Holding My Nose

Your friends and family probably heard a lot more about Salesforce in the news than usual in mid-October. Despite the PR and marketing blitz that is Dreamforce, they weren't really hearing about technology, innovation, nor products. Whatever your personal politics, I think we can all agree that's a public relations failure for the company.

Thanks to my biweekly publication schedule and the fact that I already had one post in the pipeline, by the time you're reading this we're already several weeks past the initial furor. But let me remind you of a bit of timeline:

• On October 10th—the Friday before Dreamforce— The New York Times published an interview with Marc Benioff during which, among other things, he'd said he thought Trump should send the National Guard to San Francisco. This was obviously a foolish PR move, drawing attention to his politics instead of his company or its products during the week before its major conference. And it raised some serious red flags among Salesforce professionals, particularly those of us in the nonprofit sector.

• Then on the 16th (during Dreamforce) there was reporting that his comments drove away a prominent VC that had been a Salesforce Foundation board member for over a decade and comedians scheduled to perform at Dreamforce dropped out.

• The day after Dreamforce concluded, the New York Times again had a Salesforce story on the digital "front page" about how Salesforce is pursuing contracts with ICE. (And let's not forget that Salesforce has worked with ICE for years, something employees were upset about in 2018.)

• Then after Dreamforce Benioff tried to do an about-face and apologize for his comments about sending the National Guard.

Say what you will about the relevance of keynotes and product announcements, but during Dreamforce you'd expect Salesforce to eke out more positive coverage.

First: Disclosure

Nobody's in the dark about this, but I'm going to just state it explicitly: I tend toward the progressive end of the political spectrum. I've been involved in Democratic Party politics at times, as well as generally supporting progressive issues, causes, and organizations. I don't actually have any direct involvement with politics at the moment, but I'm not an entirely disinterested observer of the news or politics, neither local, national, nor international.

Is that clear enough where I am coming from?

Is Salesforce different?

I think I've said this before, but I don't really consider Salesforce different than any other big tech company, or publicly traded company, or, frankly, just an American corporation.

I see very little difference between adopting Salesforce and buying any of the other things an organization uses to operate. Nonprofits buy supplies at Costco, ride Ubers, fly on Boeing planes, choose (generally) between Google Suite and Microsoft 365, and use Apple's iPhones and Macs unless they use Androids and Dells. And when nonprofits buy those products and services, they generally don't spend a lot of time hand-wringing about it, in my experience. To pick on just one company in that list: Apple CEO Tim Cook has also sucked up to Donald Trump, "awarding" him a gold and glass plaque recently. That was gross. And cynical. And maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear chatter about nonprofits needing to stop using Apple products because of it. And even if there were such discussions, what are the alternatives?

That wasn't meant to be whataboutism. It was meant to illustrate that I start from the assumption that no company is angelic, least of all the larger giants of the American economy. But organizations—nonprofits included—still have to operate. Even the most committed environmental organization uses some plastic and fossil fuel-derived energy. Even the most radical anti-capitalist organization in the United States has to raise and spend money.

Were Benioff's recent statements different?

If it wasn't obvious from the way I framed that news recap above, I consider Benioff's comments to be problematic, even offensive. They certainly help cement my opinion about him as a person. But I don't find what he said surprising. Just search for "capitalism" on this blog, for example.

For me, in the end, it just comes down to whether or not I care what Marc Benioff has to say about any particular [non-Salesforce product] issue. I don't. Sure, he has some degree of influence because he's rich—that's why there was a newspaper interview in the first place. But he's not even a politician or policymaker. This is "Crazy Uncle Marc" spouting off. It's no different than your uncle saying things at your Thanksgiving dinner. It might roil some family relationships, but it's not going to actually change anything in the world.

Is the sales push to ICE different?

I also read the reporting about the sales push to ICE pretty carefully. As I read it, the article boils down to “Salesforce is trying to land ICE contracts.” The details about what they’re saying and how they’re running the sales strategy are the exact same kinds of tactics we’ve been deploring for years now. This is, perhaps, a bigger contract for a bigger amount of money than a lot of others. But I didn't see anything new. Salesforce is a sales machine, with all the icky, ethically questionable tactics and overhyped language of a stereotyped used car salesman. We've known this for a long time. There's a reason I had my illustrator create this image and have used it several times:

So as regards the sales pitch to ICE, I read it and thought, "There is nothing new here." It seems like they're using exactly the kind of sales language you would expect them to use going for a government contract in the current moment/environment. If they're working on renewals with State, HHS, or the Pentagon, I'm sure those pitch decks are pretty "cringe" [as the youth say] right now too.

Were some on the Right happy?

I acknowledged my left wing bias earlier. I guess I should also note that maybe Benioff's comments will have endeared him to some on the right? (Though at least initially Fox News simply took the opportunity to deride Benioff and Salesforce for "promoting transgender ideology.") Certainly it seems like the top of the US government regime requires comments like this out of billionaires to keep doing business. So as gross as I think Benioff's comments and the sales push for ICE contracts were, I don't want to lose sight of the fact that about half of the country might actually consider this stuff a benefit. I don't know. 🤷🏻 It's hard for me to get into the MAGA mindset.

And let's not have any illusions: the US-based portion of the Salesforce community is likely about half Trump supporters, just based on simple demographic statistics. I'm pretty sure the nonprofiteers among the Salesforce community skew left, but we are not the whole of the Ohana.

Let's Name It: The Problem is Capitalism

So I'm just going to come out and say it: The problem is not Salesforce and it's not Marc Benioff, it's capitalism, particularly as practiced in the United States in the early 21st Century. There are all sorts of things I would like to change about the system in which we operate. The power of giant tech platforms is vast and existentially perilous, particularly for progressives. (See this article.) The media is chock full of warnings about the downsides of generative AI, yet more and more people use it unthinkingly each day. People use their cell phones while driving....

In the end I can only do so much to change that system or to opt out of it. To the extent that I'm still in it, I have to reconcile with the options available to me. This is not an argument against radicalism, simply an acknowledgement that on any issue there is always some line at which we must compromise or die.

So what should we do?

Of course we should still pressure Salesforce to be better. (Speak out. Vote for this Idea. Perhaps it's time for some other action within the community...)

But when it comes to the question of whether we [nonprofits] should continue to use Salesforce, what is the decision matrix? In my opinion it's the same as it always has been:

1. Is Salesforce a good value for the cost?

   1. If you're at the point that your organization needs "a system" and you are careful with your spending, I think Yes. Others may answer differently.

2. Does it make my operations more efficient and effective?

   1. That really depends on how you use it and how it was implemented, of course. But it definitely can and should.

3. If I adopt this technology, can I support it?

   1. I kinda' think this is the point of Free Like a Puppy.

4. What alternatives could I use to do the same job? [And what are their costs, features, etc...?]

   1. AirTable, HubSpot, Zoho, Neon, and others get mentioned. I have no opinion on any of them. I will assume they're all fine, perhaps even great. If they meet your need, go for it!

      1. Some can only do one thing well. (Such as fundraising or email marketing, but not both.)

      2. None of them has the scale of the Salesforce community to turn to for support.

      3. As I understand it, they're not as flexible and customizable as Salesforce, nor can you test and learn about them with tools like developer orgs and sandboxes or sites like Trailhead.

      4. By the way: I have no idea who their founders and CEOs are. But I have no reason to believe they're fundamentally different than other tech founders. Unless the platform itself is nonprofit, then their shareholders and boards are eventually going to ensure that they operate like profit seeking companies.

   2. For-profit companies choose Salesforce more than those alternatives.

      1. If nonprofits can use the same technology as better-resourced organizations, that's probably to the benefit of the nonprofits.

A disappointing place to come to, perhaps. But I try to call 'em as I see 'em.