READER COMMENTARY: First impression of Olin mistaken
Reader Commentary | 9/15/09
Posted online at 2:55 AM EST on 9/15/09
In response to your article "Cherish Brandeis' excellent environment" (Forum, Sept. 8): The book was a lengthy ramble about how if a company empathizes with its customers, it can do a more effective job of marketing to and creating products for those customers. One of the examples that the author gave was a consulting project that his own design firm worked on. Target asked its design firm to come up with ways to more effectively market to 17-year-olds shopping for their freshman year of college.
The point that an Olin student brought up was a very valid one: The last thing the world needs is more stuff. His point was that it is slightly unethical for Target to prey on the fears of nervous teenagers to hawk more stuff to them, when what they really need are people telling them, "Yes, you'll do great in college, don't worry." But it isn't Target's job to reassure college freshmen. Target is the business of selling goods to you. Convincing you to buy less stuff is perhaps a more ethical thing to do from an environmental standpoint, but it is not in the best interest of Target to do so, so they won't do it.
It seems that you interpreted this counter-argument of "Target is in the business of selling household goods, not counseling" as "Olin students are corporate shills." It is hard to discuss a nuanced argument in an auditorium of 300 students. I hope that the impression of Olin that you take away will come from your classes rather than an awkward convocation Q-and-A.
Also, I was the person who asked the question about laying off people. What I was trying to ask was, "Is an empathetic corporate culture always the best for the greater good of the company? What if it hurts the company's bottom line, resulting in less pocket change for the employees?" I was trying to emphasize that caring for people on an individual level may not be the best for the greater good of the collective. Nuance is key here. It is unwise to assume that a large room of sentient human beings are all mindless tools.
-Katherine Elliott
The writer is a student at Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering.
The point that an Olin student brought up was a very valid one: The last thing the world needs is more stuff. His point was that it is slightly unethical for Target to prey on the fears of nervous teenagers to hawk more stuff to them, when what they really need are people telling them, "Yes, you'll do great in college, don't worry." But it isn't Target's job to reassure college freshmen. Target is the business of selling goods to you. Convincing you to buy less stuff is perhaps a more ethical thing to do from an environmental standpoint, but it is not in the best interest of Target to do so, so they won't do it.
It seems that you interpreted this counter-argument of "Target is in the business of selling household goods, not counseling" as "Olin students are corporate shills." It is hard to discuss a nuanced argument in an auditorium of 300 students. I hope that the impression of Olin that you take away will come from your classes rather than an awkward convocation Q-and-A.
Also, I was the person who asked the question about laying off people. What I was trying to ask was, "Is an empathetic corporate culture always the best for the greater good of the company? What if it hurts the company's bottom line, resulting in less pocket change for the employees?" I was trying to emphasize that caring for people on an individual level may not be the best for the greater good of the collective. Nuance is key here. It is unwise to assume that a large room of sentient human beings are all mindless tools.
-Katherine Elliott
The writer is a student at Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering.
Be the first to comment on this story