Breast Cancer Awareness--SCAM?!

[packa7x]

I came across an interesting article today: http://jezebel.com/5950971/the-nfls-...s-a-total-scam (NSFW: Cursing)

The article pretty much goes on to say that 35 cents of every $10 of Breast Cancer Awareness Month merch the NFL sells goes to help fight breast cancer. To me the article makes some great points shrouded in curses. The point that the article misses is that this kind of behavior is common among businesses. This practice, called cause marketing, uses the power of a for-profit company (ex: NFL, Tide, General Mills) to raise money for a not-for-profit cause (American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, Red Cross). In order to make a judgement on the NFL, you have to take into account the fact that they're not even close to the only ones engaging in cause marketing.

Once we get past the fact that the NFL is making money off of people who care about breast cancer awareness (as opposed to just donating a sum of money), the NFL still IS contributing money towards a good cause. The question is, is this kind of cause marketing, the kind that tugs at the strings of your heart, ethical? What do you guys think?

[Hoser]

I think they need to change the name...I mean, really...who isn't "aware" of breast cancer?

[darvon]

The article mistates and omits facts and gets things wrong, I believe, because the author doesn't understand the accounting of Merchandising.

If the NFL sells a pair of pink football gloves for $10 online with a VISA, the NFL stated it gives about 5% (or $.50) to ACS. That's probably about correct. BUT the author then states that the NFL makes about $4.50 on the transaction, assuming a 100% markup (i.e. that they bought the item in bulk from China for $5.00). IF they bought it in bulk from China for $5.00 there are still many other costs eating into that $4.50 which the author attributes to the NFL's pockets. Fufillment costs, VISA charges, Burden, tariffs, inbound shipping, and a host of others.

Without knowing the details, the $.50 given could represent ALL of the NFL's profit, or half, or less. The author should have found out.

The author also has a problem with the ACS overhead, but that is another story, to which she alludes without explaination.


So I can't say YEA, BOO, or Meh to the NFL. Because the author didn't bother to understand the story she told.

[packa7x]

Very good point, D. That's why I posted it here. This is one of those things that on the surface looks bad, but once you peel back the curtains, it's not nearly as horrific. People also fail to realize that the NFL does plenty with other charities too. Breast cancer is just one of the causes.

[mikesteelnation1]

The article mistates and omits facts and gets things wrong, I believe, because the author doesn't understand the accounting of Merchandising.

If the NFL sells a pair of pink football gloves for $10 online with a VISA, the NFL stated it gives about 5% (or $.50) to ACS. That's probably about correct. BUT the author then states that the NFL makes about $4.50 on the transaction, assuming a 100% markup (i.e. that they bought the item in bulk from China for $5.00). IF they bought it in bulk from China for $5.00 there are still many other costs eating into that $4.50 which the author attributes to the NFL's pockets. Fufillment costs, VISA charges, Burden, tariffs, inbound shipping, and a host of others.

Without knowing the details, the $.50 given could represent ALL of the NFL's profit, or half, or less. The author should have found out.

The author also has a problem with the ACS overhead, but that is another story, to which she alludes without explaination.


So I can't say YEA, BOO, or Meh to the NFL. Because the author didn't bother to understand the story she told.

Quite correct darvon. There's a marked difference between "dealer" cost (the amount the retailer pays the vendor for the goods wholesale) , and the more important "grounded cost" that includes all the costs to get said product from the supplier into the retailers stores. That includes things like tariffs, shipping, transferring between internal distribution centers, internal shrink, dead on arrival product, profit margin degradation upon customs delays on tech and market sensitive products, etc...

All of this is before the costs of credit card carriage fees, and brown banana margin degradation, from a product sitting on the shelf too long before its sold, thereby tying up available inventory to buy dollars.. just so everyone knows I'm using this dalliance into my regular work to deflect the pure fury I feel about tonights game...

[darvon]

Very good point, D. That's why I posted it here. This is one of those things that on the surface looks bad, but once you peel back the curtains, it's not nearly as horrific. People also fail to realize that the NFL does plenty with other charities too. Breast cancer is just one of the causes.

It could be horrific, or mundane, or virtuous.

But the author didn't do her homework, so you can't tell.

And to be blunt, WE ALL DO MORE HOMEWORK in articles that go on the front page of FP. If a professional media type does less homework than ME, it is a true sign of the apocalypse.

[FrzzerBwler]

At the risk of sounding like a cynical neandrathal,,,,
Started getting suspicious about the whole Think Pink deal a few years ago.
Can't remember if it was in '09 or '10, but I noticed a huge increase in pink packaging that October.
The thought that struck me was "what a crock". To me it seemed for many of these companies it had little to do w/ raising awareness, just an attempt to look good. Could almost hear the mgmnt meeting "hey our biggest competitor just rolled out pink packaging for October and we have nothing planned".
Full disclosure. In 2009 had 2 friends lose their battle w/ breast cancer; don't know if that influenced my view of the marketing campaigns but it may have.

[Pruitt]

No need for the full disclosure...

When I see players wearing pink shoes, it's one thing. But the fact that EVERY player and coach is wearing pink hats which - not so coincidentally - are for sale at NFL.Com and around the country (along with literally dozens of NFL branded pink tzotzkes) leads me to wonder about the point where altruism becomes marketing.

No doubt that the pink ribbon campaign has succeeded in bringing women's cancers into the public eye.

But now, we are all aware. I have a great idea for the folks at the league - every year, why not publicize a different worthy cause? No need to list them here, but it really could help make a difference.

Cynically, I feel that this idea is a non-starter largely due to the fact that very few diseases are so closely associated with a colour that could be used to market product.

[edave]

But now, we are all aware. I have a great idea for the folks at the league - every year, why not publicize a different worthy cause? No need to list them here, but it really could help make a difference.

Testicular cancer month here we come ... everyone can wear blue!

[packa7x]

For all the cynics, other companies engage in cause marketing as well. Win-win-win in my book. Consumer gets goods/positive feeling, cause gets funding, business gets profit. Very seldom does anybody spend money on a cause without getting something in return.