DeHart’s analysis of the CDRO made me question the motives behind the company. Sometimes companies might start off with the intention of promoting ethnic development and as it gains momentum becomes too interested in self-serving capitalistic gains. There must be a balance between the two. There can be two interpretations of CDRO’s choice of logo. The first is that they chose the pop based solely on its importance in Mayan identity and history. The second interpretation is that CDRO intentionally chose a logo that not only represented Mayan culture, but also would be easy to identify and a smart branding choice.
It seems that the initial ideas of a holistic approach that the CDRO presented would have been effective; however, they were not effectively implemented into Maya communities. What began to put off Maya was when CDRO no longer represented the ideals that the pop represented.
This issue is reflected well in Juan who originally agreed and promoted the CDRO and later changed his mind as he grew to perceive the company as something similar to a fast food chain. Juan was probably drawn in by the ideals that the CDRO advertised, but as he became involved in the company itself he became disillusioned by CDRO and its misuse of pop.
There is a fine line between offering a service to build a community and operating under a false pretense for economic gain. I guess my question from this reading is where is this line and how does one know if it has been crossed?
No comments:
Post a Comment