As a corollary, Chase cannot act as a gravity well (telling us how to do things) for social sector activism when they are clearly removed from our concerns.

Also, I need to buy groceries today but I'm not entirely certain that I want to wing it without a list. That's what I must do: Make a grocery list.

You summed up the entire post beautifully! Thier lack of disclosure
and follow up have left folks with nothing to do but fill in the blanks.

John

You summed up the entire post beautifully! Thier lack of disclosure
and follow up have left folks with nothing to do but fill in the blanks.

John

I respect a company's right to set parameters and limitations around their charitable activities. I may not agree with them, and I may choose not to participate based on what they are, but I do believe that it's up to the company (well, as long as it's legal).

It's also a best practice to clearly state those rules and conditions at the beginning of the contest, and not to change them part-way through. That way potential competitors can make an informed decision about whether or not to participate (Jeff, I appreciated your perspective as a board member of a participating agency – it was very insightful). When the decision process went behind-the-scenes and community members questioned that, all channels of communication shut-down. In such a vacuum (as Scott pointed out), speculation runs rampant.

Removed posts and comments from their Facebook wall? Really? Like no one was going to notice?

It's a shame – this could have so easily been avoided with a little planning and forethought. Even the flawed process could have turned into a healthy discussion with supporters, one that may have even earned their respect. It was a great concept that should have resulted in a win-win for both Chase and the finalists. Unfortunately it appears that Chase, instead of boosting it's image, will end up featured in upcoming case studies showing what NOT to do. #causewash (Steve, I LOVE this hashtag!)