you can't make this stuff up. wtf?

[Ravi]

it's not research when you set it up to give the result you want.

would you prefer pepper or shit?

pepper wins in a landslide.

shocker

What is it that you think the charity has to gain by skewing their own results? They're not publicly funded, they had no reason to twist their results. This is a very standard way of ascertaining which celebrities a charity to target to work with. They get feedback from their target demographic and use that as a starting point. Then, they research those celebrities and approach them. Once they have a group of celebs, they develop campaigns around those people.

I honestly don't think many people on this board are thinking about this logically. Bristol Palin was a good choice, for some strange reason (probably that Dancing on Ice shit) she has name recognition, and young people (again for some strange reason) seem to like or respect her. So they used her. What is the problem with that? Give me just one logical, well thought out reason why not? Not an opinion (like they should use virigins), or a set of other celebs, or any bullshit... just one LOGICAL reason against her.

how do you know they have no reason to skew their results?

what makes you think that the charitable arm of a private for-profit corporation exists for anything beyond a tax writeoff?

Or more likely as a profitable form of advertising.

 

[California Girl]

Miley Cyrus comes to mind as a better choice for spokesperson.

She's has a huge base of fans among teens. She actually is a good example to the kids, having not had a baby, unlike Miss Palin.

Anyone else have any ideas?

I assume you have some kind of research to back that up. Some academic research demonstrating the suitability of Ms Cyrus measured against Ms Palin perhaps?

These guys who work for Candie's... they're experts with this target market. They know what does and does not work with teens. They've been running this foundation for 10 years, and they're the charity arm of the fashion brand.

You seem to think this is an 'either/or' thing... it isn't. They may well use Miley... assuming Miley agrees... they use a whole bunch of celebrities in a variety of ways.... you're looking at this as one message... it's not. Its part of a series of messages with a lot of celebs.

I find it sad that people can't see past their own prejudices to see the good that Bristol will do with this.

If they are experts in what they are doing, why has teen pregnancy gone UP since they started their foundation?

Probably because in the same time frame, there has been a much larger influence in the opposite direction.

 

[Si modo]

Miley Cyrus comes to mind as a better choice for spokesperson.

She's has a huge base of fans among teens. She actually is a good example to the kids, having not had a baby, unlike Miss Palin.

Anyone else have any ideas?

I assume you have some kind of research to back that up. Some academic research demonstrating the suitability of Ms Cyrus measured against Ms Palin perhaps?

These guys who work for Candie's... they're experts with this target market. They know what does and does not work with teens. They've been running this foundation for 10 years, and they're the charity arm of the fashion brand.

You seem to think this is an 'either/or' thing... it isn't. They may well use Miley... assuming Miley agrees... they use a whole bunch of celebrities in a variety of ways.... you're looking at this as one message... it's not. Its part of a series of messages with a lot of celebs.

I find it sad that people can't see past their own prejudices to see the good that Bristol will do with this.

If they are experts in what they are doing, why has teen pregnancy gone UP since they started their foundation?

That is not true.

(Reuters) - The U.S. teen pregnancy rate in 2009, the latest year for which data are available, hit its lowest since tracking began 70 years ago, the Center for Disease Control said on Tuesday [April 5, 2011].
....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/us-cdc-teen-pregnancy-idUSTRE7345ZY20110405

And, teen pregnancies leading to births are DOWN since the foundation started, at least, according to the CDC.

 

[California Girl]

I assume you have some kind of research to back that up. Some academic research demonstrating the suitability of Ms Cyrus measured against Ms Palin perhaps?

These guys who work for Candie's... they're experts with this target market. They know what does and does not work with teens. They've been running this foundation for 10 years, and they're the charity arm of the fashion brand.

You seem to think this is an 'either/or' thing... it isn't. They may well use Miley... assuming Miley agrees... they use a whole bunch of celebrities in a variety of ways.... you're looking at this as one message... it's not. Its part of a series of messages with a lot of celebs.

I find it sad that people can't see past their own prejudices to see the good that Bristol will do with this.

If they are experts in what they are doing, why has teen pregnancy gone UP since they started their foundation?

That's not true. Teen pregnancies are DOWN since the foundation started, at least, according to the CDC.

That'll teach me to assume that if someone states something as fact, then they have researched the fact. My bad.

 

[California Girl]

What is it that you think the charity has to gain by skewing their own results? They're not publicly funded, they had no reason to twist their results. This is a very standard way of ascertaining which celebrities a charity to target to work with. They get feedback from their target demographic and use that as a starting point. Then, they research those celebrities and approach them. Once they have a group of celebs, they develop campaigns around those people.

I honestly don't think many people on this board are thinking about this logically. Bristol Palin was a good choice, for some strange reason (probably that Dancing on Ice shit) she has name recognition, and young people (again for some strange reason) seem to like or respect her. So they used her. What is the problem with that? Give me just one logical, well thought out reason why not? Not an opinion (like they should use virigins), or a set of other celebs, or any bullshit... just one LOGICAL reason against her.

how do you know they have no reason to skew their results?

what makes you think that the charitable arm of a private for-profit corporation exists for anything beyond a tax writeoff?

Or more likely as a profitable form of advertising.

So, taking a politically incorrect, and 'uncool' stance on teen sex is profitable as an advertising tool? I seriously doubt that, Ravi.

 

[Si modo]

If they are experts in what they are doing, why has teen pregnancy gone UP since they started their foundation?

That's not true. Teen pregnancies are DOWN since the foundation started, at least, according to the CDC.

That'll teach me to assume that if someone states something as fact, then they have researched the fact. My bad.

 

[Ravi]

What is it that you think the charity has to gain by skewing their own results? They're not publicly funded, they had no reason to twist their results. This is a very standard way of ascertaining which celebrities a charity to target to work with. They get feedback from their target demographic and use that as a starting point. Then, they research those celebrities and approach them. Once they have a group of celebs, they develop campaigns around those people.

I honestly don't think many people on this board are thinking about this logically. Bristol Palin was a good choice, for some strange reason (probably that Dancing on Ice shit) she has name recognition, and young people (again for some strange reason) seem to like or respect her. So they used her. What is the problem with that? Give me just one logical, well thought out reason why not? Not an opinion (like they should use virigins), or a set of other celebs, or any bullshit... just one LOGICAL reason against her.

how do you know they have no reason to skew their results?

what makes you think that the charitable arm of a private for-profit corporation exists for anything beyond a tax writeoff?

I don't really care what their reason is. The work that their charity does is necessary and important. The reason - for me - to accept their results is that I don't see what they have to gain from skewing them. What's in it for them to skew their results?

People seem to be of the opinion that Bristol Palin is their sole spokeperson. She is not. I have already provided a link to a list of celebrities who work on behalf of the charity. Then the argument was that she was paid $262k for one advert. No, she wasn't. She was paid for one campaign - that includes the tv ad, a set of interviews, and other ad work. Then, she's not suitable because she's a single parent. That's actually what makes her the right person to do it. She uses her own experience to explain why it's not smart. Then, the argument changes to there are better celebrities they could have chosen. How do we know they haven't already approached those and been turned down? We don't. How do we know they haven't signed others up for future campaigns? Again, we don't.

In short, every single 'reason' is bullshit.

You've totally deluded herself. No one claimed Palin is their only spokesperson. Del hit the nail on the head...their no-preggers campaign is nothing but thinly veiled advertising much like a beer companies billboards calling for us to drink responsibly. Look at Candie's website...they sell shoes with soft porn advertising.

Candies

Having Palin be a front for the non-preggers campaign is just more selling of their shoes. They'd be more effective if they ran spots saying if you get pregnant you won't be able to afford our shoes.

Candies pimps teen moms to sell shoes and Palin pimps her kid for money that also helps Candies sell shoes.

 

[Si modo]

how do you know they have no reason to skew their results?

what makes you think that the charitable arm of a private for-profit corporation exists for anything beyond a tax writeoff?

I don't really care what their reason is. The work that their charity does is necessary and important. The reason - for me - to accept their results is that I don't see what they have to gain from skewing them. What's in it for them to skew their results?

People seem to be of the opinion that Bristol Palin is their sole spokeperson. She is not. I have already provided a link to a list of celebrities who work on behalf of the charity. Then the argument was that she was paid $262k for one advert. No, she wasn't. She was paid for one campaign - that includes the tv ad, a set of interviews, and other ad work. Then, she's not suitable because she's a single parent. That's actually what makes her the right person to do it. She uses her own experience to explain why it's not smart. Then, the argument changes to there are better celebrities they could have chosen. How do we know they haven't already approached those and been turned down? We don't. How do we know they haven't signed others up for future campaigns? Again, we don't.

In short, every single 'reason' is bullshit.

You've totally deluded herself. No one claimed Palin is their only spokesperson. Del hit the nail on the head...their no-preggers campaign is nothing but thinly veiled advertising much like a beer companies billboards calling for us to drink responsibly. Look at Candie's website...they sell shoes with soft porn advertising.

Candies

Having Palin be a front for the non-preggers campaign is just more selling of their shoes. They'd be more effective if they ran spots saying if you get pregnant you won't be able to afford our shoes.

Candies pimps teen moms to sell shoes and Palin pimps her kid for money that also helps Candies sell shoes.

OMGawd!!!! Shut the corporation AND the non-profit DOWN!!!!!!

 

[Ravi]

I don't really care what their reason is. The work that their charity does is necessary and important. The reason - for me - to accept their results is that I don't see what they have to gain from skewing them. What's in it for them to skew their results?

People seem to be of the opinion that Bristol Palin is their sole spokeperson. She is not. I have already provided a link to a list of celebrities who work on behalf of the charity. Then the argument was that she was paid $262k for one advert. No, she wasn't. She was paid for one campaign - that includes the tv ad, a set of interviews, and other ad work. Then, she's not suitable because she's a single parent. That's actually what makes her the right person to do it. She uses her own experience to explain why it's not smart. Then, the argument changes to there are better celebrities they could have chosen. How do we know they haven't already approached those and been turned down? We don't. How do we know they haven't signed others up for future campaigns? Again, we don't.

In short, every single 'reason' is bullshit.

You've totally deluded herself. No one claimed Palin is their only spokesperson. Del hit the nail on the head...their no-preggers campaign is nothing but thinly veiled advertising much like a beer companies billboards calling for us to drink responsibly. Look at Candie's website...they sell shoes with soft porn advertising.

Candies

Having Palin be a front for the non-preggers campaign is just more selling of their shoes. They'd be more effective if they ran spots saying if you get pregnant you won't be able to afford our shoes.

Candies pimps teen moms to sell shoes and Palin pimps her kid for money that also helps Candies sell shoes.

OMGawd!!!! Shut the corporation AND the non-profit DOWN!!!!!!

Hyperbole.

They are certainly allowed to do as they please but why put lipstick on that pig and pretend they (Candies and Palin) are being altruistic when clearly they are not.

 

[Valerie]

That's not true. Teen pregnancies are DOWN since the foundation started, at least, according to the CDC.

That'll teach me to assume that if someone states something as fact, then they have researched the fact. My bad.

There's a difference between teen pregnancy rates and the rate of teens who give birth.

Feb 24 2010

For the first time in 16 years, teen pregnancy is on the rise. It's a trend one expert called "deeply troubling," as many see it linked to the decline of contraceptive use among teens and the increase of "abstinence only" sex education programs.

According to a January 2010 report from the Guttmacher Institute, the teen pregnancy rate in the United States rose 3% in 2006, paralleling the 4% rise in teen births and 1% rise in teen abortions for that year.

Teen Pregnancy - Rise in Teen Pregnancy After Decades of Decline

 

[Si modo]

You've totally deluded herself. No one claimed Palin is their only spokesperson. Del hit the nail on the head...their no-preggers campaign is nothing but thinly veiled advertising much like a beer companies billboards calling for us to drink responsibly. Look at Candie's website...they sell shoes with soft porn advertising.

Candies

Having Palin be a front for the non-preggers campaign is just more selling of their shoes. They'd be more effective if they ran spots saying if you get pregnant you won't be able to afford our shoes.

Candies pimps teen moms to sell shoes and Palin pimps her kid for money that also helps Candies sell shoes.

OMGawd!!!! Shut the corporation AND the non-profit DOWN!!!!!!

Hyperbole.

They are certainly allowed to do as they please but why put lipstick on that pig and pretend they (Candies and Palin) are being altruistic when clearly they are not.

You can pretend what you like (like that teen pregnancy rates are up rather than down, for example). I don't mind beer and distilleries telling folks to drink responsibly. I'll pretend that works, too (http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/pdf/us_alcohol_trend_yrbs.pdf).

Of course, neither I nor you have control data, but as teen pregnancies and alcohol use are both down and we have similar campaigning styles against both, I'm in a good place about both.

 

[California Girl]

how do you know they have no reason to skew their results?

what makes you think that the charitable arm of a private for-profit corporation exists for anything beyond a tax writeoff?

I don't really care what their reason is. The work that their charity does is necessary and important. The reason - for me - to accept their results is that I don't see what they have to gain from skewing them. What's in it for them to skew their results?

People seem to be of the opinion that Bristol Palin is their sole spokeperson. She is not. I have already provided a link to a list of celebrities who work on behalf of the charity. Then the argument was that she was paid $262k for one advert. No, she wasn't. She was paid for one campaign - that includes the tv ad, a set of interviews, and other ad work. Then, she's not suitable because she's a single parent. That's actually what makes her the right person to do it. She uses her own experience to explain why it's not smart. Then, the argument changes to there are better celebrities they could have chosen. How do we know they haven't already approached those and been turned down? We don't. How do we know they haven't signed others up for future campaigns? Again, we don't.

In short, every single 'reason' is bullshit.

You've totally deluded herself. No one claimed Palin is their only spokesperson. Del hit the nail on the head...their no-preggers campaign is nothing but thinly veiled advertising much like a beer companies billboards calling for us to drink responsibly. Look at Candie's website...they sell shoes with soft porn advertising.

Candies

Having Palin be a front for the non-preggers campaign is just more selling of their shoes. They'd be more effective if they ran spots saying if you get pregnant you won't be able to afford our shoes.

Candies pimps teen moms to sell shoes and Palin pimps her kid for money that also helps Candies sell shoes.

If this campaign was from anyone but Bristol Palin, you'd be fine with it. I call bullshit.

 

[Si modo]

That'll teach me to assume that if someone states something as fact, then they have researched the fact. My bad.

There's a difference between teen pregnancy rates and the rate of teens who give birth.

Feb 24 2010

For the first time in 16 years, teen pregnancy is on the rise. It's a trend one expert called "deeply troubling," as many see it linked to the decline of contraceptive use among teens and the increase of "abstinence only" sex education programs.

According to a January 2010 report from the Guttmacher Institute, the teen pregnancy rate in the United States rose 3% in 2006, paralleling the 4% rise in teen births and 1% rise in teen abortions for that year.

Teen Pregnancy - Rise in Teen Pregnancy After Decades of Decline

No shit. Take a look at my post.

And, according to the CDC, teen pregnancies are down.

 

[Ravi]

That'll teach me to assume that if someone states something as fact, then they have researched the fact. My bad.

There's a difference between teen pregnancy rates and the rate of teens who give birth.

Feb 24 2010

For the first time in 16 years, teen pregnancy is on the rise. It's a trend one expert called "deeply troubling," as many see it linked to the decline of contraceptive use among teens and the increase of "abstinence only" sex education programs.

According to a January 2010 report from the Guttmacher Institute, the teen pregnancy rate in the United States rose 3% in 2006, paralleling the 4% rise in teen births and 1% rise in teen abortions for that year.

Teen Pregnancy - Rise in Teen Pregnancy After Decades of Decline

Thanks...that's what I was talking about.

 

[Si modo]

There's a difference between teen pregnancy rates and the rate of teens who give birth.

Feb 24 2010

For the first time in 16 years, teen pregnancy is on the rise. It's a trend one expert called "deeply troubling," as many see it linked to the decline of contraceptive use among teens and the increase of "abstinence only" sex education programs.

According to a January 2010 report from the Guttmacher Institute, the teen pregnancy rate in the United States rose 3% in 2006, paralleling the 4% rise in teen births and 1% rise in teen abortions for that year.

Teen Pregnancy - Rise in Teen Pregnancy After Decades of Decline

Thanks...that's what I was talking about.

And the CDC says the teen pregnancy rates are down.

I'm sorry that is the opposite of your claim, but I bet most will believe the CDC rather than you.

 

[Ravi]

There's a difference between teen pregnancy rates and the rate of teens who give birth.

Feb 24 2010

For the first time in 16 years, teen pregnancy is on the rise. It's a trend one expert called "deeply troubling," as many see it linked to the decline of contraceptive use among teens and the increase of "abstinence only" sex education programs.

According to a January 2010 report from the Guttmacher Institute, the teen pregnancy rate in the United States rose 3% in 2006, paralleling the 4% rise in teen births and 1% rise in teen abortions for that year.

Teen Pregnancy - Rise in Teen Pregnancy After Decades of Decline

No shit. Take a look at my post.

And, according to the CDC, teen pregnancies are down.

You forgot the all important "ending in birth" bit.

 

[Si modo]

There's a difference between teen pregnancy rates and the rate of teens who give birth.

No shit. Take a look at my post.

And, according to the CDC, teen pregnancies are down.

You forgot the all important "ending in birth" bit.

Before my edit, perhaps I did. Irrespective of that, the CDC reports that teen pregnancy rates are down.

 

[Ravi]

No shit. Take a look at my post.

And, according to the CDC, teen pregnancies are down.

You forgot the all important "ending in birth" bit.

Before my edit, perhaps I did. Irrespective of that, the CDC reports that teen pregnancy rates are down.

No, it says teen births are down, not pregnancies.

 

[Si modo]

You forgot the all important "ending in birth" bit.

Before my edit, perhaps I did. Irrespective of that, the CDC reports that teen pregnancy rates are down.

No, it says teen births are down, not pregnancies.

Let's see the data on actual pregnancies to support your claim.

Teen birthrates are definitely down. Let's see the data on all pregnancies. If they are up, then abortions are likely up.

But, the subject topic is having babies as a kid.

I am interested in seeing your data on teen pregnancies being up.

 

[Ravi]

Before my edit, perhaps I did. Irrespective of that, the CDC reports that teen pregnancy rates are down.

No, it says teen births are down, not pregnancies.

Let's see the data on actual pregnancies to support your claim.

Teen birthrates are definitely down. Let's see the data on all pregnancies. If they are up, then abortions are likely up.

But, the subject topic is having babies as a kid.

I am interested in seeing your data on teen pregnancies being up.

Valarie posted it.

I admire that you admitted you were wrong by posting birth statistics instead of pregnancy statistics.