Largent80
New member
I can get a van for $300?....Must be a 1967 VW.
ImTheScientist":nb1sshz6 said:Bunch of hypocrites in here. Any one of you would do the exact same thing in his situation.
pmedic920":h3djaokd said: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.
Popeyejones":9m75sy3j said: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:
Hawkstorian":ie0mfq5y 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.
Cary Kollins":2y8heij6 said:ImTheScientist":2y8heij6 said:Bunch of hypocrites in here. Any one of you would do the exact same thing in his situation.
What exactly is that?
Popeyejones":2obnxclx said:ImTheScientist":2obnxclx said: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.
ImTheScientist":2ay0igb7 said:Cary Kollins":2ay0igb7 said:ImTheScientist":2ay0igb7 said: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":3aimh1px 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.
ImTheScientist":1blzmc3p 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.
Popeyejones":t66kjaky said:pmedic920":t66kjaky said: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.