Smartest thing peter griffinn ever said. . So you can pay , 445, 883 on a commercial for: starving kids, but you can' t feed them?
x
Click to expand

Comments(54):

[ 54 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #55 to #18 - licestr (03/29/2013) [-]
also,
Big ass car = small penis
Small ass clown car = Oh dear **** !
User avatar #25 - thepyras (03/29/2013) [-]
I get the point of twitter accounts for fictional characters, but only if you use it in character. This is something Peter Griffin would never say.
User avatar #35 to #25 - bighairyfart (03/29/2013) [-]
i think he did say it in one of those star wars-family guy crossover movies
#43 - jandersoninbbb (03/29/2013) [-]
The advertisements are made so that, theoretically, a large group of people that see it will donate more than just one organization.
#20 - emurater (03/29/2013) [-]
shut up meg.
shut up meg.
+2
#28 to #20 - thuntking **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#59 to #28 - electrickwalrus ONLINE (03/29/2013) [-]
he shot her in the boob
#29 - iheartidiots (03/29/2013) [-]
made this a while back; relates
User avatar #16 - diablojoe (03/28/2013) [-]
First of all, charitable organizations are given TV advertising spots for free, secondly most of the footage comes from prerecorded stock footage and very little original footage is ever actually used and even if they did use original footage, a small crew and maybe one camera + travel fees+ some second rate editting software, which is all they'd ever actually, use would not cost 6,000,000+ dollars. Shut the **** up, I'm sick of seeing this ******* content get thumbed you mothertossing arsewanker.
User avatar #51 to #16 - siridontcare (03/29/2013) [-]
Also you get more from the commercials. You honestly think they put money into commercials without getting it back? Even if it was a 6 million dollar campaign. In the end they are going to get more then twice that. So whats the bitching about wasting the money? All I hear is bitching about people not taking the lazy route and doing less in the long run.
User avatar #60 to #16 - ieatbengay (03/29/2013) [-]
they get a lot of volunteers to do the editing and filming professionally so that's free too
User avatar #24 to #16 - godtherapist (03/29/2013) [-]
"How much of ChildFund International funds are used to benefit children and families? We are proud to report that in fiscal year 2009, 81% of all funds received by ChildFund International went to programs and services for the children and families in the communities we serve. ChildFund International spent 8.4% on management and DJ 4DM1Nistration expenses and 10.7% on fundraising. Overall, ChildFund spent $166.1 million dollars on services to children."

Taken from: You need to login to view this link

According to the figures given here ChildFund openly admits to spending approx. 16 million dollars in advertising.
#48 to #24 - Asatdave (03/29/2013) [-]
I still don't understand why overhead costs are seen as a bad thing. I see it like this:   
you can give $500,000 to a research team to research cures for cancer,    
OR   
you can give that $500,000 to a fundraising team and have them make 80 million dollars   for the cause in the space of a few years, and use 10-20 million on TOP of that to pay their teams and fundraisers.   
Which do you think breast cancer patients would prefer? the $500k or the $80 Million? It's a no-brainer for me.
I still don't understand why overhead costs are seen as a bad thing. I see it like this:
you can give $500,000 to a research team to research cures for cancer,
OR
you can give that $500,000 to a fundraising team and have them make 80 million dollars for the cause in the space of a few years, and use 10-20 million on TOP of that to pay their teams and fundraisers.
Which do you think breast cancer patients would prefer? the $500k or the $80 Million? It's a no-brainer for me.
User avatar #57 to #48 - toosexyforyou (03/29/2013) [-]
He didn't say anything was wrong with using 16 mill to advertise when you use $166.1 mill to help children. He was just telling people the truth and saving them from diablo's ********
#8 - anon (03/28/2013) [-]
The idea is to get publicity for the issue and hopefully the commercial would make more for the issue than it cost. Just like in regular commercials.
#23 - anon (03/29/2013) [-]
The fact that he put an precise number makes people actually believe that the number is real, have you seen the adverts?
User avatar #39 to #23 - jewsburninindaoven (03/29/2013) [-]
Shut up meg
+1
#46 - potatonuggets **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #49 - onceman ONLINE (03/29/2013) [-]
Omg this is so true, cause I'm sure it's just common sense that people with loads of money go to these places with children living in extreme poverty, make commercials showing their concern and asking you to help, and just leave without helping them out in any way.

That's how ******* stupid you, the people who have reposted this, and Seth McFarlen sound.
#42 - terrorrizor (03/29/2013) [-]
**terrorrizor rolled a random image posted in comment #55120 at Slice of Life thread 3 ** family guy is such a ****** show
-40
#2 - wretchedlarva has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #21 to #2 - ComicBookGuy (03/29/2013) [-]
It's okay bud, I know what you mean
#31 to #2 - kungfujesusx (03/29/2013) [-]
I ******* hate these accounts. Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, Wiz ************************* . They can all burn >:l
User avatar #3 to #2 - awesomanium (03/28/2013) [-]
You mean, that's not the REAL Peter Griffin?
#37 to #3 - mytrakytra (03/29/2013) [-]
Will the real Peter Griffin please, stand up.
Will the real Peter Griffin please, stand up.
User avatar #4 to #3 - wretchedlarva (03/28/2013) [-]
It's not even Seth MacFarlane, I mean.
#53 - strongsauce (03/29/2013) [-]
PLEASE show your parents this website... I know you don't give to charity   
   
www.charitynavigator.org/
PLEASE show your parents this website... I know you don't give to charity

www.charitynavigator.org/
#54 to #53 - anon (03/29/2013) [-]
Don't tell me what to do.
#52 - anon (03/29/2013) [-]
its a reminder to people that kids are starving..

imagine a world with no such ads... and imagine the people who actually doesnt care.
People need to be reminded.
#50 - winniedawho (03/29/2013) [-]
Revenue raising dude, revenue raising.

You have to spend to earn MORE, that what revenue raising means.
#41 - anon (03/29/2013) [-]
**** you Mr. Santa Claus Diabeetus Man, YOU feed those kids.
User avatar #38 - helenwheels ONLINE (03/29/2013) [-]
"Smartest thing peter griffinn ever said" -sept he never actually said it.
User avatar #19 - philliyoMLB (03/29/2013) [-]
Well if they're paying over 6 million for an ad, chances are there is going to be way more than 6 million dollars donated because of that ad.
User avatar #22 to #19 - sketchE (03/29/2013) [-]
doubt it
User avatar #33 to #22 - tehlulzbringer (03/29/2013) [-]
You're right, they're probably just throwing money away because they hate money

Brilliant thinking.
#27 to #22 - creepyunclebob (03/29/2013) [-]
If they didn't make a profit from the ads they wouldn't make them. Simple as that.
User avatar #26 to #22 - ronyx ONLINE (03/29/2013) [-]
That's actually how it works though.
User avatar #12 - kirluu (03/28/2013) [-]
The point of the commercial is to inform people of the problem, thus increasing the amount of people who will take action and help the fond. This is supposed to make up for the money spent on the commercializing and campaigning.

In other words, this post is retarded.
User avatar #13 to #12 - mcfunkdaddy (03/28/2013) [-]
the charities take a share out of the donations. they literally do not give a **** about the purpose for donating.
User avatar #14 to #13 - kirluu (03/28/2013) [-]
Or they take a share in order to be able to run the campaigns? Thought of that?

Truth is we can't argue either way. Some might, some might not.
User avatar #15 to #14 - mcfunkdaddy (03/28/2013) [-]
how many corporations are not money greedy? it doesnt matter what the front is.
User avatar #17 to #15 - kirluu (03/28/2013) [-]
It's a lot easier to look upon those fonds with milder eyes and accept the fact that yes, they probably do take a cut for themselves. But think on the positive side - at least some of it goes to what you're donating for. Besides, the money that they take away as a looked upon "illegal cut" or whatever is still what fuels them to keep it going, which in the end still gives more money to the charity itself - even if it's only half or whatever.
[ 54 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)