CBC has reported that a Canadian radio station burned CA$5,000 (£2,700) as part of a competition to promote the station.
AMP started the contest last Tuesday, calling it “the ultimate social experiment.” All listeners who voted would be entered into a draw for the $5,000. If “Bank” won the vote, one name would be drawn to get the money. If “Burn” prevailed, well, the cash would go up in smoke.
Listeners were invited to vote by tweeting the station with the hashtags #Bank or #Burn. Some 54% voted to burn the money, an option that the station explained worked on the premise that “If you aren’t guaranteed to win, why should anyone else?”. The station proceeded to post a video of the money being burned in a crematorium.
Unsurprisingly, the move has provoked a massive outcry. To burn money at all, let alone such a large amount of it, is absolutely reprehensible: if one needs money so little that you feel able to burn it, then there are billions of people who need it more than you do. They only acceptable course of action in that case is to ensure that the money goes to some of them. There is no difference between taking a match to legal tender and deliberately depriving the homeless person you walk past on the way to work of blankets.
What is also disturbing about this competition is the rather vindictive principle behind it. The competition did not constitute gambling- it didn’t cost anything to enter- but the majority of entrants decided to deny others the prospect of winning (and throw away their own chance in the process). Not only is that entirely irrational, it’s nasty. Certainly, nobody deserves to have $5,000 fall into their lap, but that doesn’t warrant throwing away the money. Of course, my socialist instinct would be to give all the entrants $1, or to give them all 50 cents and donate half the money to charitable causes- although there are obvious practical arguments against that!
If there is good fortune to be had, somebody may as well have it. But the Twitter-dwellers who voted to burn the money are not to be blamed- however illogical 54% of them were. The organisation which presented them with this false choice is wholly liable for this ethical offence. AMP Radio went about creating publicity for itself in what was undoubtedly a novel way, and it has succeeded. They say that “all publicity is good publicity”. I doubt that. I think that having millions of people condemn an organisation is bad for its long-term interests.
<a href="http://polldaddy.com/poll/7913616">Take Our Poll</a>
