|
Post by Evil Abed on Sept 29, 2014 23:58:07 GMT -5
Commencing countdown to thread lockage.
|
|
|
Post by Self-Savior on Sept 30, 2014 0:03:59 GMT -5
Some money is better than NO money...
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 30, 2014 0:04:55 GMT -5
Yes, it does. You're right, proceeds means after covering the cost, so it wouldn't lose them any money. However, 20% does net them a profit. What you don't seem to understand, is that with the gigantic hit they've taken financially, they need to make a profit. 20% of proceeds and 100% of proceeds donated is a HUGE difference for them. They don't lose money donating 100% but they don't make money either. They would essentially break even on it, which they cannot afford to do right now. Now you can stop lashing at people. I find it incredibly ghetto and low-life of them to say "HEY!, OVER THERE! Give me $25 + tax and shipping and I'll "donate" four dollars to a charity, and then keep the rest for myself. Oh, and if you bought a shirt last year, I would've given it all to them. . HEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY." How can you say they can't afford to donate proceeds when they don't lose anything?!?! That makes no logical sense, buddy. They're using breast CANCER to make a profit, while barely throwing SGK a bone just for publicity so everyone can say "oh look how nice WWE is".
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 20, 2024 2:23:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 0:07:27 GMT -5
Yes, it does. You're right, proceeds means after covering the cost, so it wouldn't lose them any money. However, 20% does net them a profit. What you don't seem to understand, is that with the gigantic hit they've taken financially, they need to make a profit. 20% of proceeds and 100% of proceeds donated is a HUGE difference for them. They don't lose money donating 100% but they don't make money either. They would essentially break even on it, which they cannot afford to do right now. Now you can stop lashing at people. I find it incredibly ghetto and low-life of them to say "HEY!, OVER THERE! Give me $25 + tax and shipping and I'll "donate" four dollars to a charity, and then keep the rest for myself. Oh, and if you bought a shirt last year, I would've given it all to them. . HEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY." How can you say they can't afford to donate proceeds when they don't lose anything?!?! That makes no logical sense, buddy. They're using breast CANCER to make a profit, while barely throwing SGK a bone just for publicity so everyone can say "oh look how nice WWE is". They can't afford to because they are rapidly LOSING MONEY. This entire year they've lost hundreds of millions of dollars, both personally and as a company. They're on a downward spiral financially. I don't understand why you can't grasp the concept that making no profit would lose them money simply because they aren't making profits anywhere right now. 100% of proceeds donated = break even 20% of proceeds donated = profit WWE = Financial downward spiral WWE needs money, therefore cannot afford to simply break even. They're still doing more than almost every other company out there. There's literally no reason to be complaining about them donating ANYTHING. If they didn't make people aware and didn't donate a dime, then fine, be pissed. EDIT: I get that you don't understand basic business models, but when you're losing as much money as WWE is, breaking even is considered a loss. Last year, they weren't in nearly the crappy situation they are this year. Keep in mind, they've lost over $100M+ this year alone, that is a HUGE number (Which I think is triple that, but I'm not googling it right now).
|
|
|
Post by The Natural Eddy Valintino on Sept 30, 2014 0:27:32 GMT -5
IMO, donating 20% is better than donating nothing. I know they donated everything, but they're creating awareness at least. I don't think the Susan G. Komen company has a problem with accepting 20% of whatever WWE made. If they did, they wouldn't make business with WWE. They're creating awareness for the charity and the disease, which me as a person who has dealt with people in my family with cancer, I appreciate that. I would actually love to donate to charities dealing with cancer and diabetes since they've affected me in my life between family and in mine and my mother's case, diabetes, which has recently been running in my mother's side of the family. I understand that WWE wants to keep profit from the merchandise promoting the Susan G. Komen foundation because they're running through financial problems. Just making awareness and donating part of the money is good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Sept 30, 2014 0:29:50 GMT -5
WWE shouldn't donate to Susan G Komen anyway, bunch of greedy bastards. They should support the American Cancer Society.
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 30, 2014 0:48:42 GMT -5
WWE shouldn't donate to Susan G Komen anyway, bunch of greedy bastards. They should support the American Cancer Society. People should just donate to SGK if they really want to feel altruistic.
|
|
|
Post by ThugSuperstar on Sept 30, 2014 1:48:10 GMT -5
Their entire partnership with Susan G. Komen has always just come across as a huge publicity stunt. The way they constantly talk about it and seem to go over the top trying to draw mainstream attention to their partnership just seems so wrong to me. It especially looks bad considering they never devote any other time to raising awareness for the hundreds of other types of cancers that are out there.
|
|
|
Post by tehforoh on Sept 30, 2014 2:04:51 GMT -5
Doesn't the foundation itself only give a small portion of money raised to patients? In 2009/20010 fiscal year $20.1 million (5.6%) went to actual treatment where 40 million(11.6%) went to administrative costs. So much for being about the "cure". -- Any charity that actively seeks out and threatens to sue other cancer charities for using the color pink and the words "for the cure" has some real issues.
|
|
|
Post by The Mask of Truth on Sept 30, 2014 2:06:54 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure plenty of charities out there participate in shady practices. Like some of the money goes to their Bentleys...
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Sept 30, 2014 2:09:40 GMT -5
I find it incredibly ghetto and low-life of them to say "HEY!, OVER THERE! Give me $25 + tax and shipping and I'll "donate" four dollars to a charity, and then keep the rest for myself. Oh, and if you bought a shirt last year, I would've given it all to them. . HEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY." How can you say they can't afford to donate proceeds when they don't lose anything?!?! That makes no logical sense, buddy. They're using breast CANCER to make a profit, while barely throwing SGK a bone just for publicity so everyone can say "oh look how nice WWE is". They can't afford to because they are rapidly LOSING MONEY. This entire year they've lost hundreds of millions of dollars, both personally and as a company. They're on a downward spiral financially. I don't understand why you can't grasp the concept that making no profit would lose them money simply because they aren't making profits anywhere right now. 100% of proceeds donated = break even 20% of proceeds donated = profit WWE = Financial downward spiral WWE needs money, therefore cannot afford to simply break even. They're still doing more than almost every other company out there. There's literally no reason to be complaining about them donating ANYTHING. If they didn't make people aware and didn't donate a dime, then fine, be pissed. EDIT: I get that you don't understand basic business models, but when you're losing as much money as WWE is, breaking even is considered a loss. Last year, they weren't in nearly the crappy situation they are this year. Keep in mind, they've lost over $100M+ this year alone, that is a HUGE number (Which I think is triple that, but I'm not googling it right now). It's not that I don't think he grasps the basic business principles you're throwing at him -- they're pretty common sense -- but it seems OP is somewhat blinded by a personal interest in the subject of breast cancer (understandable). And when you have a vested interest in something, and you hear of a company giving 100% of their proceeds to a cause, then SUDDENLY they're like "we can only give 20% now" -- I can see how that's a shock to some people. I agree, in general, that 20% is better than nothing. If they make a million dollars from T-shirt sales (25 bucks a shirt, 40,000 shirts...not an unrealistic number) -- that's still 200,000 bucks SGK didn't have before that. ADDED to the promotion WWE gives the org, and topic (regardless of how forced it does feel, at times) -- I still think SGK is coming out on top here. It's unfortunate that WWE isn't giving 100%. I DO feel that they may have been able to find SOMEWHERE else to get some money in there, but -- by my example, that's $800,000 they didn't have before...that's a LOT of money toward running ANY company. Personally, I think the bigger story here is that WWE is in SERIOUS dire straights if they're HAVING to do this. The possibilities that could befall WWE in the next decade are difficult for me to even wrap my head around, unless they somehow manage to make it mainstream, again. And the Production crew has to drive themselves from city to city? That's not going to last. You gotta REALLY love what you're doing to do that, and I doubt WWE is paying them enough. I love film, and I love WWE, but if I had the job, and that went down it'd be a "Peace" sort of situation. What may end up working in WWE's best interest is setting up 4-6 Production HQs throughout the Country, and hiring a staff, and then they're traveled around those areas. Each HQ covers 6-8 States. That way you're not traveling vehicles all over the Country, at all times. Just an idea. OR hiring someone to travel several months in advance to hire production staff in each city they're needed. There's no shortage of PAs/Camera Ops/etc in a given town, these days. I'd work for WWE for a night, or two, locally. Walk away with a few hundred bucks, and get the experience. Awesome. But -- WWE may be a sinking ship, if this is the situation. Eesh.
|
|
|
Post by Ian from 616Entertainment. on Sept 30, 2014 2:18:44 GMT -5
They're still donating, they could be doing nothing just like everyone else. Not to mention the countless other charities they do, plus the Connors Cure that they started. "They're still donating". It's called a tax write-off. If they actually cared, they'd be donating more than 20%. Those shirts cost less than a dollar to make. WWE can go themselves. You'll keep watching.
|
|
|
Post by Duck Holliday on Sept 30, 2014 2:23:25 GMT -5
Not hating but Susan G Komen gets so much money from so many other organizations, I bet the WWE stuff is probably a drop in the hat for them. ww5.komen.org/AboutUs/FinancialInformation.htmlLooking at the audited statements from 2013 makes it look like that they have/had 430 million in assets. There's a spreadsheet that adress a lot of their income and it has tons of big numbers that I don't totally understand, lol. Point being, I dont think the WWE thing is truly going to hurt them, and something is better than nothing. I think they still gain more from the relationship than the WWE. According to my GF, they are also hard to work with as a charity. Her company wanted to do a promotion for them, but they made it difficult somehow. I never got the details. Interesting little article here. lisabadams.com/2012/02/03/why-i-divorced-the-susan-g-komen-foundation-years-ago/
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Sept 30, 2014 2:26:48 GMT -5
"They're still donating". It's called a tax write-off. If they actually cared, they'd be donating more than 20%. Those shirts cost less than a dollar to make. WWE can go themselves. You'll keep watching. I think the problem here is that -- someone's NOT watching. I'll admit, man. I went a month without watching last month, and -- I did not really miss it. I missed it because it's the time I take out to go over to my dad's, sit down, and spend that time with him, but -- other then that? Nothing. They're putting out product we don't care about, and it's becoming easier, and easier, and easier for those of us who have been life long fans to go "I have better sh*t to do", you know what I mean? This entire thing is part of a corrosive problem right down to the core of WWE, and how it seems to be run, and it's the same problem that WCW was able to take advantage of...when the company gets complacent, they just totally stop caring. It's not until they're shocked into stepping it up, do we get something awesome. At what point do they stop trying to keep backers happy, and start trying to make the audience happy? Until that happens, they just wont get as much investment from people as they could. WWE RAW was MUST SEE TV...3rd grade, 12th grade, college, water cooler at the office, rich/poor, white/black -- there was a time, not long ago, when you were 78% likely watching RAW on Monday Nights, regardless who you were, or where you were. Now they're not -- and they're having to cut into their donations, in order to make ends meet. That's a bad problem to have.
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Sept 30, 2014 2:30:04 GMT -5
Not hating but Susan G Komen gets so much money from so many other organizations, I bet the WWE stuff is probably a drop in the hat for them. ww5.komen.org/AboutUs/FinancialInformation.htmlLooking at the audited statements from 2013 makes it look like that they have/had 430 million in assets. There's a spreadsheet that adress a lot of their income and it has tons of big numbers that I don't totally understand, lol. Point being, I dont think the WWE thing is truly going to hurt them, and something is better than nothing. I think they still gain more from the relationship than the WWE. According to my GF, they are also hard to work with as a charity. Her company wanted to do a promotion for them, but they made it difficult somehow. I never got the details. Interesting little article here. lisabadams.com/2012/02/03/why-i-divorced-the-susan-g-komen-foundation-years-ago/Some charity organizations really seem to take an "we're above you" approach to dealing with certain people/companies. It's almost not worth their time, for a few thousand bucks (at most, usually) in donations, to go out of their way to work with you to make something happen. "We can go over here, to WWE and they'll promote us, talk about us all month, and bring us several hundred thousands/millions of dollars -- and we have to do nothing vs. we have to help you get stuff in line, may have to send someone to help organize, and have no guarantee you'll make 5 bucks, let alone 5 grand"... Sad, but true. A lot of charities are run more like businesses, than charities.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 30, 2014 2:31:06 GMT -5
They are ed up for many reasons but giving less to that "charity" isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 30, 2014 2:39:33 GMT -5
Their entire partnership with Susan G. Komen has always just come across as a huge publicity stunt. The way they constantly talk about it and seem to go over the top trying to draw mainstream attention to their partnership just seems so wrong to me. It especially looks bad considering they never devote any other time to raising awareness for the hundreds of other types of cancers that are out there. exactly
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 30, 2014 2:46:10 GMT -5
They can't afford to because they are rapidly LOSING MONEY. This entire year they've lost hundreds of millions of dollars, both personally and as a company. They're on a downward spiral financially. I don't understand why you can't grasp the concept that making no profit would lose them money simply because they aren't making profits anywhere right now. 100% of proceeds donated = break even 20% of proceeds donated = profit WWE = Financial downward spiral WWE needs money, therefore cannot afford to simply break even. They're still doing more than almost every other company out there. There's literally no reason to be complaining about them donating ANYTHING. If they didn't make people aware and didn't donate a dime, then fine, be pissed. EDIT: I get that you don't understand basic business models, but when you're losing as much money as WWE is, breaking even is considered a loss. Last year, they weren't in nearly the crappy situation they are this year. Keep in mind, they've lost over $100M+ this year alone, that is a HUGE number (Which I think is triple that, but I'm not googling it right now). It's not that I don't think he grasps the basic business principles you're throwing at him -- they're pretty common sense -- but it seems OP is somewhat blinded by a personal interest in the subject of breast cancer (understandable). And when you have a vested interest in something, and you hear of a company giving 100% of their proceeds to a cause, then SUDDENLY they're like "we can only give 20% now" -- I can see how that's a shock to some people. I agree, in general, that 20% is better than nothing. If they make a million dollars from T-shirt sales (25 bucks a shirt, 40,000 shirts...not an unrealistic number) -- that's still 200,000 bucks SGK didn't have before that. ADDED to the promotion WWE gives the org, and topic (regardless of how forced it does feel, at times) -- I still think SGK is coming out on top here. It's unfortunate that WWE isn't giving 100%. I DO feel that they may have been able to find SOMEWHERE else to get some money in there, but -- by my example, that's $800,000 they didn't have before...that's a LOT of money toward running ANY company. Personally, I think the bigger story here is that WWE is in SERIOUS dire straights if they're HAVING to do this. The possibilities that could befall WWE in the next decade are difficult for me to even wrap my head around, unless they somehow manage to make it mainstream, again. And the Production crew has to drive themselves from city to city? That's not going to last. You gotta REALLY love what you're doing to do that, and I doubt WWE is paying them enough. I love film, and I love WWE, but if I had the job, and that went down it'd be a "Peace" sort of situation. What may end up working in WWE's best interest is setting up 4-6 Production HQs throughout the Country, and hiring a staff, and then they're traveled around those areas. Each HQ covers 6-8 States. That way you're not traveling vehicles all over the Country, at all times. Just an idea. OR hiring someone to travel several months in advance to hire production staff in each city they're needed. There's no shortage of PAs/Camera Ops/etc in a given town, these days. I'd work for WWE for a night, or two, locally. Walk away with a few hundred bucks, and get the experience. Awesome. But -- WWE may be a sinking ship, if this is the situation. Eesh. Thank you for understanding.
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Sept 30, 2014 2:53:41 GMT -5
It's not that I don't think he grasps the basic business principles you're throwing at him -- they're pretty common sense -- but it seems OP is somewhat blinded by a personal interest in the subject of breast cancer (understandable). And when you have a vested interest in something, and you hear of a company giving 100% of their proceeds to a cause, then SUDDENLY they're like "we can only give 20% now" -- I can see how that's a shock to some people. I agree, in general, that 20% is better than nothing. If they make a million dollars from T-shirt sales (25 bucks a shirt, 40,000 shirts...not an unrealistic number) -- that's still 200,000 bucks SGK didn't have before that. ADDED to the promotion WWE gives the org, and topic (regardless of how forced it does feel, at times) -- I still think SGK is coming out on top here. It's unfortunate that WWE isn't giving 100%. I DO feel that they may have been able to find SOMEWHERE else to get some money in there, but -- by my example, that's $800,000 they didn't have before...that's a LOT of money toward running ANY company. Personally, I think the bigger story here is that WWE is in SERIOUS dire straights if they're HAVING to do this. The possibilities that could befall WWE in the next decade are difficult for me to even wrap my head around, unless they somehow manage to make it mainstream, again. And the Production crew has to drive themselves from city to city? That's not going to last. You gotta REALLY love what you're doing to do that, and I doubt WWE is paying them enough. I love film, and I love WWE, but if I had the job, and that went down it'd be a "Peace" sort of situation. What may end up working in WWE's best interest is setting up 4-6 Production HQs throughout the Country, and hiring a staff, and then they're traveled around those areas. Each HQ covers 6-8 States. That way you're not traveling vehicles all over the Country, at all times. Just an idea. OR hiring someone to travel several months in advance to hire production staff in each city they're needed. There's no shortage of PAs/Camera Ops/etc in a given town, these days. I'd work for WWE for a night, or two, locally. Walk away with a few hundred bucks, and get the experience. Awesome. But -- WWE may be a sinking ship, if this is the situation. Eesh. Thank you for understanding. I do understand, and we all get a little intense at times, particularly when it comes to something that's a topic related to life and death, or that we're passionate about, but there were a few times here that you did get a bit -- snippy -- with people who were just trying to explain the opposite side of the situation. I get where you're coming from -- but I also get WHY WWE is doing this. To add to that, WWE may very well be doing it BECAUSE SGK is only giving a fraction of their money away, too. Why give my money (that I clearly need, in WWE's case) to an organization that is just going to use the vast majority of it to pay their board members?...the higher ups at WWE are smarter than that. If ANYTHING, there has to be a better cancer organization out there for them to network with. But Idk if there's one with the name value? It's hard to say, but -- I say give the benefit of the doubt, at the moment. WWE is clearly suffering hard times (you can see the #s backing it up)...Idk about anyone else, but I do know that I try to donate to several causes throughout the year, but sadly, when it comes down to it, if I can't afford too -- I can't afford too. It happens.
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 30, 2014 3:01:30 GMT -5
Thank you for understanding. I do understand, and we all get a little intense at times, particularly when it comes to something that's a topic related to life and death, or that we're passionate about, but there were a few times here that you did get a bit -- snippy -- with people who were just trying to explain the opposite side of the situation. I get where you're coming from -- but I also get WHY WWE is doing this. To add to that, WWE may very well be doing it BECAUSE SGK is only giving a fraction of their money away, too. Why give my money (that I clearly need, in WWE's case) to an organization that is just going to use the vast majority of it to pay their board members?...the higher ups at WWE are smarter than that. If ANYTHING, there has to be a better cancer organization out there for them to network with. But Idk if there's one with the name value? It's hard to say, but -- I say give the benefit of the doubt, at the moment. WWE is clearly suffering hard times (you can see the #s backing it up)...Idk about anyone else, but I do know that I try to donate to several causes throughout the year, but sadly, when it comes down to it, if I can't afford too -- I can't afford too. It happens. I would rather they focus more on helping the kids.
|
|