Unethical adverts

[grumpyhack]

I was listening on the radio today about a campaign being started by some football supporters to try to stop unethical adverts at matches and on soccer websites. One concern in particular was about Wonga.com who promote payday loans at 2000% or more APR.

I notice that they are one of the advertisers here too.

Anyone else got concerns about unethical ads or a view on them being on this website?

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Good on those football supporters. I had no idea that such a company was advertising on here (I don't think I've noticed a single advert on here until you mentioned this). I suppose the grey area would be who decides what's ethical or not. That said, I don't think anybody would oppose the notion that a loan company with such extortionate rates would be classed as unethical. It beats me how there's people who will make money off those who have least got it. It's morally bankrupt but I don't suppose they care.

I'm not sure why Neil has let this advert get through. I know he's got to make money for his family and to keep this site going but it seems a little bit out of kilter with his moral compass. Hopefully he'll see this and be able to explain.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I think there was a discussion a couple of years back about it but I cant remember what the outcome was.

However ethics aside people do make their own decisions when borrowing money. However if you go to a bank at least they check to see he you can afford to pay back. There payday companies rarely check anything. I know when my daughter got into a lot of shit with them. I took control of her finances for a while and it was while I was on the phone to Wonga when the credit controller was sarcastic about her taking a loan she could not afford, and I pointed out they were irresponsible for lending it to her. If someone is skint on one payday how the fuck is borrowing a load of cash that needs repaying the next payday going to help. Their money is made from people having to renew month on month.

[russycarps]

APR is quite ridiculous to consider on these very short term loans in fairness

Edited April 5, 2012 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

One concern in particular was about Wonga.com who promote payday loans at 2000% or more APR.

the APR is of course exceedingly high, but the impact of that high rate is more the result of legislation about the publication of APR rates that existed before payday loans did than anything very meaningful about those loans.

They are short-term loans. The reason for the high APR is because a 'service charge' for setting up the loan is within it. Concentrating on the high APR is the wrong way to look at it.

I notice that they are one of the advertisers here too.

Anyone else got concerns about unethical ads or a view on them being on this website?

I would prefer that no one ever had to resort to borrowing any money at all - it's always money borrowed against a hope of being able to pay it back. A loan from wonga is no different, but because it's short term a person is more able to be in the position to know if they can pay it back than with a long term loan.

These companies are very heavily regulated. And they're certainly better than borrowing from a loan shark.

It's not my place to tell people whether they should borrow from these companies, just as it's not my place to tell people whether they can afford to buy (say) an iPad that might be advertised on these pages. In both cases I'd hope that a person only did so after proper consideration, but at the end of the day it's their choice.

I have concerns about how people makes wrong choices, which applies to all things. Either all ads are bad, or none are.

[Pogues Mcgogues]

From working in a bank i've had so many people in tears over companies like wonga taking so much cash it's unbelievable (i'd add i worked for a cautious bank when it came to lending who didn't get bailed and are actualy expanding just now)

they may be regulated, but that doesn't mean much. they destroy peoples lives, and the apr is certainly so

ething to co.sider along with the way they bully people as well.

you can't say all ads or no ads as you know fine well there are ads you wouldn't have on here.

[sifi]

What about the adverts for greenpeace etc that are shown between acts at Glasto? Unethical?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

the APR is of course exceedingly high, but the impact of that high rate is more the result of legislation about the publication of APR rates that existed before payday loans did than anything very meaningful about those loans.

They are short-term loans. The reason for the high APR is because a 'service charge' for setting up the loan is within it. Concentrating on the high APR is the wrong way to look at it.

I would prefer that no one ever had to resort to borrowing any money at all - it's always money borrowed against a hope of being able to pay it back. A loan from wonga is no different, but because it's short term a person is more able to be in the position to know if they can pay it back than with a long term loan.

These companies are very heavily regulated. And they're certainly better than borrowing from a loan shark.

It's not my place to tell people whether they should borrow from these companies, just as it's not my place to tell people whether they can afford to buy (say) an iPad that might be advertised on these pages. In both cases I'd hope that a person only did so after proper consideration, but at the end of the day it's their choice.

I have concerns about how people makes wrong choices, which applies to all things. Either all ads are bad, or none are.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Rufus Gwertigan

[rachbon]

Thre are so many adverts for these money borrowing companies on TV during the day, on weekdays. They're preying on the unemployed, people who would struggle to pay the money back.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

ok... I'll bite

what's unethical about them?

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Well if your ethics are anti Greenpeace, Oxfam or Wateraid then I can see how it would be unethical, but considering the very roots of the festival are built around causes like that, I'd suggest if that's the case, Glastonbury may not be the best place for you.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

that doesn't fit with the more common/accepted definition if the word. What's immoral about Oxfam?

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

that doesn't fit with the more common/accepted definition if the word. What's immoral about Oxfam?

[russycarps]

that doesn't fit with the more common/accepted definition if the word. What's immoral about Oxfam?

[Donkey]

Ban all bookies ads from football grounds too.

[eFestivals]

From working in a bank i've had so many people in tears over companies like wonga taking so much cash it's unbelievable (i'd add i worked for a cautious bank when it came to lending who didn't get bailed and are actualy expanding just now)

they may be regulated, but that doesn't mean much. they destroy peoples lives, and the apr is certainly so

ething to co.sider along with the way they bully people as well.

you can't say all ads or no ads as you know fine well there are ads you wouldn't have on here.

That bank lends them no money, the likes of wonga lends them money.

Being not-lent money by a bank is just as able to be just as distressing to any person as being lent unaffordable money by the likes of wonga.

Which is the better way to go isn't decided by the non-lending bank or by lending-wonga, but by the person. The person is the only one that is able to make the best decision for themselves.

If any one of you is able to show me the person who is able to make the right financial decisions for every person, and is willing to lend them money or not on the basis of that perfect person's considerations then I'll be quite happy to ban both ads from wonga and ads from banks.

Until such time as any one of you is able to show me that perfect person and their ability to lend, I'll keep taking ads from both wonga and banks and trusting individuals to make the right decisions for themselves - decisions, BTW, that makes borrowing from wonga cheaper than it is from most banks, dependent on the length of loan wanted.

If that doesn't work for you, perhaps you should get your mum to hold your hand for you thru every day of your life?

[eFestivals]

Its a valid argument but its not as if we see ads for everything here. When was the last time we saw an ad for "Big Tonys 12' Anal Intruder (batteries included) ?

..... well, the ads you see here are from the companies that wish to advertise.

Just as no one has a gun to their heads to borrow from wonga, no one has a gun to Big Tony to place advertising either.

[eFestivals]

that doesn't fit with the more common/accepted definition if the word. What's immoral about Oxfam?

the only common meaning and accepted definition to the word 'ethical' is "an applied set of morals".

The morals that are applied to 'ethical' are as varied as people's morals. There is no immovable 'ethics' just as there is no immovable 'morals'.

[kaosmark2]

the only common meaning and accepted definition to the word 'ethical' is "an applied set of morals".

The morals that are applied to 'ethical' are as varied as people's morals. There is no immovable 'ethics' just as there is no immovable 'morals'.

[amfy]

The CEOs salary

[kaosmark2]

Why do people expect people who work to improve the lives of those less well off than themselves to do it for nothing? The salaries paid by Oxfam attract good quality applicants so that organisationally they are better at getting money in, and better at getting that money out to the right places. I would imagine the ceo of oxfam is intelligent, well qualified, and works long hours to meet tough targets. I dont think its immoral to pay that person well.

[amfy]

I looked up the oxfam ceo salary & its £75000. Not significantly above the reasonable £60000 quoted and probably well below the going rate for a quality ceo for an organisation of this size and importance. Uncompetetive wages are false economy because they lead to a lack of continuity (poor staff retention) and lower quality services. When we say people working in organisations who serve the disadvantaged shouldnt get high salaries, we are by default saying that the disadvantaged dont deserve high quality, professionally run services.

[kaosmark2]

I looked up the oxfam ceo salary & its £75000. Not significantly above the reasonable £60000 quoted and probably well below the going rate for a quality ceo for an organisation of this size and importance. Uncompetetive wages are false economy because they lead to a lack of continuity (poor staff retention) and lower quality services. When we say people working in organisations who serve the disadvantaged shouldnt get high salaries, we are by default saying that the disadvantaged dont deserve high quality, professionally run services.

[amfy]

Theres going to be some corelation tho, simply because the pool of high quality professionals prepared to work for a fraction of their market value is going to be pretty small.

[kaosmark2]

Theres going to be some corelation tho, simply because the pool of high quality professionals prepared to work for a fraction of their market value is going to be pretty small.