GeekHawk
Well-known member
The real point to this thread is how very British it is to say that somebody is getting 'above their station'...
TwistedHusky":va19p77j said: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.
chimpanjesus":2f27jjr3 said: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.
12thbrah":2fomycso said:Should be called Rich Man Brand. Sorry Russ but this is Kardashian level marketing shenanigans. Despite his intentions nothing good will come of this. $100 for a polo? Maybe if it had a Seahawks logo on it :lol:
I think the issue many have with this is that his intentions aren't great. Like most in this thread I don't care how much celebrities want to charge for stuff i'll never buy, but claiming it is for some greater purpose is straight up shady when only a minuscule percentage goes to charity. It doesn't change my opinion of him as a football player but this kind of stuff (and the water nonsense, and the other stuff) does affect my opinion of him as a person.12thbrah":5b0hnhvn said:Despite his intentions nothing good will come of this.
Cary Kollins":6xpdppo6 said:UK_Seahawk":6xpdppo6 said:Cary Kollins":6xpdppo6 said:you can buy a Cam Newton button down for $16 and send the $150 you saved to charity
http://www.belk.com/products/made-cam-n ... b44328.jsp
I tried to order it but Von Miller stopped me.
too soon bro
chimpanjesus":2rg831bk said: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.
UK_Seahawk":26birblt said:I honestly have no issue with that but the name and marketing suggest philanthropy and it's very far away from that IMHO. I guess I'm disappointed because it's from a guy who I respect so much and who genuinely does much good.kearly":26birblt said:Jessica Alba opened up a clothing line in 2012. Since then, the company has earned her a billion. It's just smart business for a celebrity, even a B-lister, to open up clothing lines. And Alba was hardly the first to get rich doing it. It's worth noting, neither Alba or Wilson included their names in their clothing lines.
There's no doubt that Wilson's company is targeting the upper 5% of purchasers. I don't see anything that's wrong with that personally. I don't suddenly get upset walking into a high end retail store thinking about the insane amounts of money they are making. Some people want high end stuff and are willing to pay way more for it.
Russell has never been one of the common man. Wilson may be African American, but he grew up in the rich part of town. His father attended Dartmouth and his grandfather was president of a university. So I think this clothing line actually makes a lot of sense given his background.
The "changing the world" commentary by Russell seems pretty silly given that only about 1% of proceeds go to charity. But if you look up Alba's comments on her company, she said a lot of the same things about changing the world and making people's lives better. And as far as I know she didn't donate any proceeds to charity at all. I get the sense that this type of commentary is par for the course in the clothing industry.
I don't see anything wrong here. That said, "Eat the ball" is pretty dumb.
What happened to pass the peace and all the other stuff like that. Is it all pure marketing?
ImTheScientist":2lxeqgh7 said: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.
scutterhawk":11jkajpg said:If you're strapped for money, you wouldn't even give an ounce of consideration for purchasing what he's selling, but
there are a LOT of people with a lot of money, that seldom if ever even look at the price tag... totally different clientele.
Think of it this way... there are a lot of poor in this country that think it's ridicules and uppity to buy clothing anywhere than Target, or Wall-Mart, or the Goodwill, but a lot of the wealthy wouldn't be caught dead by stooping so low.
And it goes far beyond "fifty dollars for a T-shirt"Maelstrom787":3rdv8ywt said:I call that getting swindled and pimped - shiiieeeeet, I call that getting tricked by a business
That would appear to include me, so I whole-heartedly disagree.ImTheScientist":22c43nkm said:Bunch of hypocrites in here. Any one of you would do the exact same thing in his situation.
If you guarantee a fail, maybe you should do the right thing and contact the folks that are putting this business enterprise together, so's to enlighten them of their folly.lukerguy":31trjq9b said:scutterhawk":31trjq9b said:If you're strapped for money, you wouldn't even give an ounce of consideration for purchasing what he's selling, but
there are a LOT of people with a lot of money, that seldom if ever even look at the price tag... totally different clientele.
Think of it this way... there are a lot of poor in this country that think it's ridicules and uppity to buy clothing anywhere than Target, or Wall-Mart, or the Goodwill, but a lot of the wealthy wouldn't be caught dead by stooping so low.
I totally agree, however people who don't look at price tags are probably less than 0.01% of Americans.. Even some of the wealthiest people look at price tags.. So you're saying it will sell based on the smallest demographic of Americans.. I can guarantee you the brand will fail based on the current price tag.
If he wanted this thing to take off, he should have advertised it as a competitor to old navy ect.. There's no way the majority of people are going to purchase this stuff. Moreover, I understand clothing is all in the eye of the wearer but I don't think there's anything too special here. I could pick up much nicer clothes for 1/5th the price at the banana republic outlet by my house.
http://bananarepublic.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=66299&vid=1&pid=423451022
$39 for a high end brand vs. $128
The above link is for retail, not even considering a sale or outlet clothing.
Hawkstorian":2amklini said: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.