|Ran across this on OLN's web site||Skip|
Jul 7, 2002 4:58 PM
|re: Ran across this on OLN's web site||Akirasho|
Jul 7, 2002 5:27 PM
|... let's see, what would I rather have...?
Part of my first class postage rates subsidizing a Pro cycling team (I suspect that in the big picture, it's less than 1/10 of one percent) or...
Part of my first class postage rates subsidizing bulk junk mail that clogs the system (I suspect that in the big picture, it's far more than 1/10 of one percent)...???
I wonder where they get their figures... there's more than one sponsor for the Posties...
Remain In Light.
|re: Ran across this on OLN's web site||Wise|
Jul 7, 2002 6:23 PM
|OH MY GOD
a 3 year contract worth 25 million dollars!!! That kind of spending will absolutely CRIPPLE the US budget!
These guys must not realize the air force has bombs that cost more than that
|re: Stamps are still cheaper than baseball tickets.||collinsc|
Jul 7, 2002 10:15 PM
|people, as a rule, dont have a single f*cking clue as to where their money goes. they also have no concept of millions or billions, and obviously cannot even divide.
lesse, 25/3 = 8.3 million per year. Seems like a lot? Yeah, probably, but, oh wait, whats that? 67.6 BILLION in expenditures? that comes out to about .0127% of total expenditures.
.0127% of Ms. Williams $2.10 increase is what now? Heh, yeah, not much.
"If this is the reason why the cost is going up, and we don't have anything to do with the Tour de France, then I oppose that."
Rest assured Ms. Williams, those wackos in tights are not the reason the cost is going up. Its amazing sometimes, I think, to hear what some people will bitch about.
|The reporter is an idiot...the real story is in the sidebar||TPC|
Jul 7, 2002 10:26 PM
$25 million for 3 year sponsorship of Super Lance, et al.
$800 million in executive bonuses!!!!!!!!!!!
What does Felecia Williams think about that???
|The reporter is an idiot...the real story is in the sidebar||Pygme|
Jul 8, 2002 5:14 AM
|The stupid thing about it is that they would spend the money on advertising anyway. THAT MONEY WOULD BE SPENT ANYHOW. They just chose a better, INHO, way to spend it.|
|if i'm not mistaken...||rufus|
Jul 8, 2002 9:06 AM
|from 1998-2000, the usps took in $1 billion in net revenue. they then paid out $800 million of that in bonuses to executives. or were the bonuses paid out of gross receipts? either way, seems like someone is getting their money's worth, and it ain't the government or the consumer.
it's like what i read about enron the other day. after tax revenue was something like $975 million. executive bonuses were $750 million.
|The Value Proposition||GK|
Jul 8, 2002 6:14 AM
|I read an article in one of the trades last year that quoted a USPS source.
They calculated that they've received something on the order of 80 MILLION in publicity as a result of the sponsorship.
I don't recall anything else about the article, including if this was a one year total or a sponsorship-to-date total. Also don't recall what goes into the formula by which they calculate this ROI, but they're getting SOMETHING for their money.
The USPS has BIG time problems unrelated to advertising. Start with labor costs and their inability to automate. Add on top of that their mandate to operate "outlets" (i.e. Post Offices) under circumstances where private businesses would close and consolidate.
Nevertheless, I regard it as a matter of patriotism that we use and support the USPS. Do you REALLY need to spend 2x as much on that FedEx?
Now if only they'd make a stamp for Lance...
|One Word: Anthrax...||eschelon|
Jul 8, 2002 6:47 AM
|People are so f**kin clueless...a huge part of the cost over-runs also involves the whole anthrax crap.
For being the 11th largest "commercial" entity in the US and only spending 8.6 million dollars a year on "advertisingA" is analogous to putting a few drops of petrol into the gas tank and being able to travel across a few states.
|Don't forget the increase in fuel prices the last few years. NM||Lowend|
Jul 8, 2002 7:17 AM
Jul 8, 2002 7:46 AM
|I have oftened wondered about a quasi-Federal agency sponsoring a professional sports team. I only wonder why it took so long to hit the news. I would not go so far as to call pro cycling 'frivalous'. Superfluous, perhaps.|| |