Philly McButterpants Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I'd rather see the NFL make more of a commitment to the http://septembeard.org/ organization, or to http://everyman-campaign.org/ rather than go all in for a month on wearing pink . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Aaron Williams taking it to a new level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Oh boy.....here we go again with another month of the he-men continuously whining about pink hats and gloves. Over/Under on the # of new threads started on this topic during October: 11.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Oh boy.....here we go again with another month of the he-men continuously whining about pink hats and gloves. Over/Under on the # of new threads started on this topic during October: 11.5 So you don't think any of the issues raised in this thread are legitimate criticisms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 So you don't think any of the issues raised in this thread are legitimate criticisms? Not really. People criticizing the NFL's choice of charitable contributions is laughable. I'd love to know how much each of the critics had in the Charitable Contributions box in Schedule A last year. And let's be honest, it wasn't for the pink crap no one would be making any such comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Not really. People criticizing the NFL's choice of charitable contributions is laughable. I'd love to know how much each of the critics had in the Charitable Contributions box in Schedule A last year. And let's be honest, it wasn't for the pink crap no one would be making any such comments. Well, when there are other relevant charities out there for causes just as worthy, for afflictions that impact the breadth of the fan base already, how can you not question whether the motive behind promoting THIS charity with such magnitude is more about breaching a new viewer market?? That seems like a very fair criticism to me. Cynical as hell, but so criticisms tend to go. And why can't anyone have a negative opinion on the "pink crap?" What about that is invalid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This thread is on a one-way highway to PPP. But I can't resist: Overkill, yes. Suspect charity, yes (read articles on how money from "awareness" is actually spent and how effective that spending is). At the expense of more relevant afflictions that are just as lethal, yes. A campaign for the campaign's sake, you bet. Kind of lame, I think so. The money doesn't go to a "good cause." Mostly because there's no correlation between screenings and effectively thwarting fatality. http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all Good article! Somewhere along the way, breast cancer awareness became an end in itself. As the article pointed out, breast cancer awareness represents an excellent opportunity for charities to raise a lot of money and scare a lot of women. It's also a good opportunity for companies to "pinkwash" their dirty deeds; or to market to women. If they were ever to find a cure for breast cancer, that whole gravy train would be eliminated. Maybe that's why only a tiny percentage of the money raised for breast cancer awareness is spent on finding cures. My understanding is also that most of the money spent on research goes towards varients of chemo/radiation; even though there may not be much untapped potential with such treatments. On the other hand, research into alternatives to chemo/radiation typically receives very little funding; even though this is where there's the most potential for progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Well, when there are other relevant charities out there for causes just as worthy, for afflictions that impact the breadth of the fan base already, how can you not question whether the motive behind promoting THIS charity with such magnitude is more about breaching a new viewer market?? That seems like a very fair criticism to me. Cynical as hell, but so criticisms tend to go. What's wrong with breaching a new market? Now operating a business intelligently is something to be criticized? Charitable contributions are not allowed to provide any possible residual benefit to the donor? That's news to me. And who are you to rank the worthiness of charities when you're talking about someone else's money being donated? Nothing in this conversation is more cynical than that. And why can't anyone have a negative opinion on the "pink crap?" What about that is invalid? You can have a negative opinion on the pink crap. It's juvenile and petty, but you're welcome to it. It also highlights a complete lack of understanding for how marketing and awareness raising in charities works, but that's ok too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Good article! Somewhere along the way, breast cancer awareness became an end in itself. As the article pointed out, breast cancer awareness represents an excellent opportunity for charities to raise a lot of money and scare a lot of women. It's also a good opportunity for companies to "pinkwash" their dirty deeds; or to market to women. If they were ever to find a cure for breast cancer, that whole gravy train would be eliminated. Maybe that's why only a tiny percentage of the money raised for breast cancer awareness is spent on finding cures. My understanding is also that most of the money spent on research goes towards varients of chemo/radiation; even though there may not be much untapped potential with such treatments. On the other hand, research into alternatives to chemo/radiation typically receives very little funding; even though this is where there's the most potential for progress. Excellent, though (again) extremely cynical point you made there. It's like McDonald's funding research connecting the correlations between sodium and heart disease/diabetes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Not really. People criticizing the NFL's choice of charitable contributions is laughable. I'd love to know how much each of the critics had in the Charitable Contributions box in Schedule A last year. And let's be honest, it wasn't for the pink crap no one would be making any such comments. So you would have no problem wearing pink to work for a quarter of your year- or 13 weeks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 What's wrong with breaching a new market? Now operating a business intelligently is something to be criticized? Charitable contributions are not allowed to provide any possible residual benefit to the donor? That's news to me. And who are you to rank the worthiness of charities when you're talking about someone else's money being donated? Nothing in this conversation is more cynicalthan that. You can have a negative opinion on the pink crap. It's juvenile and petty, but you're welcome to it. It also highlights a complete lack of understanding for how marketing and awareness raising in charities works, but that's ok too. Haha, okay. Well, let's back up for a second. Nobody said the NFL isn't entitled to new markets. But if that's their intent, it's an awfully exploitative means of achieving it. And believe it or not, I do understand that's the point. But the way you've framed it, if Comish Goddell were to fly to every stadium Sunday and look over each of the pre-game, trotted onto the field breast cancer survivors and say: thanks for all the new fans, ladies, nobody would/should be shocked. Right. THIS IS ABOUT THE CURE! they'd say. In fact, I'd go so far as to say (and I know you'll shame for speculating here. how dare I?) that if the NFL were to release a press statement even implying that new markets have been beneficial outcome for them in their partnership with breast cancer charities, said charities would fire back a statement right away saying how disappointed they were that an organization like the NFL would stoop so low as to use the opportunities created from the pain and suffering of women as a means to attract new fans. Hell, they might even pull the whole damn plug. But that's unlikely, because lest we ignore they benefits they get from the NFL. I also never qualified any charity as unworthy, rather with all things being equal, there are other charities just as worthy that get no recognition because they don't win new markets. And--just my opinion here--I think that's kinda ****ty. OPM, sure. But just to clarify, I donate to friends who do Movember. Not looking for props here, but don't imply that I'm just a spectator in the charity game. And again, I understand how marketing works, and how the "pink crap" factors in. If you were to read any of the criticisms here rather than dismiss them out of hand, you'd know that already it's been mentioned in this thread that this marketing campaign is precisely that. But it's one that gathers its fuel from a nerve that's pretty easy to prey upon: death and suffering. So, again. In this case, not a critique of breast cancer research or the lives it stands to impact, but rather a critique of an opportunistic money grab that's come to be characterized by a branding behemoth that's now turning people off: enough pink already. I think that's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) What's wrong with breaching a new market? Now operating a business intelligently is something to be criticized? Charitable contributions are not allowed to provide any possible residual benefit to the donor? That's news to me. And who are you to rank the worthiness of charities when you're talking about someone else's money being donated? Nothing in this conversation is more cynicalthan that. You can have a negative opinion on the pink crap. It's juvenile and petty, but you're welcome to it. It also highlights a complete lack of understanding for how marketing and awareness raising in charities works, but that's ok too. It's not new. That's the whole point. It's played out now. Everyone is aware of breast cancer. Call me He Man, GI Joe, I don't care but I grew up watching this game I love and I freaking hate that the players wear pink for a quarter of the games. I'm sure we could place you in the "I don't care if they wear pink with purple poka dots as long as the win" camp but clearly, not everyone feels that way. I like tradition. I do not like black third jerseys, I did not like the new nike collars and I certainly do not like the pink thing. Edited October 2, 2013 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 So you would have no problem wearing pink to work for a quarter of your year- or 13 weeks? No I would not, I have pink socks, shirts. No pink pants though. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 No I would not, I have pink socks, shirts. No pink pants though. . . . Yeah. So do I. But one quarter of my wardrobe is not pink. That was the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Yeah. So do I. But one quarter of my wardrobe is not pink. That was the question. They wear pink one day a week for ~4 weeks. While yes a quarter of the season. Its 4 days. Which is a very small time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 They wear pink one day a week for ~4 weeks. While yes a quarter of the season. Its 4 days. Which is a very small time frame. Dude. Seriously? The Bills have a uniform. The Bills wear that uniform for less than 3/4 of their games. It's not that difficult of a concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 So you would have no problem wearing pink to work for a quarter of your year- or 13 weeks? If I had willingly signed a contract stating that I would wear the uniform provided by my employer, no. p.s. love your rationale of 4 weeks = 13 weeks because guys making millions of dollars for 4 months work only work....4 months. Dude. Seriously? The Bills have a uniform. The Bills wear that uniform for less than 3/4 of their games. It's not that difficult of a concept. And they have a uniform this month too, it just happens to have a little pink trim on it. That's a pretty silly arguement considering how often teams change their uniforms these days. It's not new. That's the whole point. It's played out now. Everyone is aware of breast cancer. Call me He Man, GI Joe, I don't care but I grew up watching this game I love and I freaking hate that the players wear pink for a quarter of the games. I'm sure we could place you in the "I don't care if they wear pink with purple poka dots as long as the win" camp but clearly, not everyone feels that way. I like tradition. I do not like black third jerseys, I did not like the new nike collars and I certainly do not like the pink thing. Here you go smart guy, see if you can manage to read this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/survey-finds-challenges-in-breast-cancer-awareness/ 25% of women over 50 have never had a mamogram, 50% have never discussed it with a doctor and fewer are doing self exams than were doing it six years ago. Yeah, breast cancer is really all "played out". That a grown man would have this much of a problem with having to see the color pink on a TV screen that he would type something so ignorant is almost unfathomable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 My son's school uses pink for Breast Cancer Awareness and also uses pink for their anti-bullying campaign. As a result, one of his favorite colors is pink ... just for the meanings alone. The other day he expressed concern that if he wore one of those rubber wrist band things that said "PEACE," that people would judge him because it's pink. I told him if anyone judges you simply because of a color, then that person is a) insecure and b) doesn't deserve your time. As far as the NFL goes, the campaign makes money. The money goes toward saving people's lives. I'm not sure how anyone could have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) Haha, okay. Well, let's back up for a second. Nobody said the NFL isn't entitled to new markets. But if that's their intent, it's an awfully exploitative means of achieving it. And believe it or not, I do understand that's the point. But the way you've framed it, if Comish Goddell were to fly to every stadium Sunday and look over each of the pre-game, trotted onto the field breast cancer survivors and say: thanks for all the new fans, ladies, nobody would/should be shocked. Right. THIS IS ABOUT THE CURE! they'd say. In fact, I'd go so far as to say (and I know you'll shame for speculating here. how dare I?) that if the NFL were to release a press statement even implying that new markets have been beneficial outcome for them in their partnership with breast cancer charities, said charities would fire back a statement right away saying how disappointed they were that an organization like the NFL would stoop so low as to use the opportunities created from the pain and suffering of women as a means to attract new fans. Hell, they might even pull the whole damn plug. But that's unlikely, because lest we ignore they benefits they get from the NFL. I also never qualified any charity as unworthy, rather with all things being equal, there are other charities just as worthy that get no recognition because they don't win new markets. And--just my opinion here--I think that's kinda ****ty. OPM, sure. But just to clarify, I donate to friends who do Movember. Not looking for props here, but don't imply that I'm just a spectator in the charity game. And again, I understand how marketing works, and how the "pink crap" factors in. If you were to read any of the criticisms here rather than dismiss them out of hand, you'd know that already it's been mentioned in this thread that this marketing campaign is precisely that. But it's one that gathers its fuel from a nerve that's pretty easy to prey upon: death and suffering. So, again. In this case, not a critique of breast cancer research or the lives it stands to impact, but rather a critique of an opportunistic money grab that's come to be characterized by a branding behemoth that's now turning people off: enough pink already. I think that's fair. It's not exploitative in the least, it's an ancillary benefit. I'm sure there are more economical ways to connect with fans if that's their only goal. And of course the NFL isn't going to annouce that part of the reason they picked breast cancer as one of their charities is to help connect to a segment of the fan base, since some Peter King type douche would make it his new LAMP-de-jour (since 'creating scandal' is the primary goal of media these days). And as with any charity, slogans like 'It's about the cure' are just that --- slogans. There may never been a cure for cancer; in the meantime the idea is to detect it when it's early enough to stop it, which is a particularly good and useful strategy with breast cancer. And that's why they wear pink ribbons at the Walkathons and why the players wear *gasp* pink gloves for *gasp* four whole games. And I read the criticisms....from geniuses like metzelaars_lives. Waah, I have to look at the color pink and it upsets me because i'm such a lemming I let the world tell me that pink = girly. Yeah, that's deep stuff. Edited October 2, 2013 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) IIRC, didn't he wear a pink dress to the draft? And we drafted him?!?!? No wonder we've sucked so long. Edited October 2, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts