[danielnixon]

I heard an interesting critique of this from Liz Jackson at Webstock this year [0] [1] [2].

> Unfortunately there are two problems with this ad. First, by relying on text without including visual descriptions, LEGO made their announcement inaccessible to the very people these bricks are intended for. Second, this product already exists.

> LEGO could have partnered with Tack-Tiles, which currently retail for around $700, to make an affordable and commercially viable product. But instead, LEGO decided that Braille Bricks will be provided for free to selected institutions around the world. That LEGO Braille Bricks will be given charitably through their foundation, demonstrates how disabled people, as consumers, are consistently devalued so brands can achieve higher status. If you think about it, LEGO isn’t informing consumers about a new product that can be purchased. The ad can’t even be experienced by the very people these bricks are intended for. LEGO was virtue signaling.

[0] https://www.webstock.org.nz/19/speakers/liz-jackson/

[1] https://twitter.com/elizejackson/status/1121463716309098497

[2] https://www.criticalaxis.org/critique/lego-braille-bricks/

[IIAOPSW]

If a company virtue signals, and something actually virtuous happens in the process (blind kids getting the bricks), does it matter that it happened for selfish brand related reasons?

[yesco]

I feel what it really effects is the "signal" itself. Using myself as an example:

If Lego had done this properly, it would have come off as more genuine and would have made me respect the company more. I had believed that Lego was investing into a legitimate product that would have also been beneficial for society.

Given the information the prior poster shared though, I now view it as the company dumping money on the PR team in exchange for better public perception rather than real societal benefit out of goodwill. I have less respect for Lego now despite the virtuous side-effects, because I feel I was purposely misled about their intentions.

Sure, blind kids got some bricks they otherwise wouldn't have had, there is a net positive to society, but to answer your question:

> does it matter that it happened for selfish brand related reasons?

If the goal of that company was to make themselves not appear selfish, then yes, in the end it does matter.