Queen's playing the name game

It's a little known fact that Queen's University was nearly bought out by the University of Toronto in 1878 after losing nearly all of its money after their bank made some bad investments. An also little known fact is that Robert Sutherland, the first black man to graduate from a university in North America and a Queen's graduate, donated his entire estate to the university in 1878 and saved it from bankruptcy.

In March 1998, after decades of students lobbying, Queen's finally named a room after Sutherland. Students were pleased for the time being, until more recently, they began again lobbying for a building to be named after Sutherland. The value of his estate in 1878 was enough to constitute the university's entire budget for that year. Students are frustrated that the university refuses to name a building after the man who saved the university so long ago.

Alternatives to naming a building have been suggested including making a statue of Sutherland, which is impossible because no images of him exist. After pressure was applied by the media, Queen's has decided to consider the proposal to name a building after Sutherland but require "more research" before they can come to a decision.

I'd love to know exactly what kind of research naming a building after someone requires. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I guess that's why I'm still a student and not in management.

Oh deer! Population changes from trophy hunting

The National Post recently ran an article about trophy hunting and how it has changed the population dynamics of herds. The article talks about the human tendency to target larger animals as trophies, leaving the smaller, weaker animals to survive. The problem arising from this is that the smaller animals are surviving long enough to breed, so ensuing generations are physically smaller in size.

The issue is that humans are changing these populations at a rate which exceeds that of natural selection. This means that hunters are working their way through the largest members of the population until its necessary for them to hunt the medium-sized members of the population and so on.


The proposed solution to this problem is to hunt less or start hunting the smaller animals in addition to the large ones. Good luck convincing trophy hunters that this is the only solution to this looming problem. It's going to take an integrated marketing strategy on the part of the Ministry of Natural Resources before people start getting the message.

Coke sells its soul for a polar bear, part 2

Apologies that it's taken me so long to update this and comment on Coke's holiday blitz. The main reason that it took me so long is that Coke has taken down the part of its site that dealt with the holiday campaign for polar bears and has instead replaced it with multiple direct links to the WWF site. But that's a good thing, right? Not in my case.

Early in November, I noticed the fine print that Coke had included on their site stating that they would donate up to a maximum of $100,000 provided that 1.4 million PINs were entered on their site by December 31st.

It took me a while, but I finally managed to find a site with information about the monetary donations made by Coke this season. Apparently they succeeded in getting the 1.4 millions PINs because Coke proudly proclaims that it has donated $100,000 from its loyalty program in 2008 for polar bear conservation efforts.

I'm a little suspicious of this. Neither Coke nor WWF has issued a news release or any related materials on their respective sites. No news agencies have picked up on this story; even the bloggers are silent. These large corporations have remained suspiciously silent towards a potentially huge PR campaign that could bolster their images in a positive light.

More updates to come once I've found out more.

From Shylock to the workplace, a pound of flesh can cost a lot

According to a recent study done by Professor Cawley of Cornell University, for every 7.2 pounds that a woman gains she will earn 1% less than a female colleague whose weight remained the same. Weight is often closely tied to first impressions and the overall image of a person. Being in PR, image management is a really important part of the industry, so this article got me thinking: does a company have the right to ask their employees to manage their weight?


The immediate answer would be no, but I think it should depend on what company it is that we're talking about. If a company makes money almost solely from the physical appearance of its employees, say a modelling agency, then it's reasonable to expect that the company would have a weight clause in the contract that a model signs. Is it reasonable to think that a company where the revenue is based other streams should be concerned with their employees weight? I'm not so sure.


Is it infringing on an employees' rights when a company promotes the skinny and holds the not-so-skinny down? It's not really a clear-cut issue and I'm not really sure as to how I feel - all I know is that I'm outraged that weight gain can play a part in my future wages. Being so early in the new year, I'm still on the eating healthy and working out more track from my New Year's resolutions, so I'm still thinking along the lines of losing weight, but it has nothing to do with a job. And that's the way it should be.