Another reason why the NFL's breast cancer awareness is BS

[YearbookCurfew]

"The NFL, meanwhile, keeps $45: making it a huge moneymaker for a league that already enjoys nonprofit tax-exempt status."

Of Every $100 In NFL Pink Sales, $3.54 Goes Toward Research | SportsGrid

 

[FortressX]

The NFL makes All Pro Productions look generous.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

If they're associated with Susan Komen, I wouldn't be too shocked at the low number. Komen's pretty horrible, too.

 

[Aßßynormal]

If they're associated with Susan Komen, I wouldn't be too shocked at the low number. Komen's pretty horrible, too.

Everything is a Racket these days, if true, complete bullfilth and anger. Huge reason to hate and despise the air Goodall breathes.

I've sent this link to the appropriate talking heads. Maybe someone will follow it up, see if it's true and then expose it.

 

[VrabelJr]

I love the game of football dearly. But the two biggest governing bodies around football, NCAA and NFL, are scumbag organizations. It sucks knowing I indirectly support them by loving the game.

 

[Ring 6]

Everything is a Racket these days, if true, complete bullfilth and anger. Huge reason to hate and despise the air Goodall breathes.

I've sent this link to the appropriate talking heads. Maybe someone will follow it up, see if it's true and then expose it.

I think the link is being misunderstood.
It cites a hypothetical 100% markup to estimate all of its conclusions, among other things.

The fact is that the NFL is donating 5% of the proceeds to the American Cancer Society. There is no consipiracy, nothing is being hidden or absconded.
The article has decided that the American Cancer Society uses 70.8% of its donations for research and the rest to cover operating expenses.

I'm not sure why there is or should be an outcry.

Additionally, to say 'the NFL keeps 45% of the money' is ludicrous and uninformed.
That is based upon the assumption that there is a 100% markup on the items and that there are no other expenses associated with the sale of products than the cost of the goods. Anyone in any form of business would understand how silly that is.

 

[jmt57]

No matter how they spin it, 45% of revenue to (allegedly) cover costs while a mere 3.54% actually goes to research is abysmal. The NFL and their business partners should be embarrassed by those numbers.

The NFL's use of pink is not as altruistic as it seems. | SportsonEarth.com : Ryan Basen Article

This philanthropic effort, however, has ulterior motives besides aiding the breast cancer cause. To wit:

• The NFL wants to attract and cultivate new female fans, and to enhance its image.
• The NFL's partners in this campaign -- including Pepsi, Ticketmaster and Barclays -- want to enhance their images as well.
• ACS hopes to engender support for its breast cancer awareness programs, instead of those supported by foundations with different ideas about how to counter the disease.

A Crucial Catch is an example of cause-related marketing -- using marketing strategies in a partnership to benefit both a social cause and an enterprise. The cause receives attention and funds. The enterprises' public image is enhanced, which ultimately leads to more profits. Cause marketing can be especially potent when applied to sports, because consumers have emotional attachments to teams and athletes that can easily be mined to raise awareness and funds.


If they are not really concerned with aiding breast cancer causes, then, why do the NFL and its corporate partners* orchestrate this campaign? The cynical answer is that they are more interested in their images, and in growing their products and revenues. They are seeking to attract new consumers, usually female, and to establish a positive connection with them.​

 

[Ring 6]

No matter how they spin it, 45% of revenue to (allegedly) cover costs while a mere 3.54% actually goes to research is abysmal. The NFL and their business partners should be embarrassed by those numbers.

3.54% has nothing to do with the NFL.
The NFL isn't in a joint venture with the American Cancer Society.
The NFL is selling merchandise and donating 5% of the proceeds to the ACS.
If you wish to think they should donate more, that is fine, personally, I think any person or organization should make their own choice of how to donate to the charities of their choice, and be commended for doing so.

And again, 45% is a made up number.

The NFL's use of pink is not as altruistic as it seems. | SportsonEarth.com : Ryan Basen Article

This philanthropic effort, however, has ulterior motives besides aiding the breast cancer cause. To wit:

• The NFL wants to attract and cultivate new female fans, and to enhance its image.
• The NFL's partners in this campaign -- including Pepsi, Ticketmaster and Barclays -- want to enhance their images as well.
• ACS hopes to engender support for its breast cancer awareness programs, instead of those supported by foundations with different ideas about how to counter the disease.

A Crucial Catch is an example of cause-related marketing -- using marketing strategies in a partnership to benefit both a social cause and an enterprise. The cause receives attention and funds. The enterprises' public image is enhanced, which ultimately leads to more profits. Cause marketing can be especially potent when applied to sports, because consumers have emotional attachments to teams and athletes that can easily be mined to raise awareness and funds.


If they are not really concerned with aiding breast cancer causes, then, why do the NFL and its corporate partners* orchestrate this campaign? The cynical answer is that they are more interested in their images, and in growing their products and revenues. They are seeking to attract new consumers, usually female, and to establish a positive connection with them.​

[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure where the confusion is here.
The NFL did not create a product line to sell and give all profits, or a portion of profits to cancer research, nor do they have 'business partners' in this venture.
The NFL decided to create a product line that can be identified as supporting breast cancer awareness and research, and take 5% of the revenue they receive and donate it to the American Cancer Society.

They did not create a not for profit venture to sell pink stuff, but found a way to sell merchandise that would include donating a bunch of money to charity.

The only way to have a problem with this is to be ignorant to what it is, or to feel it is your place to tell them how much to donate to charity.

 

[Aßßynormal]

The matter needs to be examined, period. If you're right, then fine. I want an explanation, otherwise, I'm being subjected to a month of pink for cynical reasons. Profiting off the despair others is not charity. It makes me sick to think that this is all about growing/cultivating the NFL's image amongst women.

This reminds me of all those garbage charities for the 9/11 victims that dribbled into those families. I want an explanation.

 

[Ring 6]

"The NFL, meanwhile, keeps $45: making it a huge moneymaker for a league that already enjoys nonprofit tax-exempt status."

Of Every $100 In NFL Pink Sales, $3.54 Goes Toward Research | SportsGrid

By the way another misrepresentation.
While the LEAGUE is non-profit, the entities that the profits are pass through to , the teams are not. So these are absolutely not tax-exempt revenues.

 

[Ring 6]

The matter needs to be examined, period. If you're right, then fine. I want an explanation, otherwise, I'm being subjected to a month of pink for cynical reasons. Profiting off the despair others is not charity. It makes me sick to think that this is all about growing/cultivating the NFL's image amongst women.

This reminds me of all those garbage charities for the 9/11 victims that dribbled into those families. I want an explanation.

No offense, but there is no examination necessary, just a need for people talking about it to know what they are talking about.
The NFL is donating 5% of the proceeds from sales of breast cancer awareness apparel to the American Cancer Society. End. What do you want examined?

 

[BrickPat]

As I mentioned in the other thread NFL viewing audience is likely 90- 95% male...we're talking millions and millions of men. The NFL should focus real "awareness' about prostate cancer.

The pink campaign had noble and highly worthwhile goal but now it seems more of a yearly NFL gimmick.

 

[Aßßynormal]

By the way another misrepresentation.
While the LEAGUE is non-profit, the entities that the profits are pass through to , the teams are not. So these are absolutely not tax-exempt revenues.

Perhaps. Non-profits, themselves, are also allowed to make money in taxable endeavors related to their activity (in general terms with disbursement and other restrictions). I want an analysis and an explanation of what is actually occurring.

 

[Ring 6]

The matter needs to be examined, period. If you're right, then fine. I want an explanation, otherwise, I'm being subjected to a month of pink for cynical reasons. Profiting off the despair others is not charity. It makes me sick to think that this is all about growing/cultivating the NFL's image amongst women.

This reminds me of all those garbage charities for the 9/11 victims that dribbled into those families. I want an explanation.

And I'm not sure how you consider it profiting off the despair of others.
The stated intention is to bring attention to the disease and increase awareness. The fact that they create a product line to enhance the awareness and give 5% of those proceeds to charity is not a bad thing.

Would you prefer they do nothing, don't increase awareness, sell regualar nonpink apparel and give nothing to charity? I don't know how that is better.

 

[Ring 6]

Perhaps. Non-profits, themselves, are also allowed to make money in taxable endeavors related to their activity (in general terms with disbursement and other restrictions). I want an analysis and an explanation of what is actually occurring.

The league is a non-profit because it does not exist for the sake of making a profit. It passes 100% of its revenue after expense to the teams, who bear the tax burden.

To give an example. If you and I started a 'company' to invest our money, and it covered ts expenses and passed all of the remaining profits to us, we would be taxed on it, and the company could legitimately be a non-profit (providing it meets the tax law definition of purpose,but thats not relevant to the analogy) but the profits would be taxable, as you and I would be taxed.
The tax exempt status of the NFL is simply because it keeps no profits, it passes them to the teams who are taxed on them.

There really isn't anything to investigate, you just need to understand the dynamics.

 

[Ring 6]

As I mentioned in the other thread NFL viewing audience is likely 90- 95% male...we're talking millions and millions of men. The NFL should focus real "awareness' about prostate cancer.

The pink campaign had noble and highly worthwhile goal but now it seems more of a yearly NFL gimmick.

The players seem to be really into it, so whats the harm?
Everyone has a mother, so breast cancer is the most universal cause there is.

 

[robbomango]

As long as people are aware 5% goes to charity it's fine, they are the ones donating. It only becomes an issue if they're being mislead to believe a higher percentage or all goes to Cancer research.

 

[Aßßynormal]

No offense, but there is no examination necessary, just a need for people talking about it to know what they are talking about.
The NFL is donating 5% of the proceeds from sales of breast cancer awareness apparel to the American Cancer Society. End. What do you want examined?

The percentage donated versus what could be donated in search of whether the operation is more gimmick than actual charity.

Charity should not equate to profiting in an non-monetary way either. Ulterior motives, like acquiring female viewers/payers, should be disclosed. These are my opinions and don't relate to the way the world works though. Cynical motives demean the concept of "saving another persons soul/life". I understand the world doesn't work that way but I don't have to like it or tolerate it's use for a month when I consider it essentially a scam. I'm just pissed off and I want to know what is happening. Am I being manipulated? Answering that is what I'm looking for.

EDIT - This would be a start:

As long as people are aware 5% goes to charity it's fine, they are the ones donating. It only becomes an issue if they're being mislead to believe a higher percentage or all goes to Cancer research.

 

[Ring 6]

The percentage donated versus what could be donated in search of whether the operation is more gimmick than actual charity.

Charity doesn't equate to profiting in an non-monetary way either. Ulterior motives, like acquiring female viewers/payers, should be disclosed. These are my opinions and don't relate to the way the world works though. Cynical motives demean the concept of "saving another persons soul/life". I understand the world doesn't work that way but I don't have to like it or tolerate it's use for a month when I consider essentially a scam. I'm just pissed off and I want to know what is happening. Am I being manipulated? Answering that is what I'm looking for.

This would be a start:

I guess I just don't understand your viewpoint.

The NFL has decided to adopt a cause, sell merchandise associated with it and give 5% of the proceeds to charity.
Who ever said they claimed to be doing something different?
Is your issue that you misunderstood and thought it was something else, because the NFL has never said that, even though it appears people have created it in their mind.
Its only a scam if it is portrayed as something its not. What is actually is, is a charitable donation.
The alternatives are to feel we have a right to decide their level of charitable contribution or claim nothing at all would be better. I'm not sure who is better served by nothing at all, but it sounds like you are debating whether being subjected to hearing about it outweighs the millions given to the ACS.
I feel it is a good thing, as is any contribution to charity, and I feel its not my place to judge the level of charity any person or organization feels is appropriate.

 

[Ring 6]

As long as people are aware 5% goes to charity it's fine, they are the ones donating. It only becomes an issue if they're being mislead to believe a higher percentage or all goes to Cancer research.

How has anyone been misled to believe that?
You cannot blame the entity donating money to charity for the ignorant people assuming they give more.