you can't make this stuff up. wtf?

[uscitizen]

The head of the Candies Foundation described Bristol as a "lightning rod" This is exactly what the organization wanted to get people talking. It is a shame that young Ms Palin is being used to stir up faux controversy, but for that, she should at least be well compensated.

My Lord. How much money did liberals pay Levi Johnson to do nothing but trash the Palin family? Hypocrites.

He got paid?

I never heard of that.

I thought he got paid by corporations for advertising and such?

 

[uscitizen]

Note the bold, which is what I am addressing:

Because Mommy and Daddy brought them in the spotlight themselves?
The Obama's keep their kids OUT of the spotlight as much as possible. Maybe thats the difference.
And, once the Palins shoved their family in our faces while talking about family values as her kid is knocked up then appears on tv shows and is now spokesperson for abstinence, they are not to be discussed? I find that a bit strange. And one sided.

Just sayin'.

Michelle and Barack also brought their children to the limelight. But, I choose to leave them alone. It's the right thing to do.

Of course it is the right thing to do.... but, you know, if one of the Obama kids - in a few years time - ended up in the same situation as Bristol.... I would be equally defensive of her as I am of Bristol. And, if that kid then hit 20 and decided to work to stop other kids from making the same decisions.... I would be absolutely supportive of that kid doing it. Whether I agree with their parents politics or not.

But, let's not forget... apparently, Sarah Palin is responsible for this... because she uses facebook and won't shut the fuck up. Now, that.... that is seriously funny shit.

Presidential grade material using facebook. Now that is funny.

 

[uscitizen]

Equating Bristol to the Obama kids is not even close. Bristol chose to become a celebrity and opened herself for the game.

 

[Si modo]

I'm actually now quite interested in the outcome of the campaign, so I'm gonna email the Foundation as ask what, if any, evaluation they have planned and what, if any, follow up campaigns they have in the pipeline.

Keep us posted as I seriously don't think it's gonna work. Like I've said before, the Simon says method of teaching doesn't work. Parents always want their kids to learn from their mistakes but the kids always insist on making their own mistakes....

Damn, you are thick.

Right, safety training doesn't work, evah, when they show what happens when you do the wrong thing.

Moron.

 

[uscitizen]

Do not try this at home!

 

[mal]

that's some funny shit right there.

^And that's why she does it...

Hey del, instead of being a Hired Troll, how about Addressing my Question without being an Asshole?...



peace...

she repeats herself to amuse me? damn thoughtful

Weak even for you fucknuckle...



peace...

 

[California Girl]

Yeah, exactly, she's one of them and she has a child, what a great example.

Actually, she is a good example. The ad is basically saying 'not everyone is as lucky as I am.... and showing how most teens will end up.... struggling to get by and raise a kid'.

Bear in mind, we don't know that she was their first choice.... we don't know if they approached others who turned it down. There's a lot we don't know about how Bristol came to be their spokesperson, but, frankly, I just don't have a problem with anyone giving kids a reality check about having a kid. I don't care who it is.

Then if the intent is to show struggling teen mothers, they should HAVE a struggling teen mother..or mothers being the mouth piece.... not some pampered, spoiled, well taken care of, not struggling for anything, brat who got knocked up, talking about it.

I am not sure ANY teen mother being offered that much money would turn it down. I think they chose her because of her name value.

As far as i am concerned bristol is not a reality check to teen motherhood...

If you watched the ad, you would know that THAT is exactly what she talked about. I appreciate the argument but..... the fact is this is ONE ad in an ongoing campaign.... and we don't know what the rest of the ads will be. Maybe they will choose to have a struggling teen mom, maybe they already have had a struggling teen mom. I doubt any of us have bothered to check that part.... because, as per usual, we look at one small part of it, instead of looking at this for what it is.... ONE small part of a much larger campaign.

The ad is not supposed to show Bristol as a reality check.... She says so in the ad.

It might help if you watched it before commenting.

 

[chanel]

Amazing - all these rich kids working for Candies and no one said a word. Maybe because it's a good message?

 

[Samson]

Please, Explain...

Palin is Experienced in the Mistake...

Why wouldn't she be a Good Lesson from her own Perspective?



peace...

Cali... You Literally have the next post after this one, and later I Bumped it again...

Anyway... There it is.



peace...

No offense, Mal, but I rarely read your posts. I find your writing style to be somewhat 'babbling' so I tend not to read it.

It's that fucking smilie face followed by "peace..."

Ya gotta Hate that Shit.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Amazing - all these rich kids working for Candies and no one said a word. Maybe because it's a good message?

How much and in what years were they paid? And was it 21% of the gross income for the year?

 

[California Girl]

Amazing - all these rich kids working for Candies and no one said a word. Maybe because it's a good message?

How much and in what years were they paid? And was it 21% of the gross income for the year?

Do you understand the difference between a 'campaigning' charity and a grant giving charity? If you did, you would realize how irrelevant your questions are.

 

[chanel]

Who cares? It's not government money!!!!!

How much does PETA pay stars like Bethenny and the Kardashians to pose nude? Who cares?

If you don't like the message or the messenger, don't give. I don't give to PETA either but if they want to use fake celebrities to shame women into giving up fur, that's their perogative. It has no effect on me.

Wow. PDS on steroids.

 

[syrenn]

Actually, she is a good example. The ad is basically saying 'not everyone is as lucky as I am.... and showing how most teens will end up.... struggling to get by and raise a kid'.

Bear in mind, we don't know that she was their first choice.... we don't know if they approached others who turned it down. There's a lot we don't know about how Bristol came to be their spokesperson, but, frankly, I just don't have a problem with anyone giving kids a reality check about having a kid. I don't care who it is.

Then if the intent is to show struggling teen mothers, they should HAVE a struggling teen mother..or mothers being the mouth piece.... not some pampered, spoiled, well taken care of, not struggling for anything, brat who got knocked up, talking about it.

I am not sure ANY teen mother being offered that much money would turn it down. I think they chose her because of her name value.

As far as i am concerned bristol is not a reality check to teen motherhood...

If you watched the ad, you would know that THAT is exactly what she talked about. I appreciate the argument but..... the fact is this is ONE ad in an ongoing campaign.... and we don't know what the rest of the ads will be. Maybe they will choose to have a struggling teen mom, maybe they already have had a struggling teen mom. I doubt any of us have bothered to check that part.... because, as per usual, we look at one small part of it, instead of looking at this for what it is.... ONE small part of a much larger campaign.

The ad is not supposed to show Bristol as a reality check.... She says so in the ad.

It might help if you watched it before commenting.

No, i did not watch it..but that still does not change my opinion of her being any kind of spokes person on the disadvantages of teen pregnancy. That however is just my opinion.

I get it though. She would have been an idiot to turn down that kind money.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Amazing - all these rich kids working for Candies and no one said a word. Maybe because it's a good message?

How much and in what years were they paid? And was it 21% of the gross income for the year?

Do you understand the difference between a 'campaigning' charity and a grant giving charity? If you did, you would realize how irrelevant your questions are.

I understand completely. Which is why I never said anything about grants. Perhaps you should actually read what is written? Mmkay?

Giving 21% of your gross to a single person as a payment which still does not include airtime costs, production fees, print fees, booking fees, marketing promotional fees and basic office overhead is a grossly inefficient allocation of resources considering the meager ROI involved. Mismanagement of funds on the part of the charity IMO. Which is why I asked in what years the other celebrities were paid. Were they part of the 2009 campaign as well? If so, then if they were paid anything at all that charity is soon to be headed for some serious financial restructuring given the funds that were already used. If they were not paid in the same year, does the charity then have a track-record of gross mismanagement of funds, or was this campaign just a bad roll of the dice financially that happens to all human endeavors?

I don't consider these questions irrelevant. And since you've already said that you would consider giving them money it seems to me that they would be even more relevant to you. But I'm wise with my money and what charities I give it to. Maybe you're not.

 

[California Girl]

Then if the intent is to show struggling teen mothers, they should HAVE a struggling teen mother..or mothers being the mouth piece.... not some pampered, spoiled, well taken care of, not struggling for anything, brat who got knocked up, talking about it.

I am not sure ANY teen mother being offered that much money would turn it down. I think they chose her because of her name value.

As far as i am concerned bristol is not a reality check to teen motherhood...

If you watched the ad, you would know that THAT is exactly what she talked about. I appreciate the argument but..... the fact is this is ONE ad in an ongoing campaign.... and we don't know what the rest of the ads will be. Maybe they will choose to have a struggling teen mom, maybe they already have had a struggling teen mom. I doubt any of us have bothered to check that part.... because, as per usual, we look at one small part of it, instead of looking at this for what it is.... ONE small part of a much larger campaign.

The ad is not supposed to show Bristol as a reality check.... She says so in the ad.

It might help if you watched it before commenting.

No, i did not watch it..but that still does not change my opinion of her being any kind of spokes person on the disadvantages of teen pregnancy. That however is just my opinion.

I get it though. She would have been an idiot to turn down that kind money.

Could I suggest you watch it? There's at least one link to it in this thread. It's a strong, impactive ad. Ignore the money.... that's how much the charity deemed her value to be... and she was paid not for one ad, but to undertake the PR work to promote it as well.

 

[California Girl]

How much and in what years were they paid? And was it 21% of the gross income for the year?

Do you understand the difference between a 'campaigning' charity and a grant giving charity? If you did, you would realize how irrelevant your questions are.

I understand completely. Which is why I never said anything about grants. Perhaps you should actually read what is written? Mmkay?

Giving 21% of your gross to a single person as a payment which still does not include airtime costs, production fees, print fees, booking fees, marketing promotional fees and basic office overhead is a grossly inefficient allocation of resources considering the meager ROI involved. Mismanagement of funds on the part of the charity IMO. Which is why I asked in what years the other celebrities were paid. Were they part of the 2009 campaign as well? If so, then if they were paid anything at all that charity is soon to be headed for some serious financial restructuring given the funds that were already used. If they were not paid in the same year, does the charity then have a track-record of gross mismanagement of funds, or was this campaign just a bad roll of the dice financially that happens to all human endeavors?

I did read what was written. The point being that they are a campaigning charity, therefore the majority of their spend is gonna be on campaigning. And that includes paying their chosen celebrities to undertake work on their behalf. It's hardly an unusual way to run a charity. Nor does it suggest any 'mismanagement'.

In your opinion. That's the key phrase.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Do you understand the difference between a 'campaigning' charity and a grant giving charity? If you did, you would realize how irrelevant your questions are.

I understand completely. Which is why I never said anything about grants. Perhaps you should actually read what is written? Mmkay?

Giving 21% of your gross to a single person as a payment which still does not include airtime costs, production fees, print fees, booking fees, marketing promotional fees and basic office overhead is a grossly inefficient allocation of resources considering the meager ROI involved. Mismanagement of funds on the part of the charity IMO. Which is why I asked in what years the other celebrities were paid. Were they part of the 2009 campaign as well? If so, then if they were paid anything at all that charity is soon to be headed for some serious financial restructuring given the funds that were already used. If they were not paid in the same year, does the charity then have a track-record of gross mismanagement of funds, or was this campaign just a bad roll of the dice financially that happens to all human endeavors?

I did read what was written. The point being that they are a campaigning charity, therefore the majority of their spend is gonna be on campaigning. And that includes paying their chosen celebrities to undertake work on their behalf. It's hardly an unusual way to run a charity. Nor does it suggest any 'mismanagement'.

In your opinion. That's the key phrase.

Campaigning constitutes all of the associated fees I just described. Not just a single salary to an individual.

It looks to me that Candies signed Bristol up with a roll of the dice in 2009, expecting that the donations should would help bring in would offset their gamble in the size of the salary they paid her. There is no data for 2010 given, but obviously indications from the 2009 data make it look like their gamble is going to fail. Which is another reason why I asked in what years the other celebrities were spokespeople and how much they got paid (if any). I would want to know if the charity has a record of rolling the dice like this.

 

[California Girl]

I understand completely. Which is why I never said anything about grants. Perhaps you should actually read what is written? Mmkay?

Giving 21% of your gross to a single person as a payment which still does not include airtime costs, production fees, print fees, booking fees, marketing promotional fees and basic office overhead is a grossly inefficient allocation of resources considering the meager ROI involved. Mismanagement of funds on the part of the charity IMO. Which is why I asked in what years the other celebrities were paid. Were they part of the 2009 campaign as well? If so, then if they were paid anything at all that charity is soon to be headed for some serious financial restructuring given the funds that were already used. If they were not paid in the same year, does the charity then have a track-record of gross mismanagement of funds, or was this campaign just a bad roll of the dice financially that happens to all human endeavors?

I did read what was written. The point being that they are a campaigning charity, therefore the majority of their spend is gonna be on campaigning. And that includes paying their chosen celebrities to undertake work on their behalf. It's hardly an unusual way to run a charity. Nor does it suggest any 'mismanagement'.

In your opinion. That's the key phrase.

Campaigning constitutes all of the associated fees I just described. Not just a single salary to an individual.

It looks to me that Candies signed Bristol up with a roll of the dice in 2009, expecting that the donations should would help bring in would offset their gamble in the size of the salary they paid her. There is no data for 2010 given, but obviously indications from the 2009 data make it look like their gamble is going to fail. Which is another reason why I asked in what years the other celebrities were spokespeople and how much they got paid (if any). I would want to know if the charity has a record of rolling the dice like this.

The Candie's Foundation Announces Bristol Palin Initiative was Money Well Spent - Yahoo! Finance

he Candie's Foundation (the "Foundation") announced today that partnering with Bristol Palin was a successful vehicle to combat teenage pregnancy. Bristol Palin's work with the Foundation including multiple television and print PSAs, viral video, town hall meetings, and numerous media interviews has resulted in more than ONE BILLION media impressions. This is an unprecedented reach for a teen pregnancy prevention campaign.

The Candie's Foundation is not a grant-making organization. Like many other foundations, it develops and implements its own programs. The goal of the Foundation is to get people talking about teen pregnancy; this is done by producing and funding celebrity-driven public service television, print, radio and online announcements and campaigns.

The expense of Ms. Palin's campaign has been far more cost-effective than other public service and social marketing campaigns, some of which spend tens of millions of taxpayers' money each year. The Candie's Foundation is entirely funded by private donations and has never received taxpayer money

 

[syrenn]

If you watched the ad, you would know that THAT is exactly what she talked about. I appreciate the argument but..... the fact is this is ONE ad in an ongoing campaign.... and we don't know what the rest of the ads will be. Maybe they will choose to have a struggling teen mom, maybe they already have had a struggling teen mom. I doubt any of us have bothered to check that part.... because, as per usual, we look at one small part of it, instead of looking at this for what it is.... ONE small part of a much larger campaign.

The ad is not supposed to show Bristol as a reality check.... She says so in the ad.

It might help if you watched it before commenting.

No, i did not watch it..but that still does not change my opinion of her being any kind of spokes person on the disadvantages of teen pregnancy. That however is just my opinion.

I get it though. She would have been an idiot to turn down that kind money.

Could I suggest you watch it? There's at least one link to it in this thread. It's a strong, impactive ad. Ignore the money.... that's how much the charity deemed her value to be... and she was paid not for one ad, but to undertake the PR work to promote it as well.

I just watched it.

Yes it does have a good message. However i got several messages from that little piece she did.

Watching from the stand point that i DO know what kind of support she does have:

Play all you want if you are rich...if you are poor, pause before you play, life may not be so grand.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpHlztPeHf8]YouTube - Candies Foundation Bristol Palin PSA[/ame]

 

[California Girl]

No, i did not watch it..but that still does not change my opinion of her being any kind of spokes person on the disadvantages of teen pregnancy. That however is just my opinion.

I get it though. She would have been an idiot to turn down that kind money.

Could I suggest you watch it? There's at least one link to it in this thread. It's a strong, impactive ad. Ignore the money.... that's how much the charity deemed her value to be... and she was paid not for one ad, but to undertake the PR work to promote it as well.

I just watched it.

Yes it does have a good message. However i got several messages from that little piece she did.

Watching from the stand point that i DO know what kind of support she does have:

Play all you want if you are rich...if you are poor, pause before you play, life may not be so grand.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpHlztPeHf8]YouTube - Candies Foundation Bristol Palin PSA[/ame]

Yep. That's the point. These kids idolize celebrities.... and see celebrities with some cute kid perched happily on their hip, but they don't see the Nanny, the puke, the dirty diapers, the sleepless nights, the teething, etc etc etc.

Also, you might want to check this out.... the candie's foundation

This is the research running Palin's ad against others to see which was most impactive on their target audience. Palin's worked best. Hence, their decision to go with Palin.