Good man brand- Is the QB starting to get above his station?

[Largent80]

I can get a van for $300?....Must be a 1967 VW.

 

[JSeahawks]

Seems pretty simple, if you don't like the deal don't buy it. Done. Moving on.

 

[pmedic920]

Yea, my stance is this, there are literally 1000's of overpriced products out there. Priced as they are simply because of a brand name. Even some of the "best" products are over priced because they have been touted as "best".
As others have said, it's all very simple, if you don't like it, don't buy it.
This is really stupid for ANYBODY to be getting upset about.

I liken this to complaining about what is on the TV, if you don't like it, shut it off or change the station.

 

[Largent80]

Sell some to CodeWarrior, a self proclaimed "rich" person. These are the actual targets of this crap. The rest of us look for the best deal we can get.

Case closed.

 

[Popeyejones]

Bunch of hypocrites in here. Any one of you would do the exact same thing in his situation.

Do what? Sell clothes? Yeah, maybe.

He's not getting criticized for selling clothes, though.

He's getting criticized for two things. 1) saying with a straight face that his $300 sneakers are for people on a budget, and 2) for entering a market space that people are by now generally a little suspicious of to begin with (ethical capitalism products) and pushing the boundaries of that category past the hilarity point.

If anything, I think his error is in pushing that market space in the wrong direction. If he wanted to make a ton of loot and further his Jesus-like brand identity he should have done the exact opposite of what he did:

Sell your H&M cotton shorts for $170 if you want to, but donate 50% to charity rather than 1%. That's going to get you a ton of long-term and glowing press, really push the ethical capitalism space to put more of their money where their mouths are, and he could still make money hand over fist doing it.

If he did that, even though it would still be cynical, Hawks fans would be falling over themselves talking about how awesome he is rather than laughing in his face and once again being embarrassed by what he does off the field (as is the case now).

To reiterate, nobody is criticizing him for selling clothes. People are criticizing him for trying to sell clothes in such a laughably untoward and ridiculous way.

 

[Hawkstorian]

One thing I'm totally over is the concept of Athlete Charities.

There are a ton of places out there to give money too. Just because some athlete comes into town and starts a 'foundation' means little to me.

You should give money away. Give a LOT of money away. Give it to organizations that you know and have a good history in the community you want to help.

 

[Popeyejones]

Yea, my stance is this, there are literally 1000's of overpriced products out there. Priced as they are simply because of a brand name. Even some of the "best" products are over priced because they have been touted as "best".
As others have said, it's all very simple, if you don't like it, don't buy it.
This is really stupid for ANYBODY to be getting upset about.

I liken this to complaining about what is on the TV, if you don't like it, shut it off or change the station.

I think as close as you get to "upset" over the price is that, quite frankly, the stuff looks cheap. If I just showed you the images you'd bet money that I was showing you pictures from the H&M website.

Again though, people aren't really making fun of him for the stuff being expensive. They're making fun of him claiming that it's for people on a budget and that him donating $3 from a $170 polo shirt is going to make the world a better place.

 

[kearly]

It's still, in my opinion, cynical, but not nearly as blatantly and laughably cynical as Wilson saying with a straight face that he's marketing to people on a budget and thinks his $300 Vans are going to make the world a better place, that he wants school contracts for his globe shaped white bread because it's an education tool, etc. :lol:

Anybody who's out to market their way to millions or billions has to reach into the same toolkit.

Also, I don't really see Russell as being a huckster. I think a more accurate description would be to say that he has a very strong belief system, similar to Ted Cruz. Even when Cruz says something preposterous on the campaign trail, I don't think of him as a con-man. I think he actually believes what he's saying, rightly or wrongly. With Wilson, I get that same sense of self-belief. I totally understand how people would be annoyed by it, but I don't think Russ is disingenuous or anything like that. He's just a guy that believes what he wants to believe sometimes.

 

[Cary Kollins]

One thing I'm totally over is the concept of Athlete Charities.

There are a ton of places out there to give money too. Just because some athlete comes into town and starts a 'foundation' means little to me.

You should give money away. Give a LOT of money away. Give it to organizations that you know and have a good history in the community you want to help.

I agree, but giving lots of money to charity doesn't give these athletes the ego boost they crave.

I don't think it's a coincidence there's a social media photo op for every single thing RW does for charity.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Bunch of hypocrites in here. Any one of you would do the exact same thing in his situation.

What exactly is that?

Make money.

 

[chimpanjesus]

So after this brand sells 1000 items they will donate $3000 to charity... $3000?!?!. Do you have any idea how hard it is to sell 1000 items as a start up brand even with Russell Wilson as your face? And also what is $3000 going to do? Literally nothing. Hell they need to sell 10,000 items to donate $30,000 and even that will do absolutely nothing. I would respect this more if he took the BS philanthropy angle out and just launched a high end clothing line. Another PR fumble from Russell. He really needs to change his team up, whoever is in charge or his partnerships/marketing is really tone deaf.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Bunch of hypocrites in here. Any one of you would do the exact same thing in his situation.

Do what? Sell clothes? Yeah, maybe.

He's not getting criticized for selling clothes, though.

He's getting criticized for two things. 1) saying with a straight face that his $300 sneakers are for people on a budget, and 2) for entering a market space that people are by now generally a little suspicious of to begin with (ethical capitalism products) and pushing the boundaries of that category past the hilarity point.

If anything, I think his error is in pushing that market space in the wrong direction. If he wanted to make a ton of loot and further his Jesus-like brand identity he should have done the exact opposite of what he did:

Sell your H&M cotton shorts for $170 if you want to, but donate 50% to charity rather than 1%. That's going to get you a ton of long-term and glowing press, really push the ethical capitalism space to put more of their money where their mouths are, and he could still make money hand over fist doing it.

If he did that, even though it would still be cynical, Hawks fans would be falling over themselves talking about how awesome he is rather than laughing in his face and once again being embarrassed by what he does off the field (as is the case now).

To reiterate, nobody is criticizing him for selling clothes. People are criticizing him for trying to sell clothes in such a laughably untoward and ridiculous way.

Why should the percentage he donates matter and who are we to tell him how much to donate? Do other people tell you how to spend your money? If he can get $300 for his shoes more power to him. The problem you have with what he is doing is jealousy. I have no doubt you would do the same thing....and you wouldn't donate 50%. Do you donate 50% of anything currently? NOPE.

 

[Cary Kollins]

Bunch of hypocrites in here. Any one of you would do the exact same thing in his situation.

What exactly is that?

Make money.

see Popeye's post.

No one is criticizing Wilson for trying to make money.

 

[ImTheScientist]

So after this brand sells 1000 items they will donate $3000 to charity... $3000?!?!. Do you have any idea how hard it is to sell 1000 items as a start up brand even with Russell Wilson as your face? And also what is $3000 going to do? Literally nothing. Hell they need to sell 10,000 items to donate $30,000 and even that will do absolutely nothing. I would respect this more if he took the BS philanthropy angle out and just launched a high end clothing line. Another PR fumble from Russell. He really needs to change his team up, whoever is in charge or his partnerships/marketing is really tone deaf.

Do you vote? You are 1 of 320 million people, your vote is meaningless. Do you ever click the donate $1 button at safeway? Every little bit counts especially when its going to people that don't have anything.

 

[Cary Kollins]

I suppose if we were all rich athletes we would also claim "miracle water" prevents concussions.

http://thebiglead.com/2015/08/26/russel ... -injuries/

 

[keatonisballin]

What is this garbage thread? Seriously people? He is trying to build an empire. Good for him. People whining because he is selling expensive clothes and only donating a certain amount to charity. He could be like other players and not donate any money.

It's definitely the offseason. Grow up people.

 

[Popeyejones]

Why should the percentage he donates matter and who are we to tell him how much to donate? Do other people tell you how to spend your money? If he can get $300 for his shoes more power to him. The problem you have with what he is doing is jealousy. I have no doubt you would do the same thing....and you wouldn't donate 50%. Do you donate 50% of anything currently? NOPE.

You have dramatically missed my point.

My point was that if he wants to sell expensive clothes he could have done either of two things and he wouldn't have been criticized at all for doing either of them:

1) Just sell high-end cheap looking clothes and leave it at that.

2) Sell high-end cheap looking clothes, push the saving the world message, but make money by pushing that market category to really put its money where it's mouth is, and by donating MORE than everyone else rather than some laughable pittance that makes him look delusional at best.

And yes, we agree, if he can get $300 for shoes more power to him. My point is that 1) claiming to make shoes for people on a budget and 2) claiming that $3 to charity on a pair of $300 shoes is going to make the world a better place is a VERY VERY laughable and bad way to sell $300 shoes.

As a said before, if we're being generous it makes him look like a ridiculously cynical huckster, whereas if we're being less generous we assume he actually believes what he's saying, and he's a rank and file fool.

 

[DJrmb]

Yea, my stance is this, there are literally 1000's of overpriced products out there. Priced as they are simply because of a brand name. Even some of the "best" products are over priced because they have been touted as "best".
As others have said, it's all very simple, if you don't like it, don't buy it.
This is really stupid for ANYBODY to be getting upset about.

I liken this to complaining about what is on the TV, if you don't like it, shut it off or change the station.

I think as close as you get to "upset" over the price is that, quite frankly, the stuff looks cheap. If I just showed you the images you'd bet money that I was showing you pictures from the H&M website.

Again though, people aren't really making fun of him for the stuff being expensive. They're making fun of him claiming that it's for people on a budget and that him donating $3 from a $170 polo shirt is going to make the world a better place.

Who said that the $3 is what he's referring to when he talks about "making the world a better place" as you put it? You assume too much.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The problem is pretty clear, and I can see this topic rolling right into the Shack shortly thereafter.

Certain charities are really good and certain are barely charities at all. I know of some social purpose corporations that have better #s than the ones being shared so far.

If you want to make money at clothing sales? Have at it. But don't try to use your celebrity status as a "do-gooder" to try to sell "charity" that is anything but. People see through it. Like that guy doing a 'benefit" for Flint victims that ended up costing more than the money he raised (some rap artist). It is hard to get away with, and ultimately it hurts your brand.

Pasting the Seahawks right next to such an endeavor is damaging to that brand too.

When you give less than 5% of revenues in a high margin product to charity, then it isn't a "charity item". And pasting it with the "good man" label as if to convey some kind of social benefit status is borderline ridiculous, if not insulting that someone thinks we could buy into the blatant effort to project a social benefit that does not exist. Less than 3% barely passes the smell test.

If you want to be a fashion brand, have at it, but don't try to sell it as 'giving back' when it is clearly first and foremost an effort to pad your bank account. I would bet that on a list of priorities for the brand, giving back is barely 10th on the list if it falls on the list at all.

Ultimately it is going to hurt his reputation and his trust. As one of the star QBs in the NFL that appeals to multiple fanbases, he is going to get lots of endorsement deals. But he needs to make much better decisions about where he puts his name and why, because getting associated with scams & fakery is going to make marketers less willing to want to put his name next to their product. This kind of thing, where people attempt to milk the gullible, can lead to backlash.

People gave Favre crap about his Lee jeans, but at least it fit his brand. Brees, is selling anything from dish soap to socks, frankly I am surprised he is not appearing in a banner ad right now trying to sell hotlinks, but at least those products are real. Wilson has been pushing some sketchy stuff, almost as if he decided he was going to endorse every single business venture any of his fraternity buddies started recently.

He has the right to make as much as he wants, but it is borderline hypocrisy if not outright insulting for him to pretend he is doing for others when this is more about his own benefit. And worse, it keeps reinforcing the narrative that the guy is fake.

He is a good enough athlete and a great enough QB that has accomplished enough he has no need to wrap this stuff in false motivations. And frankly he is doing this so often that people are starting to paint the valid good stuff he does with the same brush - which is a shame.

 

[Tech Worlds]

I'll buy a bunch of it. But I gots bank.