Wounded Warriors Project doesn't deal with companies involved with Firearms?

Wangmuf said:

My guess would be something along the lines of, "I have no knowledge of how WWP operates or their ideology, I'm just a wounded vet that they've done fantastic things to help."

Click to expand...

Guess again.

And let's hope this all gets straightened out on Sunday


http://www.examiner.com/article/wou...t-of-proportion-says-official?cid=db_articles


Once again, Brother Gresham's situation makes for interesting writing, and hopefully, reading.




I dunno about this after doing the interview with the lady from WWP.

Another change to the WWP web site this week: As was already pointed out, the FAQ) was changed to remove the mention that WWP fundraisers can not be partnered with "the exhange of firearms," and now says: "WWP fundraisers cannot be sexual or political in nature and cannot be partnered with alcohol brands."

The second change I note is subtle, but possibly made so they can include knife makers. This week WWP confirmed to Knife Rights that they will not allow their logo to be used on knives for fundraisers.

From the WWP web site, before last week:

"WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies."

This is the copy as changed last week.

"WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or weapon companies."

Tom,
I listened to your Podcast interview with the WWP CEO. I think you did an excellent job of pinning the policy question to him. And sadly, like a politician, the man just gave a BS and convoluted explanation. :banghead:

Mr Nardizzi first said that the no interviews thing was a mistake and that they do interviews with gun shows and mentioned that they had done interviews with the NRA in the past as an example. It was when they got to the use of their logo - co-branding in particular - that things got a little iffy. He claimed that this type of marketing is highly regulated and that for each company authorised to use their logo, they needed to have a lawyer, a marketing person and someone to track the use of the logo. This apparently makes it not worth their while to go with smaller companies. He gave bicycle companies as an example of companies with which they no longer co-brand due to low return on investment. But on their web site, they say this:

(http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/additional-opportunities.aspx)

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or weapon companies.

Click to expand...

As others have mentioned, they have changed "firearm" to "weapon". No mention of bikes though. Now let's play "One of these things is not like the others". Sex, politics, religion, alcohol, weapons, bicycles. Which one is different, and which one does not appear in their statement. Hmm... smell funny? It seems pretty clear to me that firearms (or now weapons) are in the category of "PC" rather than "not feasible".

When Tom asked him if a gun company wanted to donate a portion of a particular sale to WWP and cut a check, he said sure, they'd do that. Could they use the logo? No, and he went back to the requiring lawyers, marketing people and someone to track the use of the logo. So no logo, but they'll take a portion of the proceeds. Wait a minute: "or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds". OK, well that's it for me. Doesn't pass the smell test.

But wait, there's more. After he finished speaking with Mr Nardizzi, Tom spoke with Tracy Della Vecchia of Marine Parents (Marineparents.com). They work with families of members of all branches of service now, not just the Marines, but even more interesting, they were willing to let Gun Talk use their logo. Tom was careful to ask the question the same way he did to Mr Nardizzi.

So my take is that the guy is so full of it that you can smell it over the pretty phrases he uses. Just my take, and you can check out the podcast for yourself at http://traffic.libsyn.com/guntalk/121118guntalkB.mp3.

Listening to the WWP CEO talk was like listening to a politician lie. His bicycle analogy was awful, because he doesn't have them listed as "no-no's" on his policy. He was dancing for sure. I'm glad Tom asked the hard questions and didn't shy away.

WWP is dead to me. There are way too many other organizations to donate to to help veterans than that turd.

15% going to the wounded warriors is a huge fail. They will not get my money. Plenty of other groups out there to donate to that do good works.

Head honco tried to go on and make nice

http://traffic.libsyn.com/guntalk/121118guntalkA.mp3

started weasling like you can't believe



they're on the excrement list until further notice :banghead:

Tom,

Fabulous job!



http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=3467

Late last week, WWP announced their executive director would appear on Gresham’s show to clarify the WWP position, in addition to offering some weaselese language that they respected everyone’s right to their rights to gun ownership – sorta like President Obama begins his self-description. “I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but…”

Nardizzi, for being so well-paid, utterly fumbled.

He tried to spin his way out of the mess but only managed to spin himself in deeper, offering all sorts of weak excuses why WWP couldn’t partner with gun-related sponsors. He cited sponsorships with cyclists and how WWP had cut back on those sponsorships because of some sort of inferior return on investment.

But but, don't you see the picture of that gun on our logo? Don't tell me we're anti gun.

Man, how pathetic!

I've read several comments about Vets and ptsd from folks who have no clue about the realities of the problem. The WWF spends 83% of the donations on programs benefitting Wounded Warriors. These troops are not remf, but combat wounded soldiers. The idea is to ease their transition back into civilian life. I suspect that few of you would part with a few bucks to help them anyway.

Coop45 said:

I've read several comments about Vets and ptsd from folks who have no clue about the realities of the problem....

I suspect that few of you would part with a few bucks to help them anyway.

Click to expand...

How ironic.
You chide folks who "have no clue" about vets and PTSD, and yet, you're suspecting they won't donate their money to help the vets. Do you have a clue about how these folks spent their money?
As said already, there are plenty of other vets organizations out there to be helped. WWP is not the only game in town. I used to be a frequent donor to them. No longer, after all this crap. I choose how to donate my money. You do the same with yours.

I see I was not the only one who heard "corporate weasel speak" from the CEO.

Trying to pull the wool over Tom's eyes regarding how 501c3 orgs are run, the legal requirements, and ducked and deflected every time he was asked specifically about the explicit "no firearms" (now "no weapons") wording.

Fail.

Then Tom interviewed the MarineParents lady, and she was completely cool with the firearms association -- going as far as to stipulate that vets, wounded and otherwise, tend to be "firearms enthusiasts." She cheerfully agreed that use of the logo would be fine.

Later on, a couple of callers wanted to stomp the WWP CEO, and Tom would have none of it, going so far as to defend the CEO's salary in the context of the amounts of money being handled by the organization.

He nipped the slander and personal attacks in the bud, and made it clear that his purpose was to bring forth the facts and express his opinion, not to tell others what to think or what to do with their money.

He made his point well.

The WWP CEO, on the other hand, did not. What became clear was that his "ROI" focus was more a function of not offending big donors by being seen to openly support guns, knives, and all things "weapons-related" than anything to do with paying lawyers and complying with regulations.

I wish them well, and hope they continue to do good things for wounded vets.

They will, however, be doing it without my money.

It's not like there's a shortage of charities available for helping the vets.

Coop45 said:

I've read several comments about Vets and ptsd from folks who have no clue about the realities of the problem. The WWF spends 83% of the donations on programs benefitting Wounded Warriors. These troops are not remf, but combat wounded soldiers. The idea is to ease their transition back into civilian life. I suspect that few of you would part with a few bucks to help them anyway.

Click to expand...

Coop, I'm going to be kind and assume that your low post count means you really don't know a lot of folks here real well and leave it at that.

I donated today to the Semper Fi Fund in my Father's honor, a WWII vet who resides in Arlington.

I encourage others to donate to the charity of their choice.

WWP obviously has an anti-gun-rights agenda and has engaged in a popular cause in an attempt to give credence to its unpopular anti-gun(weapons) message. It doesn't matter how pretty the packaging. When you unwrap it and find a turd, you have a turd; and no turd has a clean end you can pick it up by.

I was listening intently to the interview Tom had with Mr Nardizzi, and Mr Nardizzi resorted to some rather obvious Delphi tactics such as his attempt to silence Tom with shame by inferring Tom was dissing the supposed "main and laudable function" of WWP. Tom's expert handling of Mr Nardizzi's ill advised and failed tactic exposed Mr Nardizzi for what his true agenda is - even to those who have no knowledge or recognition of Delphi tactics. (In these instances, if you smell a rat, it's likely you've been Delphi'd -- if not out-and-out lied to.)

Bruce "Woody" Wood

It's too bad this is what it turned out to be with WWP. I've shared the outcomes with other friends and needless to say, we'll be sending our dollars and friends elsewhere.

If Wounded Warriors does not want anything to do with guns.... Why Is Legacy making a 1911 and donating money from each sale to the WWP?

I'm sorry, but I''ve got some heartburn with the CEO compensation of $319 k a year.

Crazy-mp, how about a link. You'd think if this were the case, WWP would proudly boast of such an alliance with Legacy and dispel the claims of WWP being anti-gun-rights.

Woody

WWP does not co-brand . or receive . a portion of proceeds from . firearms companies.

...how about a link.

Click to expand...

http://www.legacysports.com/products/cit_m1911.html

You'll see the big black 1911 in the center of that page and just below it is a row of tabs. Second tab from the left is their Wounded Warrior Project info.

$25.00 from each Wounded Warrior model sold will be
donated to the Wounded Warrior Project to aid injured,
returning veterans. Legacy Sports International has
been an avid supporter of WWP for the past three
years, donating over $20,000.00 to help wounded vets
and their families.

Click to expand...

Also...

http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/default.aspx?item=CIT45FSPWWP

http://www.galleryofguns.com//prod_images/CIT45FSPWWP.JPG

They will, however, be doing it without my money.

Click to expand...

Ditto!

My understanding is that WWP did, in fact, enter into arrangements to allow the use of its logo on guns. It changed that policy a couple of years ago, and says it absolutely (the exact word the CEO used on the radio) will not allow that now.

I'm guessing that the Legacy guns are from an earlier deal.

Tom's right.

The other quote was something like, "we used to do that, but we've quit licensing our logo for weapons."

I'd have to go back and listen again for an accurate quote.