|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 30, 2014 10:02:53 GMT -5
I shook my head and smiled at this like ScarJo in your sig. Only a lot less pretty.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Sept 30, 2014 13:03:32 GMT -5
People need to do some math. (Ill use small numbers)
Lets say you make 500 pink Hulkamania shirts that cost $1 each to make. You sell only 4 of them @ $25...Cause lets be honest, how many people want a pink Hulkamania shirt...The rest are donated to 3rd world countries or some other charities...
Cost to make shirts- $500 Donation to SGK- $20
Once you take the other 496 shirts and donate them, recycle them, trash them, whatever....Your profits off those 500 shirts are now negative.
|
|
adecw
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 10, 2012 16:27:11 GMT -5
Posts: 1,060
|
Post by adecw on Sept 30, 2014 13:28:45 GMT -5
they wont cure something the governments don't want cured cancer is a big business unfortunately
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Sept 30, 2014 13:33:37 GMT -5
As sad as it is to say, breast cancer is an "in" disease. It's mainstream. It's the go-to cause for any company wanting to boost its public image. WWE is just one among a long line of companies who do the same thing, some of which probably donate even less than WWE.
It's hard for me to feel bad, really. It's well known that the Komen foundation isn't exactly generous with their donations received. If WWE really wanted to make an impact, they'd choose a different company. The fact that they're partnered with Komen in the first place shows how much more valuable the name is to them than the cause.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazyness on Sept 30, 2014 13:58:55 GMT -5
Companies have to make a profit to succeed. Susan G. Komen's charity thing is one of the largest when it comes to Breast Cancer. Many other companies and organizations are also signed on with the Susan G. Komen thing. WWE has also had budget cuts during the last few months.
Now, as unfortunate as it may seem for those with this terrible disease, Breast Cancer is probably gets the most money donated out of all of the diseases(I could be wrong).
And let's remember, it's not exactly about the money that you raise, it's more about the awareness that you raise.
|
|
|
Post by Andrewghbk99 on Sept 30, 2014 14:13:59 GMT -5
Ok I understand your point but atleast there donating something. They don't have to donate anything at all. Then what would you say? "Wwe is messed up" bc they don't acknowledge breast cancer or help out?
Look at how many organizations could have that argument. Atleast there helping out.
You could have came about this a little more professional. Instead of cursing and lashing out just simply said, " I don't find it right that there doing this" and so on
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 30, 2014 14:38:33 GMT -5
In case you don't know, "PROCEEDS" is the money you have AFTER you cover the overhead cost. That means WWE doesn't lose ANYTHING if they donate "100% OF THE PROCEEDS". WWE has a phuck ton of money, and they are straight-up PROFITING off of the breast cancer merchandise, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. My grandma died from breast cancer, so I'm appreciate of charities like these, but when WWE goes from 100% proceeds to 20%, when it costs them nothing in the first place? WTF? So it costs nothing to print all of those shirts and other merchandise and then to mail them all across the world? Damn show me what manufacturethey use so I can get myself some free clothing Do you not know what "overhead cost" means? That's already taken care of before proceeds. Geez.
|
|
|
Post by iamkrang on Sept 30, 2014 14:39:31 GMT -5
WWE is not " ed up". They are supporting a cause giving 20% proceeds along with publicity. They do not have to give 100%. For example Panera Bread donates 100% of their proceeds from the Pink Ribbon bagel tomorrow. The rest of the month it's only 10%. Are they " ed up" as a corporation for not giving 100% all month? Also, supporting charities and causes is called cause marketing. The idea is to not only support a cause, but turn a profit. The feel good aspect makes people appreciate and feel good about the position the company has taken thus making them proud customers all year.
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 30, 2014 14:41:31 GMT -5
Ok I understand your point but atleast there donating something. They don't have to donate anything at all. Then what would you say? "Wwe is messed up" bc they don't acknowledge breast cancer or help out? Look at how many organizations could have that argument. Atleast there helping out. You could have came about this a little more professional. Instead of cursing and lashing out just simply said, " I don't find it right that there doing this" and so on It's the fact that they dropped their proceeds by 80% and are now profiting 80% from the CANCER shirts. If they donated 20% of REGULAR gear, I wouldn't have a problem. But they are PROFITING from the CANCER gear. That's my gripe. It's not about the numbers, it's about the ideology behind it.
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Sept 30, 2014 14:47:58 GMT -5
To be fair if they donated 100% to Coleman all that money would just go to suing other charities and paying their overpaid executives.
|
|
|
Post by Andrewghbk99 on Sept 30, 2014 15:04:16 GMT -5
Ok I understand your point but atleast there donating something. They don't have to donate anything at all. Then what would you say? "Wwe is messed up" bc they don't acknowledge breast cancer or help out? Look at how many organizations could have that argument. Atleast there helping out. You could have came about this a little more professional. Instead of cursing and lashing out just simply said, " I don't find it right that there doing this" and so on It's the fact that they dropped their proceeds by 80% and are now profiting 80% from the CANCER shirts. If they donated 20% of REGULAR gear, I wouldn't have a problem. But they are PROFITING from the CANCER gear. That's my gripe. It's not about the numbers, it's about the ideology behind it. Ok thats understandable. But that's all you had to say in a say calm matter and I don't think people would have jumped down your throat or being so defensive. I understand you are very passionate it seems about breast cancer, as am I because my mom survived twice from it but just discuss your anger in a positive calm way, and then there will be no fighting. We can all have a discussion
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Sept 30, 2014 20:21:03 GMT -5
People need to do some math. (Ill use small numbers) Lets say you make 500 pink Hulkamania shirts that cost $1 each to make. You sell only 4 of them @ $25...Cause lets be honest, how many people want a pink Hulkamania shirt...The rest are donated to 3rd world countries or some other charities... Cost to make shirts- $500 Donation to SGK- $20 Once you take the other 496 shirts and donate them, recycle them, trash them, whatever....Your profits off those 500 shirts are now negative. I used to have Hulkamania shirts in different colors and had yellow, red, white and black. I ended up selling the red and black shirts, but I wouldve loved to have a pink Hulkamania shirt back when I had a collection.
|
|
Sonnen
Main Eventer
Joined on: Aug 16, 2010 8:42:36 GMT -5
Posts: 3,261
|
Post by Sonnen on Sept 30, 2014 20:53:36 GMT -5
The bigger issue is who they're donating to. Such a disgusting ing company, pick a good charity.
|
|
|
Post by Rontaro13 on Sept 30, 2014 21:39:35 GMT -5
At least they're donating SOMETHING to a good cause. Would you rather get 20% of your money someone helped you raised or none of it?
|
|
|
Post by Ian from 616Entertainment. on Sept 30, 2014 21:48:32 GMT -5
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. A product WE don't like? Please only speak for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Andrewghbk99 on Sept 30, 2014 21:56:48 GMT -5
The bigger issue is who they're donating to. Such a disgusting ing company, pick a good charity. What exactly are you trying to say? That donating to breast cancer is t good? Bc my mom along others moms have had this terrible disease and for you to say something along those lines is unacceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Sept 30, 2014 22:00:13 GMT -5
Susan G. Komen is a horrible charity anyways. They raise money for breast cancer "awareness." Little to no money is actually used for research for a cure, it pretty much all is used to pay employees and fund more marketing for itself.
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Sept 30, 2014 22:53:04 GMT -5
The bigger issue is who they're donating to. Such a disgusting ing company, pick a good charity. What exactly are you trying to say? That donating to breast cancer is t good? Bc my mom along others moms have had this terrible disease and for you to say something along those lines is unacceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong Most money raised for Komen goes to paying the employees of Komen and giving themselves more marketing. It's basically just around for people to talk about Breast Cancer, rather than actually helping people with breast cancer. Only a very small amount of money will actually go to breast cancer research.
|
|
|
Post by Robert69 on Sept 30, 2014 23:04:36 GMT -5
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. A product WE don't like? Please only speak for yourself. No, no, you're right. Clearly I'm mistaken. Obviously the slipping numbers over the years aren't enough; now all the "welp, time to watch Football" "I missed it, what happened? Oh nothing, as usual?" "WWE is getting worse by the week" comments I see are completely fabricated by me, to prove my point. And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling board members, and that darn dog, too!!! Don't condescend towards me. I disagreed with you in a very respectful manner, and then offered up my reasoning why I disagreed. I was respectful in my disagreement; be respectful in your rebuttal. My reasoning is based off of a mindset that is clearly shown by the IWC, DAILY, here on these very boards, AND in mainstream public, with the dwindling viewership. Clearly, there's a basis for me to use "we" and not "I".
|
|
|
Post by Ian from 616Entertainment. on Sept 30, 2014 23:17:02 GMT -5
A product WE don't like? Please only speak for yourself. No, no, you're right. Clearly I'm mistaken. Obviously the slipping numbers over the years aren't enough; now all the "welp, time to watch Football" "I missed it, what happened? Oh nothing, as usual?" "WWE is getting worse by the week" comments I see are completely fabricated by me, to prove my point. And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling board members, and that darn dog, too!!! Don't condescend towards me. I disagreed with you in a very respectful manner, and then offered up my reasoning why I disagreed. I was respectful in my disagreement; be respectful in your rebuttal. My reasoning is based off of a mindset that is clearly shown by the IWC, DAILY, here on these very boards, AND in mainstream public, with the dwindling viewership. Clearly, there's a basis for me to use "we" and not "I". I was disrespectful? Dude, you need to take a break from the internet. I used "please" for Rang's sake. Relax. Feel free to talk about slipping numbers and people not enjoying the product, sure, those people exist. But that's not everyone. It's certainly not me. I think WWE is the best its been in the last 10 years and I'm having a blast.
|
|