So Supreme decided to release a Japanese benefit shirt

[dimsum9]

print is small. I rather cop this @ karmaloop which they carry in both sexes 

 

[boi]

I'd cop the KL one and the crooks one

 

[boi]

I'd cop the KL one and the crooks one

 

[i just got lucky]

#Supreme sucks though

I've been to their store in Harajuku, $75 shirts

quality wasnt even that good.

 

[i just got lucky]

#Supreme sucks though

I've been to their store in Harajuku, $75 shirts

quality wasnt even that good.

 

[treewing]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

So much sodium in this thread. It's a charity tee by Supreme and all the proceeds go to Japan. This is like the one time I'd figure people wouldn't hate on Supreme. Talking about you might as well just donate the money straight up (why don't you just think of it as donating the money straight up and getting a free tee out of it?)

If the retail cost of the shirt is $36 plus shipping, the net result isn't $36 plus shipping for the charity.  The shirt isn't "free."  You're still paying for it.
Direct donations are the only way to ensure that a full 100% of your money will reach the charity.  If you do one of donations by txt message, you're not actually giving $10 to charity.  You're giving up a significant "processing fee."

That's why our donation drive involves the NKETLK Japan badge instead of a tangible good.  We volunteer our time to implement the badges.  Nothing is skimmed off the top to pay for the "incentive," and, in this case, no additional incentive should be required to catalyze contributions.  By now, we've all at least caught a glimpse of the devastation the earthquake and tsunami have wrought.  

If your argument is that the only people who would purchase these shirts would be too selfish to give directly, that's fine.  You can call it a "net gain" if you want - but I think we should acknowledge it's NOT as efficient as a direct donation.  Anyone who really wants to help should be encouraged to contribute via your preferred charity's website instead.  

Don't buy a shirt to look like you care.  Act like you care instead. 

That should be on a shirt.

 

[treewing]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

So much sodium in this thread. It's a charity tee by Supreme and all the proceeds go to Japan. This is like the one time I'd figure people wouldn't hate on Supreme. Talking about you might as well just donate the money straight up (why don't you just think of it as donating the money straight up and getting a free tee out of it?)

If the retail cost of the shirt is $36 plus shipping, the net result isn't $36 plus shipping for the charity.  The shirt isn't "free."  You're still paying for it.
Direct donations are the only way to ensure that a full 100% of your money will reach the charity.  If you do one of donations by txt message, you're not actually giving $10 to charity.  You're giving up a significant "processing fee."

That's why our donation drive involves the NKETLK Japan badge instead of a tangible good.  We volunteer our time to implement the badges.  Nothing is skimmed off the top to pay for the "incentive," and, in this case, no additional incentive should be required to catalyze contributions.  By now, we've all at least caught a glimpse of the devastation the earthquake and tsunami have wrought.  

If your argument is that the only people who would purchase these shirts would be too selfish to give directly, that's fine.  You can call it a "net gain" if you want - but I think we should acknowledge it's NOT as efficient as a direct donation.  Anyone who really wants to help should be encouraged to contribute via your preferred charity's website instead.  

Don't buy a shirt to look like you care.  Act like you care instead. 

That should be on a shirt.

 

[sreggie101]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by Nash

Originally Posted by Frankie Valentino

Where there this many artists and clothing companies rallying around Haiti?

Not even close.

Probably has to do with a lack of Haitian people in the industry? There has to be a personal connection for all this and urban street wear does take a lot of influence from Japan. Also, blatant and rampant racism. On the hush, I heard all these companies were donating to France when the Haiti earthquake happened. smh.

its funny also because haiti is one of the many poor countries that produce much of the clothing sold by US retailers...

 

[sreggie101]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by Nash

Originally Posted by Frankie Valentino

Where there this many artists and clothing companies rallying around Haiti?

Not even close.

Probably has to do with a lack of Haitian people in the industry? There has to be a personal connection for all this and urban street wear does take a lot of influence from Japan. Also, blatant and rampant racism. On the hush, I heard all these companies were donating to France when the Haiti earthquake happened. smh.

its funny also because haiti is one of the many poor countries that produce much of the clothing sold by US retailers...

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Method Man

I just don't see what the issue is. It's obvious that the main source of funding is going to come directly from direct donations but I just can't see how generating more funding through these creative means is less helpful. 

It is less helpful if these sorts of promotions wind up competing with direct donations.  

By buying these products, people can feel as though they've completed their "obligation," that they've made their donation, done their good deed, and helped Japan.  If the only way to help was via direct donation, the process would be far more efficient.  Instead, we have people using the opportunity to promote their brands, do a little CSR / image buffing, and sell merchandise.  "Well, as long as I'm buying the Japan shirt, let's see what else is on the site."  It's good for business.

People need to think critically about this sort of thing.  I don't think it's right for companies to be able to use charity as this impenetrable shield that renders them invulnerable to criticism.  Just because $8.50 of your (Product) Red iPod goes to "the global fund" doesn't exempt Apple from the practices of its suppliers in China.  Underage girls are literally getting sick while polishing the chrome backs of iPhones and are subjected to humiliating strip searches in plain view of their coworkers before they leave each day - but let's not question that, because a portion of the proceeds not exceeding what you likely paid in sales tax will go "to charity."  

If you HAVE to buy a t-shirt just as a basic subsistence need, is it better to buy one that helps produce a social benefit?  Absolutely - and it's wonderful when companies, particularly social businesses, make that possible.  

I don't think anyone is well served, however, by placing blind faith in a charity promotion.  

If you have $50 you're willing to sacrifice to help the people of Japan, I think we should be considering how best to allocate those funds to provide the maximum benefit to those in need and thus maximize the value of our donation.  

You're not giving Japan a donation and getting a t-shirt for free.  You're buying a t-shirt with money you could be donating to Japan.  Whatever portion of the purchase price actually makes it there is the real donation.  

If you're buying the t-shirt to buy a t-shirt and had no interest in giving directly, fine, but if you're interested in donating then, at the very least, you should be concerned about the efficiency of your purchase. 

$7.50 shipped

That's a great deal for a t-shirt and a wristband.  It's not a great deal for Japan.  I'd be impressed if there's even $1 left for charity after the product cost is accounted for. 

Method Man, I see where you're coming from. I agree that a direct donation would be most efficient (I think everyone would agree on that.) The thing is, I view these items these brands and musicians are selling for charity as an extra incentive for people to give. Imagine if Supreme only put a link on their homepage that went directly to the Red Cross. Sure it would be more efficient but how many people are going to give because of that compared to those that might be given extra incentive to do so because they're receiving something in return?
I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone in the world is that charitable or compassionate towards total strangers, especially those that are suffering on the other side of the globe. Also keep in mind the untapped groups this shirt (and other for charity items) are tapping. I find it hard to believe that skate kids and teens in the cities with no connection to Japan are going to be that aware or willing to donate their money to the relief efforts. But a limited edition Supreme shirt? Hell yeah!

Like I said, at the end of the day, money is being generated to help the relief efforts in Japan. You might disagree with the method and I'll even agree it's not perfect but I honestly don't see the harm.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Method Man

I just don't see what the issue is. It's obvious that the main source of funding is going to come directly from direct donations but I just can't see how generating more funding through these creative means is less helpful. 

It is less helpful if these sorts of promotions wind up competing with direct donations.  

By buying these products, people can feel as though they've completed their "obligation," that they've made their donation, done their good deed, and helped Japan.  If the only way to help was via direct donation, the process would be far more efficient.  Instead, we have people using the opportunity to promote their brands, do a little CSR / image buffing, and sell merchandise.  "Well, as long as I'm buying the Japan shirt, let's see what else is on the site."  It's good for business.

People need to think critically about this sort of thing.  I don't think it's right for companies to be able to use charity as this impenetrable shield that renders them invulnerable to criticism.  Just because $8.50 of your (Product) Red iPod goes to "the global fund" doesn't exempt Apple from the practices of its suppliers in China.  Underage girls are literally getting sick while polishing the chrome backs of iPhones and are subjected to humiliating strip searches in plain view of their coworkers before they leave each day - but let's not question that, because a portion of the proceeds not exceeding what you likely paid in sales tax will go "to charity."  

If you HAVE to buy a t-shirt just as a basic subsistence need, is it better to buy one that helps produce a social benefit?  Absolutely - and it's wonderful when companies, particularly social businesses, make that possible.  

I don't think anyone is well served, however, by placing blind faith in a charity promotion.  

If you have $50 you're willing to sacrifice to help the people of Japan, I think we should be considering how best to allocate those funds to provide the maximum benefit to those in need and thus maximize the value of our donation.  

You're not giving Japan a donation and getting a t-shirt for free.  You're buying a t-shirt with money you could be donating to Japan.  Whatever portion of the purchase price actually makes it there is the real donation.  

If you're buying the t-shirt to buy a t-shirt and had no interest in giving directly, fine, but if you're interested in donating then, at the very least, you should be concerned about the efficiency of your purchase. 

$7.50 shipped

That's a great deal for a t-shirt and a wristband.  It's not a great deal for Japan.  I'd be impressed if there's even $1 left for charity after the product cost is accounted for. 

Method Man, I see where you're coming from. I agree that a direct donation would be most efficient (I think everyone would agree on that.) The thing is, I view these items these brands and musicians are selling for charity as an extra incentive for people to give. Imagine if Supreme only put a link on their homepage that went directly to the Red Cross. Sure it would be more efficient but how many people are going to give because of that compared to those that might be given extra incentive to do so because they're receiving something in return?
I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone in the world is that charitable or compassionate towards total strangers, especially those that are suffering on the other side of the globe. Also keep in mind the untapped groups this shirt (and other for charity items) are tapping. I find it hard to believe that skate kids and teens in the cities with no connection to Japan are going to be that aware or willing to donate their money to the relief efforts. But a limited edition Supreme shirt? Hell yeah!

Like I said, at the end of the day, money is being generated to help the relief efforts in Japan. You might disagree with the method and I'll even agree it's not perfect but I honestly don't see the harm.

 

[Methodical Management]

100% of proceeds go to the japan earthquake relief fund

That statement isn't terribly meaningful on its own.  What's considered part of the product cost?  
Let's say I have a friend who owns a print shop and we decide to do a t-shirt for charity.  I can set her up with a ton of business, which she's making a profit on, pay another friend $X for the design work, which he's making a profit on, and then order the blank shirts from another company, which they're making a profit on.  After it's assembled, it has to be shipped.  Someone can tack a handling charge on that in addition to the actual shipper's cost, and the delivery company isn't going to send each product out for free, either, so they're making a profit.  To say the charity gets "100% of the proceeds" means they get whatever's left over - not 100% of the gross purchase price.  It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone involved donated their time - only that the company isn't keeping the net earnings. 

In no way does "100% of the proceeds" guarantee efficiency in any meaningful sense.  

It would be one thing if 100% of the business' proceeds ALWAYS went to charity, and part of the goal was thus to capture money for nonprofits that would otherwise have gone to products from competing manufacturers.  With disaster relief, consumers already have ample motivation to give.  You're offering them an easy way out by saying "hey, buy more of our stuff and feel good about yourself because part of it will go to charity."  That's NOT as efficient as a direct donation, which is what we should be encouraging in times like these.

If Supreme wanted to sell you desktop wallpaper or some other digital commodity in order to give 100% GROSS to charity, that would be a win/win.  This isn't necessarily a net gain if it causes a significant number of people to pay $35 for a t-shirt instead of donating a similar amount to relief efforts directly.  

Method Man, I see where you're coming from. I agree that a direct donation would be most efficient (I think everyone would agree on that.) The thing is, I view these items these brands and musicians are selling for charity as an extra incentive for people to give. 

If you're a musician, you can potentially offer a digital download as an incentive that allows you to give a full 100% of the purchase price to the relief effort.  Wyclef Jean got into trouble last year when it was discovered that he was billing his own charity to play at its benefit concerts.  He could use the exact same defense you're presenting:  "Hey, something's better than nothing.  If I didn't play, the benefit concert wouldn't have raised anything."  When we had to choose which organization would benefit from our fundraiser, we chose MSF over Yele - and efficiency was a large part of the reason why.  The artists who took part in the fundraiser not only donated their labor, but they also donated the products themselves so that a full 100% of the purchase price went to charity.  The example of tattoo artists donating their services for charity is another true win/win.  Many celebrities are putting up autographed memorabilia for auction, too, so the cost of the tangible good isn't coming out of your donation.  I've heard that some video game developers have been offering special costumes for game characters etc. and donating the full purchase price to relief efforts.  Not all incentives are created equal.  

I don't see what's so wrong with encouraging people to think critically about these fundraisers.  There's a lot of competition out there for donations.  Many of us work very hard for our money and we'd like to see it put to the best possible use.  

 

[Methodical Management]

100% of proceeds go to the japan earthquake relief fund

That statement isn't terribly meaningful on its own.  What's considered part of the product cost?  
Let's say I have a friend who owns a print shop and we decide to do a t-shirt for charity.  I can set her up with a ton of business, which she's making a profit on, pay another friend $X for the design work, which he's making a profit on, and then order the blank shirts from another company, which they're making a profit on.  After it's assembled, it has to be shipped.  Someone can tack a handling charge on that in addition to the actual shipper's cost, and the delivery company isn't going to send each product out for free, either, so they're making a profit.  To say the charity gets "100% of the proceeds" means they get whatever's left over - not 100% of the gross purchase price.  It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone involved donated their time - only that the company isn't keeping the net earnings. 

In no way does "100% of the proceeds" guarantee efficiency in any meaningful sense.  

It would be one thing if 100% of the business' proceeds ALWAYS went to charity, and part of the goal was thus to capture money for nonprofits that would otherwise have gone to products from competing manufacturers.  With disaster relief, consumers already have ample motivation to give.  You're offering them an easy way out by saying "hey, buy more of our stuff and feel good about yourself because part of it will go to charity."  That's NOT as efficient as a direct donation, which is what we should be encouraging in times like these.

If Supreme wanted to sell you desktop wallpaper or some other digital commodity in order to give 100% GROSS to charity, that would be a win/win.  This isn't necessarily a net gain if it causes a significant number of people to pay $35 for a t-shirt instead of donating a similar amount to relief efforts directly.  

Method Man, I see where you're coming from. I agree that a direct donation would be most efficient (I think everyone would agree on that.) The thing is, I view these items these brands and musicians are selling for charity as an extra incentive for people to give. 

If you're a musician, you can potentially offer a digital download as an incentive that allows you to give a full 100% of the purchase price to the relief effort.  Wyclef Jean got into trouble last year when it was discovered that he was billing his own charity to play at its benefit concerts.  He could use the exact same defense you're presenting:  "Hey, something's better than nothing.  If I didn't play, the benefit concert wouldn't have raised anything."  When we had to choose which organization would benefit from our fundraiser, we chose MSF over Yele - and efficiency was a large part of the reason why.  The artists who took part in the fundraiser not only donated their labor, but they also donated the products themselves so that a full 100% of the purchase price went to charity.  The example of tattoo artists donating their services for charity is another true win/win.  Many celebrities are putting up autographed memorabilia for auction, too, so the cost of the tangible good isn't coming out of your donation.  I've heard that some video game developers have been offering special costumes for game characters etc. and donating the full purchase price to relief efforts.  Not all incentives are created equal.  

I don't see what's so wrong with encouraging people to think critically about these fundraisers.  There's a lot of competition out there for donations.  Many of us work very hard for our money and we'd like to see it put to the best possible use.  

 

[truthgetsbusy]

Honestly it's not that serious.  If people buy a t-shirt or donate directly you should be happy Japan is getting ANY $.  There's alot of people who don't care or can't afford to donate to any kind of charity.  I really don't see the need for paragraphs on paragraphs about the different ways to donate. 

 

[truthgetsbusy]

Honestly it's not that serious.  If people buy a t-shirt or donate directly you should be happy Japan is getting ANY $.  There's alot of people who don't care or can't afford to donate to any kind of charity.  I really don't see the need for paragraphs on paragraphs about the different ways to donate. 

 

[iheartboost]

$36 for a logo? Let me find a hi-res link to the photo, take it to the local swapmeet and have me the same exact shirt for $5. !%*$ outta here Supreme.

 

[iheartboost]

$36 for a logo? Let me find a hi-res link to the photo, take it to the local swapmeet and have me the same exact shirt for $5. !%*$ outta here Supreme.

 

[airedweezy]

to me its not the price and ive been to supreme own a select few supreme items.......but we all know and those who disagree with me smh

we all know that these will be up on ebay for 180 people trying to make a buck outt of a tragedy and i dont mean supreme. resellers

 

[airedweezy]

to me its not the price and ive been to supreme own a select few supreme items.......but we all know and those who disagree with me smh

we all know that these will be up on ebay for 180 people trying to make a buck outt of a tragedy and i dont mean supreme. resellers

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by airedweezy

to me its not the price and ive been to supreme own a select few supreme items.......but we all know and those who disagree with me smh

we all know that these will be up on ebay for 180 people trying to make a buck outt of a tragedy and i dont mean supreme. resellers

Why even worry about what you can't control?

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by airedweezy

to me its not the price and ive been to supreme own a select few supreme items.......but we all know and those who disagree with me smh

we all know that these will be up on ebay for 180 people trying to make a buck outt of a tragedy and i dont mean supreme. resellers

Why even worry about what you can't control?

 

[Methodical Management]

Honestly it's not that serious.  If people buy a t-shirt or donate directly you should be happy Japan is getting ANY $.  There's alot of people who don't care or can't afford to donate to any kind of charity.  I really don't see the need for paragraphs on paragraphs about the different ways to donate. 

I wrote a few paragraphs about something I care about that happens to deal with a catastrophic disaster affecting tens of thousands of people.

You made a special effort to let all of us know that you don't care and have no opinion.  Which was the bigger waste of time? 

 

[Methodical Management]

Honestly it's not that serious.  If people buy a t-shirt or donate directly you should be happy Japan is getting ANY $.  There's alot of people who don't care or can't afford to donate to any kind of charity.  I really don't see the need for paragraphs on paragraphs about the different ways to donate. 

I wrote a few paragraphs about something I care about that happens to deal with a catastrophic disaster affecting tens of thousands of people.

You made a special effort to let all of us know that you don't care and have no opinion.  Which was the bigger waste of time? 

 

[truthgetsbusy]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Honestly it's not that serious.  If people buy a t-shirt or donate directly you should be happy Japan is getting ANY $.  There's alot of people who don't care or can't afford to donate to any kind of charity.  I really don't see the need for paragraphs on paragraphs about the different ways to donate. 

I wrote a few paragraphs about something I care about that happens to deal with a catastrophic disaster affecting tens of thousands of people.

You made a special effort to let all of us know that you don't care and have no opinion.  Which was the bigger waste of time? 


Actually my "special effort" was to remind those in this thread that not every one cares or can afford to donate. SO when people do donate money don't nitpick how they do it. T-shirts, lifestrong bands, direct money, or even little graphics under a username.  The point is Japan will get money and that's the only issue that matters.  If I'm Japan I don't care how people donate.
  

 

[truthgetsbusy]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Honestly it's not that serious.  If people buy a t-shirt or donate directly you should be happy Japan is getting ANY $.  There's alot of people who don't care or can't afford to donate to any kind of charity.  I really don't see the need for paragraphs on paragraphs about the different ways to donate. 

I wrote a few paragraphs about something I care about that happens to deal with a catastrophic disaster affecting tens of thousands of people.

You made a special effort to let all of us know that you don't care and have no opinion.  Which was the bigger waste of time? 


Actually my "special effort" was to remind those in this thread that not every one cares or can afford to donate. SO when people do donate money don't nitpick how they do it. T-shirts, lifestrong bands, direct money, or even little graphics under a username.  The point is Japan will get money and that's the only issue that matters.  If I'm Japan I don't care how people donate.