Adult Content Warning

This community may contain adult content that is not suitable for minors. By closing this dialog box or continuing to navigate this site, you certify that you are 18 years of age and consent to view adult content.

Tucker Max, retiring & moving on.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Czechvodkabaron, Jan 18, 2012.

  1. Nom Chompsky

    Nom Chompsky
    Expand Collapse
    Honorary TiBette

    Reputation:
    68
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    4,706
    Location:
    we out

    Look, this is just untrue.

    I mean, I could prove it to you pretty easily, but do we really have to go down that road?

    To clarify, I meant that he's received a fair bit of press that PP would probably deem "negative." I have no idea whether that would actually affect their donors, but let's not pretend that the only people who ever have a sideways word are "campus feminist groups."
     
  2. ghettoastronaut

    ghettoastronaut
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    70
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,917
    Question nobody has asked in this thread: how much is $500K really worth to Planned Parenthood? How long can the average PP clinic sustain itself on that much money? How much do they rake in in private donations every year? How much of it comes from small donations vs. large acts of philanthropy? What are the demographics of those small donors?
     
  3. Aetius

    Aetius
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    774
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,461
    Assuming a middleclass upbringing, $500K would be enough to take care of 3-4 children to age 18. Oh wait, Planned Parenthood? $500K probably "takes care" of hundreds. Zing!
     
  4. scootah

    scootah
    Expand Collapse
    New mod

    Reputation:
    12
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,750
    Look, I don't think there's a 'this is the one thing it was about' answer to this. I think in terms of pure truth, Tucker genuinely appreciates PP, because he's a narcissist, and they've helped him personally. I think Tucker had a tax position that needed a big donation and I think he wanted the warm and fuzzies from donating to someone who'd appreciate it. I think like anyone donating half a mill in a single shot, he wanted something back from it - good press or publicity or whatever. I think the initial intention was to get that good press or pr from first spinning 'Tucker can't hate women, look how much he donates to PP' and second as a joke about how absurd and funny it would have been to have a Tucker Max abortion clinic. I think now Ryan is spinning it into an any press is good press event, but I don't think that was ever the actual intention. I think it's just the salvage direction now.

    And I really don't fault PP for not taking his money. I can see a lot of reasons to be uncomfortable with Tucker's name and being made the butt of a joke. What I do see a fault with is not even trying to mitigate those things. Not even proposing anonymous donation. Not even tabling a way to make the donation acceptable with a PR spin somewhere. I could see getting to the end of that kind of discussion and saying 'look, you're a fratty douche and this isn't going to work, we can't accept your donation.' But not even having that conversation? That seems kind of fucked.
     
  5. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    324
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shocking that PP seems to share the same speculation. Why do you think they told him they were most concerned about how his writing was perceived? I wonder why Tucker spends so much time answering negative press when he 'hasn't received much'. As for him not being famous, you aren't serious, are you? If you accept the donation you are linked with Tucker, especially for groups that want to condemn you. Saying the right things after the fact helps, but it doesn't change the connection.

    It has everything to do with it. Like I said, this is political. Your image is money, and that's especially true for an NPO. You know there is going to be a flaming war of epic proportions if Obama care gets enacted, and PP is going to be a prime target(we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars from the government btw). Taking Tucker's donation and thus linking yourself to his name adds gasoline to the fire. I'm not saying your average donor is going to pull out, but some donors that are very self righteous - I can see that happening. It's also not hard to imagine someone reading an article or hearing from word of mouth about this, and using it to shape their perception of PP. And you don't see the difference between taking a donation from average rich Joe vs Tucker? Really?

    Clinic(s) to shut down? How much do you think 500k is? Turning down money is detrimental to their cause, but if accepting donations from the wrong people is more detrimental, and is associated with risks for future funding it's the right thing to do.
     
  6. KIMaster

    KIMaster
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,870
    Neither you nor I know what PP's exact reasons. I'm only saying that the idea that there would be some "big controversy" is severely over-blown and irrational. Tucker is not even particularly famous.

    And even if there was some controversy, is the price of this controversy greater than $500k and most importantly, the opportunity to keep one or two clinics from shutting down? At the end of the day, thousands of women were screwed out of a great medical resource because of Planned Parenthood's decision.

    Because he is a narcissist.

    Okay, in very tangible terms, how would this "link" hurt them? Specifically, who would no longer donate to PP that would have otherwise?

    We can speculate back and forth about hypothetical donors, but at the end of the day, they refused Tucker's donation in August of 2011, and since then, no one stepped up to save the Texas clinics. Ergo, they shut down.

    Are you implying here that accepting Tucker's donation would somehow hurt their chances at major federal aid from Obama? I don't even think Tucker's over-sized ego would agree with you there.

    As scootah correctly noted, they didn't even try. Instead of sitting down with Tucker and figuring out how they could use his $500,000 and minimize any possible PR hit, (if there would have been one at all) they just categorically refused. I don't see how anyone can defend that. Even if their ultimate decision would have still been to refuse the money after a serious and long session of number-crunching and potential strategies.

    Instead of an honest effort, they made a knee-jerk reaction.
     
  7. scotchcrotch

    scotchcrotch
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    80
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,446
    Location:
    ATL
    I dont think Tucker making his donation anonymous, or with terms, was part of the deal. Nor do I think he should have made any concessions.

    He's handing them half a million and taking the same benefits as anyone else.


    It's not like he wanted his face on the sign or anything. Photoshop anyone?
     
  8. audreymonroe

    audreymonroe
    Expand Collapse
    The most powerful cervix... in the world...

    Reputation:
    546
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,859
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    I've been wondering why they didn't even take the meeting too, and this is obviously just a guess, but all of the bullshit funding battles in Texas started last year, and those are the root of the cause for any of the clinics closing in the state. I'm thinking that maybe by the time Tucker started talking donations, they already knew or assumed they were doomed to close anyway, and $500k wouldn't have saved anything. Maybe they figured it wasn't worth meeting with a controversial donor when they knew they wouldn't be able to use it anyway.
     
  9. scootah

    scootah
    Expand Collapse
    New mod

    Reputation:
    12
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,750
    Look, in 1993, turning down a controversial donation might have been the low risk way to handle it. But The Streisand Effect has changed risk management realities of this kind of thing. The reality of the internet is that once the offer was made - turning it down or accepting it become essentially indistinguishable from a controversy point of view unless you successful spin the outcome. When you're fucked either way, you might as well get paid half a million dollars for the hassle. The good way to handle it would have been to spin it so they could take the money in a way that would sell to their other contributors, or at least spin it in a way where it was Tucker's fault that they couldn't take it.

    'Look, we really tried to work with the guy, but we couldn't find a common ground to work from that was compatible with our ethics as an organization'.

    plays way better than how it actually went down. Everyone knows Tucker is an asshole and just assumes that no matter what's being said publicly, it fell through because Tucker is an asshole.

    If Tucker had shown up for the meeting, the people there had said 'Look, we get that this is a gimmick for you, but the reality is we've got to keep politics working to keep our other funding working, doing this anonymously would be idea for us, but if that doesn't work for you, can we try and put together some kind of press direction that makes this thing work.' or even if they'd called and said 'Look, we've run this with our press people, and we can't see a way to make this work. Is there any chance you'd donate anonymously? No. Look, we're really sorry but we can't accept a donation from you if it means naming something after you.' this would all spin out as a non issue. 'We tried, Tucker wouldn't compromise and we couldn't let him make us a joke, it's a shitty situation but everyone understands'. But turning him down cold was probably just as bad for the PR as accepting it.

    Trial by media used to mean justifying your actions to a bunch of journalists. Now it's justifying your actions to Reddit / 9Gag.
     
  10. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    324
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,690
    Location:
    Minnesota
    So you don't think Tucker is very famous or gets much negative press. I'm not going to make a water is wet argument.

    I guess my posts seem more over reactionary than what I intended. I don't think accepting the donation would have floored PP, or that the government would have cut funding because of that donation. However, I think bad press and bad PR, including accepting from controversial donations can spawn more opposition, as well as make other donors apprehensive (including our government who has a long standing history of responding the social pressures and perceptions). When you're talking about a donor who's made jokes about your organization in the past, and is likely to use his donation as a gimmick, it looks really bad. All the other problems with his writings and PR still withstanding.

    Scootah - A theory doesn't really convince me it's indistinguishable whether they accepted the donation or not just because people are going to hear Tucker tried to donate. Besides, the Streisand effect is about censorship backfiring, and as a result leading to further dissemination of information. PP doesn't have anything to censor here. Under the circumstances it would have been talked about a lot whether the donation was taken, or not - that doesn't mean the controversy or perception would have been the same.
     
  11. scootah

    scootah
    Expand Collapse
    New mod

    Reputation:
    12
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,750
    The Streisand effect is about the negative unintended consequences of trying to get piss out of the pool. Which is to say trying to prevent negative perceptions of your business circulating on the internet. In this case there's a negative perception associated with accepting money from an asshole or being used as the punchline for a joke by an asshole, or the negative perception of turning down half a million dollars when you're closing clinics due to lack of funding.

    We talk more when there's something to argue about. Because after porn, arguing with strangers is the primary purpose of the internet. When people have room to roll out their stupid opinions and pre-existing hatreds or just blindly apply their biases to a situation and there's something around those topics to argue about - it gets press. It becomes a thing. If you want to keep the reddit/9gag flame war minimal, so that your planned PR campagin takes more focus than the random bullshit du jour that jerks are talking about - you have to lead it out. Pick a path forward that you can honestly recount later to make the argument boring. Boring arguments either don't get traction, or fade out quickly - less harm to your PR.
     
  12. KIMaster

    KIMaster
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,870
    No, he isn't. Not even close. Ask anyone in the real world who Tucker Max is, and you will get a lot of confused stares and "who?" responses.

    It's all relative. As noted, Planned Parenthood gets a million times more negative press than Max does. You can't even argue this point. A lot of people here read any and every article about Tucker, and Tucker himself devotes a lot of time and energy to his haters (again, because he is a narcissist), but in the grand scheme of things, I don't see how Tucker garners more negative attention than the benefit Planned Parenthood would have received from his $500,000.

    A lot of charities would be willing to put up with some bad press for that money, and those aren't even the ones facing a major funding crisis in Texas. Including, by the way, the several charities Max did donate to. Speaking of that, where is the outrage over those charities accepting his money? There isn't any.

    It might "look bad", but how does it hurt them in any tangible manner? Especially with the right PR spin? "Looking bad" doesn't always translate to either lost revenue or opportunities. Sometimes it's just blowhards on the Internet writing stupid, pissed-off articles. Which PP gets a lot of anyways.
     
  13. LessTalk MoreStab

    LessTalk MoreStab
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    750
    "Sorry honey you have to have your rape baby, we could have had the money but it might of resulted in a 1 column article on page 3, and a mean internet boy might have taken advantage of it, we just couldn't risk it."

    If there is any substance behind the turning down of the money I would never give these people a cent, fuck them. If you are the director of a NFP you don't get the privilege of turning away that amount of money, if there is some bad press harden the fuck up, do your job and try to put a good spin on it while employing the money to do good. It really is that simple.

    If you disagree I invite you to die in a fire.
     
  14. Nom Chompsky

    Nom Chompsky
    Expand Collapse
    Honorary TiBette

    Reputation:
    68
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    4,706
    Location:
    we out

    For really though?

    You have absolutely no knowledge of how Planned Parenthood's financing works -- neither do I -- and you're ready to tell anybody who disagrees with you to die in a fire?

    Have you ever considered that publicity is at the center of how they make their money? Look what happened with Komen. I'm not saying I know exactly what they should have done, but come on, even by internet histrionic standards this is ridiculous.

    As for Tucker, it's pretty fucked up that he's throwing Planned Parenthood under the bus for publicity. It sort of undermines his initial intent, however charitable. As for Ryan, this has to be some of his best work yet.
     
  15. D26

    D26
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    110
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,305
    I'm here to die in a fire.

    Accepting money from Tucker Max would have exhibited bad judgment on the part of PP. Enemies would have pounced on it, and the story would be about PP's bad judgment. Others who might donate (and some who might donate far more than Tucker offered) would NOT donate, thus costing PP money in the long run. Believe it or not, they likely did a cost/benefit analysis on whether or not accepting this donation would've caused more harm than good, and they likely came to the conclusion that the loss of donations from others due to bad press outweighed the money they'd have gotten from Tucker.

    But you didn't think about that, because you were too busy being righteously indignant.

    Edit: Nom beat me to it. Fuck.
     
  16. Nom Chompsky

    Nom Chompsky
    Expand Collapse
    Honorary TiBette

    Reputation:
    68
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    4,706
    Location:
    we out

    I'm not sure what real world you live in (maybe the one where his movie was screened?), but when people sell millions of books and have New Yorker, Forbes, and NY Times pieces written about them, real world people read them.

    On a personal level, I've had "real world" people mention Tucker about as often as I've had them mention other super popular authors.
     
  17. FreeCorps

    FreeCorps
    Expand Collapse
    #1 Internet Boo

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,785
    Location:
    Boca Raton, FL
    I know this is purely anecdotal, but I haven't had too many people know who TM is the few times I've mentioned him, so who knows.
     
  18. KIMaster

    KIMaster
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,870
    For all the people scared to death about this supposed "bad publicity", how would this tangibly affect Planned Parenthood? A few blowhards writing angry Internet articles? Is that all? No skin off PP's nose. They get a litany of that already. As for people not donating because of Tucker, that is far-fetched speculation, especially since they couldn't get anyone else to raise that same $500k in the months since refusing Tucker's offer.

    But I can tell you how not accepting $500,000 tangibly affected them, after all. Clinics in Texas closed down and thousands of women were denied sexual and reproductive health services they relied upon. Great piece of work, right?

    Also, where is all this "bad publicity" for the charities that Tucker did end up donating half a million dollars to? Do you even know the names of said charities? Exactly.

    Finally, with regards to a cost-benefit analysis, I don't believe they did one. They never had a chance to. They called Tucker literally an hour before they were supposed to meet him. The way it reads, it was a purely last-minute decision without any discussion on how to mitigate matters.

    By his own estimation, Tucker has sold 2-4 million books. Most authors who have sold a similar amount are not especially famous, either. Ask anyone in the real world who Jeanette Walls or even Tim Ferris is and you will also get a lot of confused stares.

    Only the absolute highest-selling authors in the world are famous to the common person. People like JK Rowling and Stephanie Meyer. And even then, there are a lot of people who don't know names like Paul Coelho or James Patterson. One of the things that a celebrity "controversy" needs to become a truly big PR story is a recognizable name. Failing that, it has to be something truly crazy and sensational.

    Tucker Max is not a recognizable name to the average person. Nor is a story of him donating to PP that outrageous, even with the proper context.
     
  19. Nom Chompsky

    Nom Chompsky
    Expand Collapse
    Honorary TiBette

    Reputation:
    68
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    4,706
    Location:
    we out
    My friend.

    I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a Tucker hater, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Scratch that, it's about a medium distance from the truth. I've already called him smart and shrewd in this very thread, and you could go back and find plenty of places where I praise his business acumen and willingness to interact with fans. I even went to the premiere. I have plenty of issues with his product, but being a "hater" doesn't really come into it -- I've given him ample chances, and have tried to be very objective about this whole situation.

    (Now my beef with Don Glover -- that's hating. Trust me, I am nowhere NEAR above hating, and I would cop to it if that's what was happening).

    But your estimation of Tucker's press as being "just a couple of campus feminist groups" is just wrong. Let's start slow.

    Gawker.com has some two dozen plus articles about him, and that's just on their flagship site. Each seems to get around 20,000 views, which isn't a ton in internet terms, but is far from nothing.

    What else?

    His movie was profiled -- not glowingly -- on both the Times website and in the print version. Hardly campus feminists.

    What else though?

    He's been written about on Forbes.com three separate times. He's been on MTV. He's been the subject of countless posts in both the feminist and MRA online communities.

    For real, though, what else?

    He's been mentioned in the NY Daily News and the NY Post, two of the highest circulating papers in the country. He's been in the New Yorker. This isn't even counting the original Times profile in '06, when the fratire movement was just starting.



    If you're too lazy to look into any of this, I'll save you some time -- in not one of them does he come off as exactly the sort of person that Planned Parenthood would want to align themselves with. Whether or not it was worth 500,000 is immaterial -- for you to say that his negative press is limited to campus feminists is just willfully stupid, and then to imply that I'm a hater because -- actually, I'm not sure why you think I'm a hater -- is just crazy.

    I didn't even touch book sales, b.
     
  20. LessTalk MoreStab

    LessTalk MoreStab
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    750
    Fuck Tucker Max he's not relevent to the specific argument, no charity should refuse money. They don't get that luxury, high net worth individuals can, but not those who's sole purpose is to help those who can't help themselves.

    Starving people don't care where the bread comes from.