NZ cycle clothing firm withdraws Mike Hall tribute jersey after social media backlash

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So you're calling these people liars, because it says they said the profits will go to the family. So giving up their time for free and organising it all just so they could show some support/to help out a family is a business opportunity you say, righty-ho.

No one is saying they weren't going to give the money to the family, but doing it all without the family's knowledge or approval is just odd (and disrespectful - though you obviously disagree on that).

It is a business opportunity. It is cheap, worldwide advertising. Hasn't gone well.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So you're calling these people liars, because it says they said the profits will go to the family. So giving up their time for free and organising it all just so they could show some support/to help out a family is a business opportunity you say, righty-ho.

There​ is a huge difference between "all profits going to charity" and "giving up their time for free" [sic].

By which I mean:
I make a product
The materials cost £5
The directly labour is £5
The indirect labour is £1
The share of the overheads is £1
I sell it for £15.

What is the profit? Well selling price minus cost is £3, so that is the profit but if you didn't make that product, would you still incur the cost of the labour and overheads?

So it could be argued that you shouldn't include any cost that you would incur even if you didn't make the product but that's up to you.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that while giving all profits away, you are still gaining as your staff and overheads are being paid for which you would have to have picked up if they weren't making the product.

I'm not saying that that was the case here, just that giving away all the profit doesn't mean that you can't gain from it.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

there was massive over-reaction to someone trying to do good, then more faux offence here, again because someone tried helping out, that's not insensitive from those trying to do good. or are you saying that the organised ride and just giving page are insensitive too, what about other situations/help that has being offered for oher people, are they all insensitive, if not, why not?

Not really. Mike's partner has been clear that they hadn't been contacted by the company. Its not a massive over-reaction, more its just a business opportunity which was in clearly poor taste. At no point did anything state in the promotional material for the items that it was "trying to do good", instead it appeared to profit from somebody's misfortune. The TCR supporters counterd this and the items were withdrawn.

The organised ride was carried out in (as far as I am aware) conjunction with the family and wasn't profit making. The JustGiving page organised by James (Skinny) a former TCR rider and friend of Mike's and was in conjunction with the family. Which bit of this do you not understand? 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

there was massive over-reaction to someone trying to do good, then more faux offence here, again because someone tried helping out, that's not insensitive from those trying to do good. or are you saying that the organised ride and just giving page are insensitive too, what about other situations/help that has being offered for oher people, are they all insensitive, if not, why not?

You can't tell the difference between a non-profit-making tribute, or a collection set up by a close friend on behalf of the family, and a company spotting a commercial opportunity (and not contacting or doing so on behalf of anyone close to Mike, only saying profits would be donated after a backlash)?

Yes you can, and are being deliberately obtuse, which is the angle Toot Kit also took, and the reason for their sulk. It doesn't take Occam's razor to spot a firm on the take here.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

flounce mode, behave! 

Someone thinks it would be a nice idea to make a tribute item of clothing with the profits going toward the family to help them out financially, (hardly the first situation for this type of thing) they receive loads of unwarranted hassle/abuse with a pretty firm 'fuck off' from all angles despite only wanting to help out/not make any money.

Making it clear where they stand is what they've done, just as the person doing the just giving page and others on social media have made their position clear also. Taking offence at the "we won’t help in the future" bit is oh so Plectrophenax Nivalis

I've got a bridge to sell you.

Here's what also might have happened: a company decided to profit off Mike's death. They got slated on social media and bottled it, deciding to donate to the justgiving fund at that point. They still hadn't contacted the family or anyone connected with the justgiving fund so continued to be slated.

Then they took it all down with a sulk, because they'd been called out on what they were really up to.

I'm sure your less cynical version is closer to the truth, but I'm curious as to why such a philanthropic act wouldn't have been out in the open via contact with an appropriate person from the off...

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

flounce mode, behave! 

Someone thinks it would be a nice idea to make a tribute item of clothing with the profits going toward the family to help them out financially, (hardly the first situation for this type of thing) they receive loads of unwarranted hassle/abuse with a pretty firm 'fuck off' from all angles despite only wanting to help out/not make any money.

Making it clear where they stand is what they've done, just as the person doing the just giving page and others on social media have made their position clear also. Taking offence at the "we won’t help in the future" bit is oh so Plectrophenax Nivalis

Not really. Somebody saw a business opportunity, off somebody's death. And sought to capitalise on that financially, which is quite sick. They had no contact with the family. As before the JustGiving page is by James (Skinny) a former TCR rider and friend of Mike. 

Receiving "unwarranted hassle/abuse" for trying to profit off somebody's death is pretty poor. Its not "unwarranted" its what normal sane people do. That you are trying to defend this is strange. 

The taking offence at "we won't help in the future", who gives a fuck? They weren't helping anyway, just trying to profit on somebody's death. Its actually quite sad once you take a step back. 

#bemoremike

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Taking offence at the "we won’t help in the future" bit is oh so Plectrophenax Nivalis

Oh great, now the idiot children who call people snowflakes have a new, exciting way of doing it that makes them feel super clever. That's made my day.