Pink October is a sham
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
It's still making money for a good cause so I wouldn't classify it as a sham. $1 million is a lot more than zero.
I'd draw a distinction between donating your own money, and using the partnership to derive donations from third-parties (fans, who buy specially branded goods), for which only a portion goes to the charity. Just like the phone call soliciations for a charity, in which 90 % of the money goes to the telemarketer, it misleads the parties donating. They think the proceeds go to the charity, when really, the revenues goes almost entirely to the NFL.
Well, I think that depends on how much the league calculates the promotion adds to its own bottom line. And, to be clear, it is only engaging in the promotion because it thinks it will add to its bottom line.
I'm guessing the value to the NFL is a lot more than $1 MM, and if that is in fact the case (but, who knows?*), then it's a total sham and they are profiting off of cancer.
*And because it's probably not directly quantifiable, they will always skate on this. But you can't tell me with a straight face that their PR, marketing, and ad sales teams don't have estimates as to how much the stunt is worth.
I'm guessing the value to the NFL is a lot more than $1 MM, and if that is in fact the case (but, who knows?*), then it's a total sham and they are profiting off of cancer.
*And because it's probably not directly quantifiable, they will always skate on this. But you can't tell me with a straight face that their PR, marketing, and ad sales teams don't have estimates as to how much the stunt is worth.
kenneycb said:
How much is the league making from the sales of their pink merchandise? I would bet that it's way more than the $1.1 million quoted in the article.
kenneycb said:
So it would be okay if SoSH had a Jimmy Fund fundraiser, raised $50K, and Nip decided to pocket $45K of it because "$5K is a lot more than zero"?
I thought somebody did this before, and it was something like 10% of all the Pink Merchandise revenue went to charity.
It would be different if the NFL said all Pink merchandise revenue went to cancer research. It doesn't. Even if it was 50% maybe a good argument.
I just remember it ended up being some ridiculously low number and it may have even been single digits.
It would be different if the NFL said all Pink merchandise revenue went to cancer research. It doesn't. Even if it was 50% maybe a good argument.
I just remember it ended up being some ridiculously low number and it may have even been single digits.
The author is a freelance writer, and if you read his past couple of articles about the NFL, you'll see he has an ax to grind against the league. Also, he doesn't appear to have honored the customary journalistic practice of seeking a comment from the league on his story; I wonder what other corners he cut. (In his defense, the author might say that his is an opinion piece that contains no original reporting, but that's not how people in this thread are treating it.)
Even assuming the author's facts are correct, the key question is how the 90% of 25% calculation compares to the NFL's usual profit on merchandise sales. I don't see a lot of fans wearing pink NFL gear, so $1.1mm a year doesn't strike me as an absurdly low estimate of what the league normally would have made on that apparel.
Certainly, the visibility of the "Pink October" campaign makes it seem as though the NFL is making a far larger donation to causes related to women's cancers, and criticizing them for that is fair. But the article goes well beyond that, and even leaving aside the reliability of the source, it's not clear that his facts support his contentions.
Even assuming the author's facts are correct, the key question is how the 90% of 25% calculation compares to the NFL's usual profit on merchandise sales. I don't see a lot of fans wearing pink NFL gear, so $1.1mm a year doesn't strike me as an absurdly low estimate of what the league normally would have made on that apparel.
Certainly, the visibility of the "Pink October" campaign makes it seem as though the NFL is making a far larger donation to causes related to women's cancers, and criticizing them for that is fair. But the article goes well beyond that, and even leaving aside the reliability of the source, it's not clear that his facts support his contentions.
This is the best I can find.
http://www.sbnation.com/2012/10/26/3498376/nfl-pink-flags-breast-cancer-charity
So NFL was asked in this one to clarify at the time, and they really didn't. Just "100% of net proceeds." While noting part goes to administration of the program.
Which anyone that has ever done accounting knows can be highly variable number depending on how you do it.
It's interesting the NFL choose net proceeds.
http://www.sbnation.com/2012/10/26/3498376/nfl-pink-flags-breast-cancer-charity
So NFL was asked in this one to clarify at the time, and they really didn't. Just "100% of net proceeds." While noting part goes to administration of the program.
Which anyone that has ever done accounting knows can be highly variable number depending on how you do it.
It's interesting the NFL choose net proceeds.
This one says it's the NFL royalty that goes to it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/16/the-nfl-is-covered-in-pink-but-only-a-sliver-of-sales-goes-to-breast-cancer-research/
The rest goes to retailers and other middlemen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/16/the-nfl-is-covered-in-pink-but-only-a-sliver-of-sales-goes-to-breast-cancer-research/
The rest goes to retailers and other middlemen.
Ah, the perils of compassionate capitalism...
The NFL has acted poorly here, however, the issue of charities for breast cancer research is not specific to the NFL. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month was started, in part, because it saved AstroZeneca money.
Furthermore, promoting awareness for targeting cancer isn't neccessarily a bad thing (although one could argue that it detracts attention from other diseases/forms of cancer).
The NFL has acted poorly here, however, the issue of charities for breast cancer research is not specific to the NFL. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month was started, in part, because it saved AstroZeneca money.
Furthermore, promoting awareness for targeting cancer isn't neccessarily a bad thing (although one could argue that it detracts attention from other diseases/forms of cancer).
And none of this accounts for what I want to believe is a fair number of women who are getting mammograms because either they, or their football-loving spouses or family members encourage it after seeing all the pink shoes and towels, etc., and thinking, "hey, I haven't been checked in a while. I should probably go do that," and a cancer is detected early enough to save them.
Buffalo Head said:
If the NFL didn't do this at all, do you really think there are people who don't see breast cancer messages at least 10-20 times a year?
And now it's time for a semi-irrelevant rant.
Are there people who aren't aware that breast cancer is a thing? I mean, it's one thing if it takes you a while to realize that you're at the age where doctors recommend you get screened for shit. It's another thing entirely to not know something exists.
Raising awareness is for diseases that most people don't know a damn thing about.
Breast cancer is pretty fucking well known. Fuck raising money for awareness, raise money for fucking research. Raise money for screenings in poor communities. Raise money for treatment for people who can't afford it. Raise money for places for women and their families to stay while they're getting treatment.
$1M for cancer research is much, much better than $0. Donating one hour of your time at the food bank once a year is also better than zero hours. Donating 1 hr and then broadcasting to everyone you know that you feed starving children is kind of, well, makes one wonder why you are actually donating that one hour.
On a separate note, does the WNBA have a testicular cancer awareness month? If they don't, they should.
On a separate note, does the WNBA have a testicular cancer awareness month? If they don't, they should.
I've made my feelings about the pinkwashing of America well-known, and while, yes, $1.1m is better than $0m, you have to take into account what some of the things being pinkwashed are and what they can actually do.
Oh, and just a reminder that there's no evidence that mammograms actually really save lives.
I don't believe that the Susan G. Komen organization wants a cure for breast cancer. Breast cancer is making them way too much fucking money.
Oh, and just a reminder that there's no evidence that mammograms actually really save lives.
I don't believe that the Susan G. Komen organization wants a cure for breast cancer. Breast cancer is making them way too much fucking money.
CaptainLaddie said:
Suffering a heart attack to save a woman from breast cancer? That's actually the most noble thing I've seen in a while!
