunting offset the negatives in two major ways. - Trophy Hunting decreases the ease with which poaching takes place by funding anti-poaching measures. - Trophy Hunting decreases the extent to which poaching takes place by improving the situation of the local communities.
So if you are pro animal conservation, and pro human rights, you should be pro Trophy Hunting. IMHO.
You can't.
GoDaddy is light-years ahead of the competition in terms of marketing.
He may have lost several thousand bucks do to some discerning geeks, which is not the GoDaddy customer anyway.
Nothing to see here.
- Namecheap promotion [HN discussion] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2390764
- Ask YC: Who's your favorite domain registrar and why? [2008] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=150561
So far no issues what so ever other than with GoDaddy and moving domains over because of issues with whois, but once there everything is fast, and simple. Unlike GoDaddy's interface.
I'm not sure if they're still doing it, but the thing that drove me away was their spammy DNS.
Example: I had valid DNS records for mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com but they were forwarding ANYTHING.mydomain.com to one of their ad-ridden pages.
I can kind of see an argument for having that when a domain has just been purchased and there is no valid content yet. But doing that to an established site makes ME look like a spammer.
tl;dr - if you're using name.com's DNS, you might want to see if they're hosting spam pages on whatever.yourdomain.com
BTW, I found this...
GODADDY.COM TRADEMARK LIST
Below find a list of Go Daddy's registered and pending trademarks. Please note that these brand guidelines apply to, but are not limited to, the following marks.
Registered Trademarks
Blue Razor® Blue Razor Logo Black/White Bob Parsons® CashParking® Cool Name. Hot Prices.® Daddy® Domain Alert® Domain Name Aftermarket® DomainNameAftermarket.com® Domains By Proxy® Domains By Proxy Logo with Star Domains Priced Right® Express Email Marketing® Go Daddy® Go Daddy Head Logo Go Daddy Logo with Star GoDaddy.com® GoDaddy.com Logo GoDaddy.com Logo on Black GoDaddy.com Logo with Tagline Go Daddy Auctions® Go Daddy Cares® Go Daddy Connections Logo Go Daddy Girls® Go Daddy Hosting Connection® Go Daddy Marketplace® GoDaddy.tv® Hot Prices. Serious Support.® Mad Dog® Mad Dog Domains and Cattle Company® Mad Dog Logo Make A .COM Name With Us!® Online File Folder® Quick Blogcast® Quick Shopping Cart® Radio Go Daddy® SmartRegistration® SmartSpace® SSL Certificate Logo Starfield® Starfield Logo StealthRay® The Web is Your Domain!® The Web is Your Domain! Logo There's A Name For People Like You!® Traffic Blazer® Traffic Blazer Logo Transfer Concierge® Turbo SSL® Verified by Starield Secure® Verified by Starfield Secure Logo WebSite Tonight® Wild West® Wild West Domains Logo on White Your identity is nobody's business but ours.®
Pending Trademarks
4GH™ Claim Your Domain™ Data Center on Demand™ Data Widgets™ Domains, websites & everything* in between!™ Domains, websites & everything* in between! Logo Dream Design Team™ Dream Design Team Logo Expert Hands™ Go Daddy Savings Network™ GoDaddy.co™ GoDaddy.co Logo GoDaddy.com SSL Seal Logo Social Visibility™ Video.ME™ We Make Websites Easy™ Web Professionals' Day™ Website Protection Seal Logo
Personally, I got fed up with their insulting commercials, horrible interface, and crappy service long ago. I've since switched registrars and haven't regretted it for a second.
Given the above, I would say: 1) He knows exactly what he is doing and why 2) It is working*
*meaning growing the company, making lots of money, returning value to shareholders etc.
Firstly, I'm not really referring to this specific case. I think the video is tasteless and in many ways vile. However, I want to comment specifically on trophy hunting.
In my opinion, allowing big game hunters to pay for trophy animals is an important and integral part of animal conservation. In many impoverished African countries, their is little to no government funding to conserve animals.
Yes, there are risk factors. But personally, I believe the additional amount of animals that are killed due to the argument of excess demand is a lot less than the number of animals saved by the increased funding for poaching prevention.
Furthermore, I believe the economic benefits of this to the local community hugely improve the lives of the local people (who I believe are a lot more important than the elephants, as important as I think the elephants are), and that this improvement will decrease poaching.
To summarize: - I agree that Trophy hunting can have negative effects. - However, I believe the positives of Trophy Hunting offset the negatives in two major ways:
Elephant killing aside, I can't use GoDaddy's hosting/domain control panel. Settings feel buried under layers of links and is just confusing.
Yeah, way to top that in the lack of taste department.
Guess who I'm not registering domains with.
There is one rifle shot which would remove a clear threat to everyone in Zimbabwe and the region. If the CEO of someone like Xe flew in and took that shot, I'd be happy to transfer all my domains to his company. (Mugabe, obviously)
As far as actually shooting the animal, I'm not an African game warden so I can't give any scientific or even remotely educated comment. That being said, the only facts I know are these: Bob Parsons shot and killed an elephant in a completely legal way, and was so proud of what he did that he had a professional make and edit a video which he then posted on the internet. The people in the video seem grateful and excited that he has done this. They are also wearing godaddy hats. This morning, a lot of people who weren't there are passing judgement.
I guess I'm just confused as to the source of the controversy?
What I'm finding odd about these reactions is that, viewing other people's reactions (outside of the delicate shell of opinion here), the clear conclusion is that this is a PR disaster. From the Twitter search alone, in the last 2-3 minutes, my feed has gone up easily hundreds of entries, all of them agreeing about their distaste for this event.
Isn't that where the real knowledge is, here? Whether or not you agree that this was a bad decision, it undeniably harms the brand in what could be a catastrophic way.
----------------------
Our Office of the President has responded to your request, details of which are described below:
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion about Mr. Parsons' recent trip to Zimbabwe.
As you may be aware Mr. Parsons has also made several comments regarding this on his Vlog at BobParsons.me which you may wish to review. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in making any final determination about your relationship with GoDaddy.com.
We thank you again for your time and feedback.
Regards,
The Office of the President
---------------------
> It's a good thing that I have all my domains with another registrar or I'd be forced to move them.
is way over the top. Nobody's forcing you to do anything. If you choose to buy into the "CEO image = corporate image" thing, then fine, move your business elsewhere. But I kind of thought the point of the post was that it's kind of silly, but yeah, people do conflate those things.
I thought this was supposed to be a terrible publicity stunt. I say it worked.
It also seems like many other CEOs would have been crucified for doing this. But for some reason Parsons is getting much less flack than would the CEO of Wal-mart, Monsanto or McDonald's. Why is that?
Having been involved in wildlife conservation for nearly three and half a decades and trying to address human-elephant conflicts for nearly 16 years what I can say in all honesty is that elephant control is a double-edged sword. There are no utopian answers or solutions to these issues either. When it comes to human-elephant conflicts unlike in the proverbial biblical story where the lion and the lamb lied down together, people and elephants cannot do the same. One has to give away to the other. I think in regard to Bob Parsons’ affair everyone is too focused on what he did on the basis of the moral implications of shooting an elephant as pertinent to western sentiments and emotions and how elephants are perceived in the west. I really wonder how many even paid the slightest attention or took notice of the farmer whose sorghum field was destroyed or gave thought to how he and his family is affected or for that matter the protein starved and raggedy rural masses that descended on the elephant once it was shot. The average Zimbabwean is living in abject poverty and I doubt their perspective of elephants is anywhere close to that of the people of the west. Western colonization has destroyed traditional African life to such an extent that they are now living in-limbo where they are neither, westernized or Africanized and have lost their connections to their own environment and nature. These are some of the repercussions for the damage that has been done to them. Most of them live hand to mouth - only caring about their daily survival. Since I live on both sides of this divide – I’m fortunate to see both sides of this coin but also it is frustrating because these completely opposing perspectives can be a huge hindrance to addressing these issues in a realistic manner. For example if we can step outside the western mentality box and look at it from a different perspective (from a poor Zimbabwean farmer’s point of view) – probably Bob Parsons is in fact doing a huge favor to the farmers. African elephants are not a threatened species in any imminent danger of extinction. In fact they are now too many elephants in the Southern African nations. But from a South Asian and western perspective Bob Parsons has done the unthinkable – which is to kill an elephant and then glorify it by putting it on public display! For that he should be ostracized and penalized. There is no glory in killing an elephant considering it is humans who have created the situation where they too are fighting for survival. If an elephant has to be killed then it should be done with dignity, respect and with the empathy it deserves.
The cost to immobilize and relocate a problem bull elephant in Sri Lanka cost on average US$5,000. In Africa it could be more considering the vast distances that need to be covered. I’ll try to get this information. In Sri Lanka trans-locating problem animals is a futile exercise since you are basically transferring the problem to another area. For example if earlier the problem bull was terrorizing a 50 square mile area – after it is translocated it terrorizes a 500 square mile area because now it’s trying to find itself back to its home territory.
Welcome to addressing human-elephant conflicts in the truest sense.
Best,
Ravi Corea -
There will be a site for this but this just was emailed to me, trying to keep speed
You seem like a well-meaning guy, but this line of yours is total nonsense.
"Western colonization has destroyed traditional African life to such an extent that they are now living in-limbo where they are neither, westernized or Africanized and have lost their connections to their own environment and nature. These are some of the repercussions for the damage that has been done to them. Most of them live hand to mouth - only caring about their daily survival"
For the record, starvation simply wasn't an issue under colonial rule. There were plenty of other problems, to be sure, but getting enough food wasn't one of them. Nor was there any problem with farming in general. Indeed, Rhodesia (as it was then known) boasted some of the most productive farms in Africa, which was no small feat, given that the land itself is a high and rocky plateau, and not a lush, agricultural wonderland.
The rampant starvation is the singular product of Robert Mugabe, who has been in power since 1980. Unlike the white farmers, he's actually responsible for honest-to-god genocide (aimed at the Matabele tribe, who live in the southern part of the country.) And by 'genocide', I mean murdering 10,000 men and throwing the bodies down empty mineshafts. Also, all that hunger? Yeah, it wasn't just the product of gross incompetence. Some of that was a matter of policy - literally starving his political opponents into submission.
Seriously, Ravi, are you honestly not aware that this guy is one of the nastiest dictators alive today? Do you not understand that he's managed to turn one of the most prosperous sub-Saharan countries into one of the world's severest basket-cases. How can you talk at length about the situation in Zimbabwe without even MENTIONING Mugabe? That's like talking about The Great Leap Forward while ignoring Mao Tse-Tung.
It's just ridiculous.
I am not sure if the elephants themselves would agree with that statement.
Obviously it is a complex issue, but I can't help feeling that the villagers chose the worst of all options. Did they at least get some money for the shooting license?
This is good very PR move because it hits the center of hypocrisy in wester societies: our "love" of animals.
If you can name at least five registrars with world wide reach please do so, so we can have a better option next time.
Caution: Ignore if you prefer the stereotype of an exposed rich white game hunter.
Dickish move by Bob tho, he's truly testing the adage that "any publicity is good publicity".
from the point of view of any super-human civilization, humans are clearly pests of the planet Earth, not an intelligent civilization to have contact with.
We will discuss whether or not they happen to be using this cowardly imbecile's business.
I will describe this horrible little gutless advertising stunt.
We will work to switch them over to another company immediately.
Also, to those suggesting that killing this elephant is chill because it fed a lot of people, I'm pretty sure there are more cost effective ways to feed people than mobilizing an elephant hunting squad.
http://www.africahunting.com/hunting-africa/1321-namibian-ph...
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37704-3...
No "fair chase" here. Somebody quoted Parson's as claiming it was completely dark as he lay in wait for a hungry elephant to walk right into a field of, well, elephant food. If that's the case, he either used artificial illumination to shoot, or there was no very good way for him to tell whether he was shooting a cow with calf, a calf, or even one of the villagers he now so adamantly (after he gets called on it) and frankly unbelievably insists was the true mission of this hunt...a mission that just happened to come complete with film crew and GoDaddy logo for everyone.
Sounds fishy. I don't fish (or hunt) anymore.
Driving cars that pollute the environment and force the US to wage continous war to secure oil. Supporting a food industry that is killing us. Support raising my taxes so you can live a better life. Use an inordinate amount of energy, water which is scarce. Live wonderful lives with nice furniture, clothes, etc that are made by really poor people the world over. Take trips all over the place, using more oil. Sit at home watching TV and being entertained instead of being productive and fixing problems (yes, this too is a sin). Have bad children that will grow up to be murderers, theives, leaches, and knownothings because you're too busy whining about some guy hunting an elephant. Have supported tons of politicians that serve to further their own interests and that of their corporate sponsors.
I could go on and on and on before I finally get to:
Legally shot and killed an elephant which was destroying crops in an African country.
If I switched my domains from GoDaddy for this, I'd pretty much have to withdraw from American society for good, in order to be on decent moral ground.
By the way, I moved all of my domains off GoDaddy last year. I got tired of paying above-market prices just so that GoDaddy could create those lame Super Bowl commercials. Also, their UI sucks.
It's a shame really. Your loss.
A sliver of a fraction of GoDaddy customers will ever see that video or even hear about it. Most people buy domains there because they have hot chicks in super bowl commercials.
1. Self/property protection 2. Fun/sport/hunting 3. Assertion of constitutional rights( and sometimes duty )
That said, this thread is in danger of political derailment.
I believe in gun rights because I have had relatives / personally been protected from both people and animals (feral dogs) by gun ownership. I believe weakening any of the bill of rights provides avenues to weaken the others. I also believe that it is an important counter balance to authority figures becoming despots. Mostly I just see guns as another tool and have serious problems with saying an object did something when it is the person who did. Plus, most of the gun stat stories were done narrowly and didn't include rural areas (did a stint in the social work area).
So, I understand the purpose, but am horrified by the picture and do not think NRA membership is a factor in the reaction to the picture.
I don't currently own any guns, and am clumsy enough to be a threat to everybody within 1/4 mile if I did, but I do believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right, perhaps the most fundamental of all.
Historically, most deaths due to misuse of guns have occurred in times and places where the state has maintained a monopoly on the use of violence. It would be very hard to convince me that a disarmed populace is a net positive for society, over the long run.
Not all animals are elephants.
Additionally, I have no doubt the owners of many registrars do objectionable things. The devil you know...