El-P Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 I'm not sure if there's a non-asshole way to put this but... isn't all charity work to some extent self-congratulatory? Or, rather, ego-boosting? Of course it is. Charity a despicable conception to begin with. But I'm not going into details since it's PWO. But yeah, charity has always been a way to make you feel good about yourself and wash guilt away (and maintain social status quo too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 Tell me it's a fake. Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 This reminds me of the Friends episode where Phoebe is mad at PBS for publicizing charity for selfish gains and Joey explains that ALL charity is selfish because it is designed to make you feel good about yourself, which is a selfish motive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted September 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 No one seems to get the point of this thread, which was NOT to criticize them for doing charity work or even to criticize them for doing it for selfish reasons, but to criticize them for not being better at disguising that. I've said that over and over and over. It was a thread about a company of workers not being particularly good workers in this case. When one of the big banks presents something on one of the shows my kids watch on TV, it seems heartfelt because the segments are better produced and it's far more subtle. So yeah, you'd think a wrestling company would be better at this type of image manipulation since it's so embedded in what they do, but it turns out they aren't. And that's surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 C'mon. Wrestling is one of the most hammiest of all entertainment practically. Is it so surprising they fail at being more genuine or subtle in this? It is almost that they simply do not know how to do anything else but being hammy at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted September 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 But manipulating the masses to create or alter perceptions is what their entire business is, so they should be better at it than anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwebb Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 I'd rather watch videos of people being obnoxious about their charity work than watch people dump buckets of ice on themselves in order to not have to donate. I don't even think WWE is obnoxious about it for the most part. Besides that ridiculous Stand up for WWE campaign a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted September 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 Well ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOTNW Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 But manipulating the masses to create or alter perceptions is what their entire business is, so they should be better at it than anyone. Considering that mainstream media has JUST NOW stopped laughing at them it's hardly a surprise they're not any good at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 September is the Breast Cancer Awareness month, right? So next week on RAW we get the return of the pink ropes & the Susan G. Komen logo on the top of the ramp while wrestlers get told they can't wear pink because it's Cena's gimmick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakeplastictrees Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Loss, I am unsure how I missed your point in my response. I thought I addressed it. I never called for WWE to stop with the charity work, but rather choose what they decide to showcase and possibly even cut down (not completely eliminate) the fluff projects they get involved in just for the photo OPs. Footage of Cena visiting some kids in a hospital is fine. Footage of Eva Marie shaking hands with vets should probably be left on the cutting room floor. People like the charity work, but I think WWE will come off EVEN BETTER and MORE GENUINE if they didn't bring cameras into places all the time and word of mouth spread organically. Loss, I believe if you (and others) heard a grown man tell a story about how nice Charlotte was to him, in the back of your mind you will think "Yeah! That's cause the cameras were rolling!", but if this same guy told you the exact same story about how Charlotte showed up with no cameras, no boom operator, and just stayed for 2-3 hours being social, shaking hands, and signing autographs you would say "Wow! That's really nice of her! No glitz. No glamour! Just her being herself and most likely there on her on accord!". September is the Breast Cancer Awareness month, right? So next week on RAW we get the return of the pink ropes & the Susan G. Komen logo on the top of the ramp while wrestlers get told they can't wear pink because it's Cena's gimmick? This goes back to someone I said during the last breast cancer awareness month and ties into this discussion. WWE is so heavy handed in its presentation of its charity work that EVERYONE during this month wears breast cancer awareness, etc. t-shirts and dressing in pink. I think that is fine for the faces to do it on TV, but not the heels. The heels should wear pink and support the cause while OFF OF TV, but once the cameras roll it should be business as usual as they should be getting heat and not have someone think "You know what, my aunt had an issue some years ago and I use to HATE Rusev last week for the way he was treating Lana, but now that I see him wearing the pin, I know he has a heart of gold. I can't boo him anymore!'. Now granted that is not what millions are thiking or else there would be no heat during this month as everyone would be a defacto fact. Again this plans into less-is-more and not hamming it up while also not completely jumping ship from a concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted September 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 I'm sorry. You did understand it, and my post was not addressed toward you. I should have been more specific. But to address your post and the questions you asked, I don't know. To me, motivation for charity is not important since others benefit from it regardless of that motivation. Sometimes, people do kind things that help others for selfish reasons and sometimes bad people do good things. So motive isn't something I really care about. I'd probably have the same opinion of Charlotte either way, which is "It's nice that she's doing that." We live in a country (we, meaning those of us who live in the US) where companies "go green" while lobbying Congress not to act on climate change. Things are never quite what they seem, and I've grown to accept that as just how the world works. However, in order to realize that a company going green is misleading, I'd have to read up on who they are lobbying and what their pet causes are. So it's something I'd have to actively seek out, and if I didn't, I would be none the wiser. If Wal-Mart airs a commercial promoting their environmental friendliness, chances are that it's going to be well-produced and feel authentic, even if it's not. So it surprises me that WWE, a company that employs many people that have become millionaires because of a great understanding of that, can't get that part right. Think about the best and most satisfying moments in the history of the company, and most of them are going to be because they got that part so right. You'd think it would be easy because it's how they make their living -- projecting sincerity where there may or may not be any to generate a specific reaction from those watching. I don't expect WWE to match Wal-Mart's production values or anything like that, but I do expect WWE to have better mastery of the art of manipulation when it comes to public relations. This expands past promotion of their charity work and actually speaks to their entire PR approach, an approach that they've invested a lot of time and money in improving in the post-Benoit landscape. So I would think the improved PR and the experience of those involved creating emotion is going to result in a segment that seems like the real deal, yet it doesn't at all. That's where my surprise comes in -- not that WWE promotes its charity work for selfish reasons, but that WWE can't mask that they promote their charity work for selfish reasons. They are supposed to be master manipulators, so when other companies that don't have a core business that requires that same degree of emotional manipulation do that better than WWE, it's a bit surprising, maybe more than it should be. I regret starting a thread about this. It really was a quick thought that was spawned from listening to WOR where Dave talked about his takeaways from the charity-promoting segments, and he said some things that I thought were interesting and astute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Loss, I am unsure how I missed your point in my response. I thought I addressed it. I never called for WWE to stop with the charity work, but rather choose what they decide to showcase and possibly even cut down (not completely eliminate) the fluff projects they get involved in just for the photo OPs. Footage of Cena visiting some kids in a hospital is fine. Footage of Eva Marie shaking hands with vets should probably be left on the cutting room floor. People like the charity work, but I think WWE will come off EVEN BETTER and MORE GENUINE if they didn't bring cameras into places all the time and word of mouth spread organically. Loss, I believe if you (and others) heard a grown man tell a story about how nice Charlotte was to him, in the back of your mind you will think "Yeah! That's cause the cameras were rolling!", but if this same guy told you the exact same story about how Charlotte showed up with no cameras, no boom operator, and just stayed for 2-3 hours being social, shaking hands, and signing autographs you would say "Wow! That's really nice of her! No glitz. No glamour! Just her being herself and most likely there on her on accord!". September is the Breast Cancer Awareness month, right? So next week on RAW we get the return of the pink ropes & the Susan G. Komen logo on the top of the ramp while wrestlers get told they can't wear pink because it's Cena's gimmick? This goes back to someone I said during the last breast cancer awareness month and ties into this discussion. WWE is so heavy handed in its presentation of its charity work that EVERYONE during this month wears breast cancer awareness, etc. t-shirts and dressing in pink. I think that is fine for the faces to do it on TV, but not the heels. The heels should wear pink and support the cause while OFF OF TV, but once the cameras roll it should be business as usual as they should be getting heat and not have someone think "You know what, my aunt had an issue some years ago and I use to HATE Rusev last week for the way he was treating Lana, but now that I see him wearing the pin, I know he has a heart of gold. I can't boo him anymore!'. Now granted that is not what millions are thiking or else there would be no heat during this month as everyone would be a defacto fact. Again this plans into less-is-more and not hamming it up while also not completely jumping ship from a concept. I get what you are saying but logically, the heels are people with families and friends. The fans never once thought that a heel goes home to his evil lair so he can concoct more secret plots of terror against the WWE. On a non-kayfabe level, it is possible that the dude playing a heel believes in the cause because he does have people affected by it. It wouldn't necessarily be right to say "Sorry Rusev, I know your mom died of breast cancer but we have to have you no sell it while your opponent gets to wear the pink shirt and pink bands" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Thing is WWE IS good at it. They're production work on this stuff is fantastic. It makes me fucking get all choked up just as much, if not more, as any other company who does the same thing. And I'm as aware of the manipulation going on as anyone. I've seen really bad "Here's What We Do" from companies , the WWE ain't one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.