Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 21:19:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 3:10:56 GMT -5
I guess all that's needed is buckets of ice water then.
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Sept 30, 2014 3:21:18 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". Bro, what you're describing is not even remotely close to being "ghetto".
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 30, 2014 3:36:14 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". Bro, what you're describing is not even remotely close to being "ghetto". Well I think it is. If WWE really wanted to help them out, they would not be making money off the cancer shirts, the profits would go to the charity. The shirts aren't even reduced compared to the normal ones. I could understand if they were cheaper than the other shirts to incentivize more people buying them, but they're not. You don't see anything strange with that?
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Sept 30, 2014 3:40:20 GMT -5
There's no shortage of PAs/Camera Ops/etc in a given town, these days. WWE uses the cream of the crop cam ops and production crew, guys that are very experienced in the WWE system and the specialised WWE way of working -- they're not going to just hire any inexperienced Tom, Dick and Harry in every town. 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. Agreed. Anyone who spends time raising awareness or working for a charity is a douche unless they are focusing on every single charity in the world. Actually, I've changed my mind. Just realised that it's silly and unrealistic to think that everyone focusing on a charity has to focus on all of them to avoid "looking bad."
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 21:19:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 3:41:24 GMT -5
Bro, what you're describing is not even remotely close to being "ghetto". Well I think it is. If WWE really wanted to help them out, they would not be making money off the cancer shirts, the profits would go to the charity. The shirts aren't even reduced compared to the normal ones. I could understand if they were cheaper than the other shirts to incentivize more people buying them, but they're not. You don't see anything strange with that? No. WWE doesn't HAVE to donate anything. They don't HAVE to acknowledge them. They do it because they want to. I'm done with the topic though. Why they're doing it the way they are is blantantly obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Beast on Sept 30, 2014 4:20:10 GMT -5
Apparently SGK has no problem with them donating 20% of the proceeds otherwise they wouldn't be partnering with WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Sept 30, 2014 5:00:41 GMT -5
Bro, what you're describing is not even remotely close to being "ghetto". Well I think it is. If WWE really wanted to help them out, they would not be making money off the cancer shirts, the profits would go to the charity. The shirts aren't even reduced compared to the normal ones. I could understand if they were cheaper than the other shirts to incentivize more people buying them, but they're not. You don't see anything strange with that? You can think it is all you'd like, but the actual fact is what you described isn't the definition of "ghetto".. I do see your point, you just picked the wrong word to describe the point you were trying to make. When it comes to multimillion or billion dollar companies.. Once you reach corporation status the criminal acts only become corrupt. And it's not as strange as you'd think, man. There have been SO many "charity" organizations under federal review from the FBI, IRS, and the almighty BBB.. I mean charities have been skimming their actual "donations" for decades.. And if I'm not mistaken some pretty damaging things were revealed about the Susan G. Komen foundation, like the CEO received a 64% salary increase while the cause itself was losing a ton of money.. Once this was revealed the CEO said she would be stepping down.. This was like 2 years ago I think, and she's still the CEO.. Otherwise, I don't believe the WWE would be doing what they're currently doing with the merchandise sales percentage.. Then again, with all the money WWE has lost in the last 6 months.. Who knows the true reason they did this.. The point is WWE isn't taking advantage of a great cause and a helpless organization.. They're kinda fighting fire with fire. And I'm just saying that "ghetto" was definitely not the term to use.
|
|
ace
Superstar
Joined on: Sept 28, 2012 19:36:47 GMT -5
Posts: 906
|
Post by ace on Sept 30, 2014 5:47:33 GMT -5
inb4thelock.
Wouldn't you rather have 20% of something rather then zero?
|
|
|
Post by Gazza on Sept 30, 2014 6:16:18 GMT -5
Seriously? This is actually a thing?
Even by donating 20% they're donating a lot more than other companies.
|
|
|
Post by "The Perfect Ten" Mizard on Sept 30, 2014 6:16:47 GMT -5
Next year it will be 10%
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 30, 2014 7:23:16 GMT -5
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. You mean like how they support the Connor stuff? Yea, the WWE are such bastards. Yea, it was better when they gave 100% but they can't afford to break even this year. They've lost over a quarter of a billion dollars. They're still giving to SGK and doing work for the Connor foundation. I'm gonna shut down my subscription to the WWE Network, damn this greedy company to hell.
|
|
|
Post by Irish Wrestling Entertainment on Sept 30, 2014 7:27:46 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. As far as I'm aware, the OP completely understands this. What he's annoyed about is that WWE are making this profit through a breast cancer 'charity'. I don't necessarily think that's a bad point. I think it's pretty disgusting to make a profit out of charity myself.. simply because it kind of defeats the entire purpose of charity. The entire concept is supposed to be based around helping others.. but in reality they're mostly helping themselves; and that sucks. I don't know a lot about the charity they're helping and if they are also making profit out of the cause, then that also sucks. I know that we live in a society where profit is key; but it's a bit crappy to make it in this way. It's very easy to see through it.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Angry Cena on Sept 30, 2014 8:00:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Sept 30, 2014 8:35:55 GMT -5
They don't have to give them anything. They could just ignore them like so many other companies do. Whether it's 20% or 100% I praise WWE for taking the time and effort to help out. And to those who think this is for publicity only... need to get a life. Grow up and get over yourself.
I do however agree with those that say that the money should go to all cancer research in general instead of just Breast Cancer. My mom had sever esophageal cancer and was given a 5% chance of defeating it. I thank god she beat the odds. But my grandmother had a similar cancer years later and unfortunately she did not.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 30, 2014 8:58:00 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. As far as I'm aware, the OP completely understands this. What he's annoyed about is that WWE are making this profit through a breast cancer 'charity'. I don't necessarily think that's a bad point. I think it's pretty disgusting to make a profit out of charity myself.. simply because it kind of defeats the entire purpose of charity. The entire concept is supposed to be based around helping others.. but in reality they're mostly helping themselves; and that sucks. I don't know a lot about the charity they're helping and if they are also making profit out of the cause, then that also sucks. I know that we live in a society where profit is key; but it's a bit crappy to make it in this way. It's very easy to see through it. Ah, I see what you're saying. Yea, I guess it makes sense that it's not great the way they're profiting off of charity. Times are hard though. Gotta make money any possible way probably.
|
|
|
Post by Yambag Jones on Sept 30, 2014 9:01:11 GMT -5
In the WWE's defense, they could be giving a smaller percentage...
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 21:19:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 9:14:27 GMT -5
How about you donate 100% of your paycheck to Breast Cancer charities, since you feel so strongly about it. 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
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 21:19:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 9:18:26 GMT -5
And most likely the reason WWE chose this foundation to donate too is because several WWE employees have had family members with it. One being Layla who's mother died from it
|
|
|
Post by Irish Wrestling Entertainment on Sept 30, 2014 9:39:08 GMT -5
They don't have to give them anything. They could just ignore them like so many other companies do. Whether it's 20% or 100% I praise WWE for taking the time and effort to help out. And to those who think this is for publicity only... need to get a life. Grow up and get over yourself. I do however agree with those that say that the money should go to all cancer research in general instead of just Breast Cancer. My mom had sever esophageal cancer and was given a 5% chance of defeating it. I thank god she beat the odds. But my grandmother had a similar cancer years later and unfortunately she did not. Sorry to hear that about your grandmother, bud. May she rest in peace. I understand your argument that they could be doing nothing and that is, of course, true. It's a bit meh for me though. I think public perception of all corporations (for the most part) is way too lenient, though. In an ideal world, they'd all be using their power and global outreach to raise money for charities and contributing all the money they earn from these particular charitable campaigns. Meh. They're mostly filled with scumbags who could help but don't in search of greed; and that's the problem, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Beast on Sept 30, 2014 9:51:26 GMT -5
|
|