|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 29, 2014 23:30:17 GMT -5
The past two years, WWE donated 100% of the proceeds of the pink shirts to Susan G. Komen. Now they're only donating 20%. They're whoring out breast cancer victims just so they can get positive media coverage, and sell more shirts - meanwhile undercutting their "charity" from before. It's ing disgusting. *edit/update* 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.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 4, 2024 8:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 23:32:30 GMT -5
Free money is free money.
Besides, they are also involved in the Connor's Cure charity now.
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Sept 29, 2014 23:32:36 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.
|
|
|
Post by Mox on Sept 29, 2014 23:32:58 GMT -5
They might be trying to stop the bleeding.
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 29, 2014 23:33:51 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.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 4, 2024 8:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 23:35:45 GMT -5
Pretty much my reaction summed up:
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Sept 29, 2014 23:36:18 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. How about you donate 100% of your paycheck to Breast Cancer charities, since you feel so strongly about it.
|
|
|
Post by Mox on Sept 29, 2014 23:37:06 GMT -5
People are losing their jobs. Dude...dude.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Abed on Sept 29, 2014 23:37:59 GMT -5
Just by mentioning Susan G Komen foundation, WWE is giving them free press and recognition that can't be measured in a monetary value. I get that some people will see it as a tax write off but again WWE is one of the few companies out there I see actually donating and mentioning their organization all month long.
And not for nothing, I doubt WWE gets enough media attention from this to actually make a difference in the amount of viewers watching their product because they make themselves look like good people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 4, 2024 8:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 23:38:32 GMT -5
|
|
WWE Common Terry
Main Eventer
Joined on: Dec 17, 2003 13:48:53 GMT -5
Posts: 3,803
|
Post by WWE Common Terry on Sept 29, 2014 23:43:01 GMT -5
Doesn't the foundation itself only give a small portion of money raised to patients?
|
|
|
Post by Darkhawk on Sept 29, 2014 23:43:01 GMT -5
They are donating and making it aware to the audience that's good enough. If you have a problem with it then why don't you donate your whole pay check. Don't bash WWE because they don't donate 100% to Breast Cancer when you have donating nothing, it's illogical.
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 29, 2014 23:44:44 GMT -5
They are donating and making it aware to the audience that's good enough. If you have a problem with it then why don't you donate your whole pay check. Don't bash WWE because they don't donate 100% to Breast Cancer when you have donating nothing, it's illogical. 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?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Abed on Sept 29, 2014 23:45:25 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? Lots of other places don't even make mention of the disease during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, or do anything about it to help promote finding a cure, so how are they any less "evil" then WWE? As someone who has worked in healthcare marketing before, just know that the majority of the proceeds usually go to promoting more awareness for the organization/finding a cure, than is donated to actually finding a cure.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 4, 2024 8:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 23:48:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Sept 29, 2014 23:54:19 GMT -5
What are you trying to get at? Do you not understand what I wrote? THEY DON'T LOSE MONEY FROM DONATING PROCEEDS
|
|
|
Post by HVMMONS on Sept 29, 2014 23:56:13 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? WWE Budget Cuts Continue – Tour Buses No Longer Usedwww.prowrestling.com/wwe-budget-cuts-continue-tour-buses-longer-used/Awh. WWE cut BNB's stage lift?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 4, 2024 8:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 23:57:04 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.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 4, 2024 8:24:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 23:57:13 GMT -5
What are you trying to get at? Do you not understand what I wrote? THEY DON'T LOSE MONEY FROM DONATING PROCEEDSI'm out, to the Bartcave!
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Sept 29, 2014 23:58:06 GMT -5
So a charity that takes advantage of the money they collect, is being taken advantage of?
What shock.
|
|