Former Wounded Warrior employees accuse charity of wasting millions

[dublinirish]

Former Wounded Warrior employees accuse charity of wasting millions - Videos - CBS News

 

[Bugzly21]

It's been public for a bit now that Wounded Warrior was shady. There are a few stories of them suing other organizations to closure for being too close to their name. I use to support them and then read their actions and moved on

 

[#1rish]

Ugh that's disappointing to hear. Really like what their cause is.

 

[woolybug25]

I didn't watch the piece (at work), but that has not been my experience with the organization. My grandfather left them an extensive amount of money in his will and they were professional and detailed. I have also volunteered for them over the last 5 years and "wasteful" is the last word I would use for them as an organization.

Not saying that the accusations are unfounded (again, I haven't even watched the video), but from my view, the organization has operated with high levels of integrity through my experiences with them.

 

[woolybug25]

It's been public for a bit now that Wounded Warrior was shady. There are a few stories of them suing other organizations to closure for being too close to their name. I use to support them and then read their actions and moved on

Why wouldn't they? Just because they are a non profit, doesn't mean that they don't need to protect their brand and preserve their intellectual property. They shouldn't have to be forced to allow other organizations to knock off their brand. That's ridiculous.

 

[dublinirish]

people never like to hear that the leadership folks of charities make six figures when in reality running an organization like this is as complex as any fortune 500 company..

 

[GATTACA!]

It's been public for a bit now that Wounded Warrior was shady. There are a few stories of them suing other organizations to closure for being too close to their name. I use to support them and then read their actions and moved on

Yeah same shady crap the Susan G. Komen for the cure organization has been accused of.

 

[woolybug25]

Yeah same shady crap the Susan G. Komen for the cure organization has been accused of.

Again... what is shady about an organization protecting their intellectual property and/or branding?


Unless you are talking about something else.

 

[wizards8507]

I didn't watch the piece (at work), but that has not been my experience with the organization. My grandfather left them an extensive amount of money in his will and they were professional and detailed. I have also volunteered for them over the last 5 years and "wasteful" is the last word I would use for them as an organization.

Not saying that the accusations are unfounded (again, I haven't even watched the video), but from my view, the organization has operated with high levels of integrity through my experiences with them.

Yeah my understanding of most of the complaints is that they throw "lavish parties." Well those "lavish parties" are fundraisers, and bring in huge piles of donations.

 

[Bugzly21]

Why wouldn't they? Just because they are a non profit, doesn't mean that they don't need to protect their brand and preserve their intellectual property. They shouldn't have to be forced to allow other organizations to knock off their brand. That's ridiculous.

If you're mission is purely to see wounded veterans help then why go after such a small organization?? This is just one of a few

‘Wounded Warrior’ Charity Unleashes Hell—On Other Veteran Groups - The Daily Beast

 

[RDU Irish]

Yeah my understanding of most of the complaints is that they throw "lavish parties." Well those "lavish parties" are fundraisers, and bring in huge piles of donations.

Our local Catholic Charities rank and file were disgusted with the change from a punch and cookies mixer to a black tie auction Gala for their annual "donor appreciation" type of event. Well they went from four figures to six figures on the net brought in. Takes money to make money sometimes.

I do take exception to people making half a million plus running some charities. United Way is the worst - schmooze CEOs all day so they can coerce their underlings to participate. Haven't seen it recently but their efficiency marks are traditionally embarrassing.

 

[woolybug25]

If you're mission is purely to see wounded veterans help then why go after such a small organization?? This is just one of a few

‘Wounded Warrior’ Charity Unleashes Hell—On Other Veteran Groups - The Daily Beast

Because those organizations are diminishing your brand by stealing their intellectual property, hence... making it harder for them to have brand recognition and MAKE MONEY.

They are in the business of helping wounded warriors, not helping small non profits market themselves. If those organizations need help with branding, they need to go to their local community foundation, not rip off WWF.

 

[phgreek]

I've not seen any issues with them. I think waste is a mischaracterization out of a lack of understanding. I think they do well at getting services to veterans.

The shame is, there is a need for such organizations...

Think Wounded Warrior isn't a good thing...then address the source of their perceived need...what say folks turn their Ire to the VA...oh yea them? The most mismanaged, unethical, immoral government agency since Christ was a corporal...the Human tragedies aside...can anyone cite efficiency numbers from that dumpster fire, or give me a reason why every single person above GS13 equivalent shouldn't be fired?

But yea...lets bang on Wounded Warrior...SMH.

 

[IrishLax]

I've actually heard really mixed things about Wounded Warriors. Long story short, there is a "socially conscious" film festival in my neck of the woods, and one of the shorts they screened at the film festival was called "Birthday":
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/105366576" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p><a href="https://vimeo.com/105366576">"BIRTHDAY" trailer (1 minute)</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/user3509267">Chris King</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

Now, after the screening there was a Q&A with the film makers. One thing they talked about is how shockingly unhelpful Wounded Warriors (and other charities were) in the process of making the film. Going in to making it, they thought Wounded Warriors would be thrilled about something like this and want to help out, but instead they were the polar opposite.

After this discussion, it spurred some people started talking more about Wounded Warriors relative to other charities with similar goals. The troubling thing to hear from some was that they thought Wounded Warriors did "less with more" in terms of actually helping the vets with their money. They said it was very hard to get any assistance from them for medical bills or anything else... but they'll send you boxes and boxes of branded hats and shirts, which don't do much for you.

The prevailing thought wasn't that Wounded Warriors was "bad" or anything, but they didn't do a great job of getting $$ in the hands of people that really need it. A lot of service disabled veterans first-hand recommended other charities with a similar mission that they thought did more for themselves and people they knew.

 

[Woneone]

Because those organizations are diminishing your brand by stealing their intellectual property, hence... making it harder for them to have brand recognition and MAKE MONEY.

They are in the business of helping wounded warriors, not helping small non profits market themselves. If those organizations need help with branding, they need to go to their local community foundation, not rip off WWF.

The Wounded Warriors in Nebraska only had a passive website that generated about $1,400 a month in donations, and did little or no advertising, fundraising or marketing, said Copilevitz, until WWP was featured on Fox television and it started getting upward of $90,000 or more in donations each month. After WWFS was ordered by the court to shut down its website in July 2008 donations immediately decreased 56 percent while WWP’s donations jumped 29 percent, according to court documents.

So yea, Wooly is right. The amount of exposure WWP has generated through TV spots created a tidal wave of donations to other, very similar, foundations. That sounds reasonable that they are being infringed on.

The problem I have is how this aligns with their mission statement, and I guess a moral issue from that. If the allegations are true and their pissing away money, than they have no right, in my mind, to also cut also alternative sources of funding to these wounded warriors (man, hope they don't see that, might get sued). You can still make the "infringed on" argument, but only if that superceds what you believe is best for wounded veterans.

 

[kmoose]

If you're mission is purely to see wounded veterans help then why go after such a small organization?? This is just one of a few

‘Wounded Warrior’ Charity Unleashes Hell—On Other Veteran Groups - The Daily Beast

From the article:

The Keystone group was forced to spend more than two years and some $72,000 in legal fees to defend itself from the legal actions of the Wounded Warrior Project, which brings in annual revenues of close to $235 million, according to the outfit’s most recent tax forms.

Without knowing the specifics (because they weren't mentioned in the article), I fail to see how anyone FORCED the Keystone group to spend this money. If their mission is purely to help veterans, then why didn't they just change their name and logo? Or not try to capitalize on the success of Wounded Warrior Project in the first place by choosing a name and logo that are so similar that people were bound to assume that the two were affiliated?

 

[phgreek]

So yea, Wooly is right. The amount of exposure WWP has generated through TV spots created a tidal wave of donations to other, very similar, foundations. That sounds reasonable that they are being infringed on.

The problem I have is how this aligns with their mission statement, and I guess a moral issue from that. If the allegations are true and their pissing away money, than they have no right, in my mind, to also cut also alternative sources of funding to these wounded warriors (man, hope they don't see that, might get sued). You can still make the "infringed on" argument, but only if that superceds what you believe is best for wounded veterans.

I can accept that thinking.

I'm still not convinced that what they are doing isn't delivering more overall dollars to the cause, even if the amount they spend to raise the dollars seems high to some.

 

[woolybug25]

Now, after the screening there was a Q&A with the film makers. One thing they talked about is how shockingly unhelpful Wounded Warriors (and other charities were) in the process of making the film. Going in to making it, they thought Wounded Warriors would be thrilled about something like this and want to help out, but instead they were the polar opposite.

After this discussion, it spurred some people started talking more about Wounded Warriors relative to other charities with similar goals. The troubling thing to hear from some was that they thought Wounded Warriors did "less with more" in terms of actually helping the vets with their money. They said it was very hard to get any assistance from them for medical bills or anything else... but they'll send you boxes and boxes of branded hats and shirts, which don't do much for you.

The prevailing thought wasn't that Wounded Warriors was "bad" or anything, but they didn't do a great job of getting $$ in the hands of people that really need it. A lot of service disabled veterans first-hand recommended other charities with a similar mission that they thought did more for themselves and people they knew.

I'll have to watch the video later, but I take issue with the premise here without actual verifiable numbers. Here's the thing, if people think they aren't managing or disbursing funds accurately, then I say... show me, their financials are public and they are extremely transparent.
Financials | Wounded Warrior Project

Regarding not helping people get assistance, again... this has not been my experience. As they have multiple avenues and people specifically in place to aid in this effort. But providing those medical services are not part of their mission. They specifically say "To help injured service members aid and assist each other". No where in their mission statement does it say "provide medical assistance". That being said, they do have multiple programs to do just that.

Fact is... people constantly have a human nature need to try to rip others down. I will certainly watch both videos posted and am not claiming that there isn't something there, but every single argument I have seen so far could easily be attributed to those parties not understanding WWF's mission and/or misunderstanding the relationship they aim for with their internal/external partners.

 

[pkt77242]

I've actually heard really mixed things about Wounded Warriors. Long story short, there is a "socially conscious" film festival in my neck of the woods, and one of the shorts they screened at the film festival was called "Birthday":
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/105366576" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p><a href="https://vimeo.com/105366576">"BIRTHDAY" trailer (1 minute)</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/user3509267">Chris King</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

Now, after the screening there was a Q&A with the film makers. One thing they talked about is how shockingly unhelpful Wounded Warriors (and other charities were) in the process of making the film. Going in to making it, they thought Wounded Warriors would be thrilled about something like this and want to help out, but instead they were the polar opposite.

After this discussion, it spurred some people started talking more about Wounded Warriors relative to other charities with similar goals. The troubling thing to hear from some was that they thought Wounded Warriors did "less with more" in terms of actually helping the vets with their money. They said it was very hard to get any assistance from them for medical bills or anything else... but they'll send you boxes and boxes of branded hats and shirts, which don't do much for you.

The prevailing thought wasn't that Wounded Warriors was "bad" or anything, but they didn't do a great job of getting $$ in the hands of people that really need it. A lot of service disabled veterans first-hand recommended other charities with a similar mission that they thought did more for themselves and people they knew.

From what I have heard this is one of the big problems. Though this is nothing new when it comes to WWP, they have been in the news over the past for years for this type of thing pretty frequently.

‘Wounded Warrior’ Charity Fights—To Get Rich - The Daily Beast

Traditionally, charities are supposed to keep their costs down and give the vast majority of their funds to the needy. Steven Nardizzi—CEO of the Wounded Warrior Project, a veterans charity—has another idea: that philanthropies should be allowed to have king-sized fundraising costs and huge salaries for executives.

Nardizzi is an advisory board member of the Charity Defense Council, an outfit with lofty ambitions. The organization wants to remake the entire charitable sector to be more permissive of high overhead and high executive compensation, explicitly citing as its model the oil industry’s efforts to rehabilitate its public image.

Highly compensated CEOs are persecuted, the Charity Defense Council says, so much so that they need an “Anti-Defamation League” to defend them. “Free speech” means that charities should not be made to talk about overhead, the group also argues. (The Anti-Defamation League, which combats anti-Semitism, told The Daily Beast that its lawyers had previously reached out to request that the CDC not use the ADL’s copyrighted name in its messaging).

Nardizzi’s participation in the Charity Defense Council is the latest odd turn for the Wounded Warrior Project, which the veterans community has questioned for spending too much on self-promotion and not enough on helping wounded warriors. The group has outraged yet more vets by threatening legal action against—and even suing—small charities that use the term “wounded warrior” in their name.

And in another twist, the charity is repackaging givers’ personal information and selling it off to third parties, making more than $1 million in the process.

The renting of private information is a betrayal of donors, argues Sandra Miniutti, the vice president of Charity Navigator, a group that rates nonprofits. “When a donor gives to you there’s a level of trust, that you’re going to repay that with respect, that together you’re working to make the world a better place, and that [the charity is] not going to flip and sell my personal information,” she said.

A top official for a another large veterans nonprofit was aghast when informed about the practice. “We have never rented out, sold, or shared our donor list,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Our donors would kill us if we did that…I can’t believe their big, midsize, and small donors would be too happy with that.”

Nardizzi’s group not only engages in the selling of donor information, but he’s apparently proud of it, brazenly arguing in its favor.

The practice reflects a broader, self-serving philosophy that is being employed at his organization: higher revenue at high cost, churning growth at high cost. Good for direct marketers, good for executives—but how good exactly for veterans?

For his part, Nardizzi is putting his money where his mouth is: The Wounded Warrior Project CEO’s own salary rose by nearly $100,000 in the course of one year, to $473,015 in 2014. The group’s 10 most highly compensated employees made approximately $2.6 million in total that year.

But at least one highly visible nonprofit—Invisible Children, the charity behind the “Kony 2012” campaign—collapsed under the weight of the philosophy espoused by the Charity Defense Council.

“[T]he market-based functioning of Invisible Children, whose operations have become increasingly in line with [Charity Defense Council boss] Dan Pallotta’s thinking…generated an unprecedented amount of funds for the organization,” The Washington Post noted. “However, this kind of growth model only works if, at a minimum, an organization maintains the same market share, and ideally continues growing…its resource base collapsed.”

The Wounded Warrior Project has been much more successful, at least when it comes to raising money. In fiscal year 2014, it brought in more than $342 million in revenue—making it one of the largest veterans charities in America. That’s up from $235 million in 2013 and $155 million in 2012.

By comparison, the WWP raised more than the National Labor Relations Board’s requested budget, and just slightly less than the budget for the entire Peace Corps.

And the WWP is unapologetic about supplementing those fundraising levels by selling off donor information.

“Sound and common business practice dictates that organizations or companies mailing marketing materials to the public share and exchange lists,” said Ayla Hay, a spokeswoman for the Wounded Warrior Project. The charity declined to list the organizations it sold/shared personal information to, except to describe them as “numerous large, national veterans service organizations.”

The Wounded Warrior Project raised more than $1.1 million by renting out donor names and addresses over the last two years for which records are available. The practice is not illegal, and only 44 percent of charities explicitly promise not to rent out donor names and addresses, Charity Navigator said. (The remaining charities may or may not engage in the practice.)

There have been grumblings in the veterans community about how the Wounded Warrior Project is expanding for expansion’s sake and spending money on splashy programs that draw attention to the organization but don’t really help vets.

Miniutti also said she worries about charities that sell donor information or have consistently high overhead costs. These are “scorched earth” policies that destroy donor trust, she said: “Not only do they not trust that charity anymore, they don’t trust any charity anymore, so it’s very damaging to the whole sector.”

Privacy advocates argue that, regardless of which charities use the practice, it is still wrong.

“Most donors don’t want that happening with their information, that they’d rather have that be kept private," added Stephanie Kalivas, an analyst for Charity Watch, a watchdog that gives Wounded Warrior Project a C+. (Privacy of donor information is not included in the rating.)

Sharing or selling of personal donor information “should be done only with explicit permission from the donor,” said Paul Stephens, director of policy and advocacy at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, speaking about best practices. “The default should be that information you give to a charity should be used solely for the processing of a donation, and should not be shared with other entities.”

But the Wounded Warrior Project CEO isn’t backing down on the issue of donor information.

A pledge not to rent or share donor information is unnecessary because the Wounded Warrior Project is sharing “nothing more than names and addresses—information that is readily available online with a quick Google search,” Nardizzi wrote in a LinkedIn post. “Names are already on the multitude of lists regularly sold and exchanged in the for-profit world.”

Nardizzi also argues that refusing to sell information limits charitable sector efficiency: “Donor lists, which tend to include those individuals more interested in philanthropy than the average American, are both cost and mission efficient,” he wrote. “The misdirected privacy protections will limit the effectiveness of important charitable organizations.”

But charity watchdogs counter that if the information was readily available on the Internet, it wouldn’t be sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

“It’s being packaged up based on demographics, your inclinations to donate to charities X, Y, Z—I don’t know that it exists online in that way,” said Miniutti.

As for the contention that selling and sharing donor lists is better for the Wounded Warrior Project’s efficiency, Stephens responded: “That doesn’t seem to be a valid argument…The donor is the one whose rights need to be respected. If you’re going to solicit someone and accept a donation from that individual, it would seem to me that you need to respect the privacy of that individual donor.”

The Wounded Warrior Project does not make obvious when individuals donate that personal information could be sold to third parties. There is no disclaimer on the form individuals use to donate online, nor on the form used to mail in a contribution.

In small print at the bottom of the page, the Wounded Warrior Project links to its privacy policy. On the second page, on the seventh point, the Wounded Warrior Project informs donors that the group may share “financial donor postal mailing lists with other non-profits and third parties.” In order to opt out of having personal information sold, donors must fill out a long form.

On the other hand, giving money to the $342 million Wounded Warrior Project takes just a few clicks.

Also here is Charity Navigator information Charity Navigator Rating - Wounded Warrior Project

Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 59.9%
Administrative Expenses 6.0%
Fundraising Expenses 34.0%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.26
Primary Revenue Growth 64.5%
Program Expenses Growth 67.2%
Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.99

So they spend only 60% of their funds on programs and services. That seems really low.

Here is Charity Watch https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/wounded-warrior-project/559
They have WWP spending only 54% on programs and services and 46% on overhead. That is crazy.

 

[dales5050]

Again... what is shady about an organization protecting their intellectual property and/or branding?


Unless you are talking about something else.

The biggest issue I have with the Susan G. Komen foundation is how they present themselves in comparison to how they act.

Here is their twitter bio:

@SusanGKomen
A force united by a promise to end breast cancer, funding groundbreaking research, community health & advocacy programs globally. Formerly @KomenfortheCure

They lead with a promise to end breast cancer and funding research but in reality most (I think like 90%) of the money they spend goes to awareness and foundation costs. Those are not the same thing.

It's not a 'Race for the Cure'...it's a 'Race for Awareness'...

The whole spectrum of trying to actually cure cancer would be much better off if this foundation went away. We don't need NFL players wearing pink, we don't need the CEO for them making $684,000 a year and we don't need $340,000,000 being sucked out of the economy to raise awareness.

We need doctors, researchers and scientists in labs looking for a cure for all forms of cancer. We need resources spent on making someone fight against cancer even just a little bit more tolerable and less painful.

 

[kmoose]

I didn't watch the piece (at work), but that has not been my experience with the organization. My grandfather left them an extensive amount of money in his will and they were professional and detailed. I have also volunteered for them over the last 5 years and "wasteful" is the last word I would use for them as an organization.

Not saying that the accusations are unfounded (again, I haven't even watched the video), but from my view, the organization has operated with high levels of integrity through my experiences with them.

I think there are some valid questions about extravagant spending on annual conferences and whether or not they spend enough of their donations on actual veterans. But there's no analysis of what they do, versus what the could be doing if they scaled their spending back. There might be some fire behind the smoke, but this smells more like the kind of "get the people angry" piece that news agencies have been thriving on lately.

 

[Irish#1]

From the article:



Without knowing the specifics (because they weren't mentioned in the article), I fail to see how anyone FORCED the Keystone group to spend this money. If their mission is purely to help veterans, then why didn't they just change their name and logo? Or not try to capitalize on the success of Wounded Warrior Project in the first place by choosing a name and logo that are so similar that people were bound to assume that the two were affiliated?

This is where ego's come into play. Assuming all of these charities are legit, operate on the up and up and all share the same goal to help vets then why get bent out of shape if one of the other charities benefits from a similar trademark? The end goal is the same, to help our vets.

There are always stories of someone complaining about a charity, it's board and how it operates. It usually starts with someone who approached the charity and didn't get what they thought they should. Then they go to their local media to complain and the snowball starts to roll.

As far as Susan G Komen, they took a PR hit because of the presidents salary which was close to 700K. 20% of their donations go to research while about 32% goes to education which ruffles some feathers.

Bottom line, there will always be someone complaining.

 

[irishff1014]

This is sad for the injured troops that really need the money. I know locally the American Legions do a wounded warrior fundraiser that left a bad taste in some of the other smaller legions that would help out. But a few of the smaller ones broke of ties with them and do their own and goes to the troops.

 

[palinurus]

From what I have heard this is one of the big problems. Though this is nothing new when it comes to WWP, they have been in the news over the past for years for this type of thing pretty frequently.

‘Wounded Warrior’ Charity Fights—To Get Rich - The Daily Beast



Also here is Charity Navigator information Charity Navigator Rating - Wounded Warrior Project

Financial Performance Metrics
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 59.9%
Administrative Expenses 6.0%
Fundraising Expenses 34.0%
Fundraising Efficiency $0.26
Primary Revenue Growth 64.5%
Program Expenses Growth 67.2%
Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.99

So they spend only 60% of their funds on programs and services. That seems really low.

Here is Charity Watch https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/wounded-warrior-project/559
They have WWP spending only 54% on programs and services and 46% on overhead. That is crazy.

If you have only limited time to do your due diligence of the charities to which you give, this is a great way to do it, according to a family member who has worked in corporate non profit fundraising. When the administrative expenses and overhead are substantial (vis a vis what is spent on programs), it is a red flag; they may be legitimate, depending on the level -- not saying it's absolutely dispositive -- but it's something to be concerned about and looked at. I agree with PKT.

 

[IrishLax]

I'll have to watch the video later, but I take issue with the premise here without actual verifiable numbers. Here's the thing, if people think they aren't managing or disbursing funds accurately, then I say... show me, their financials are public and they are extremely transparent.
Financials | Wounded Warrior Project

Regarding not helping people get assistance, again... this has not been my experience. As they have multiple avenues and people specifically in place to aid in this effort. But providing those medical services are not part of their mission. They specifically say "To help injured service members aid and assist each other". No where in their mission statement does it say "provide medical assistance". That being said, they do have multiple programs to do just that.

Fact is... people constantly have a human nature need to try to rip others down. I will certainly watch both videos posted and am not claiming that there isn't something there, but every single argument I have seen so far could easily be attributed to those parties not understanding WWF's mission and/or misunderstanding the relationship they aim for with their internal/external partners.

To clarify, if you're referring to the trailer I posted as one of the two videos and thinking it's something anti-WWP that's not correct. I'm not sure that's what you're doing, but that's how I'm reading your post. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Backing up a bit, the film I was referring to is a fictional short. It was a passion project made by a married couple after they were inspired by some real-life service disabled veterans and their challenges.

There was a Q&A session following the screening of the short, and someone asked what was their biggest challenges in making the film. They said it was that they naively assumed there would be all kinds of organizations like WWP willing to partner with them on this, but that instead no one was interested. They thought the story was important enough to tell that they ended up funding the entire project themselves through their retirement savings and such.

Then much later after the Q&A session I was talking with some service-disabled vets about different organizations and charities and such because I felt like donating $$. Many of them talked first hand about organizations that had helped them, and what they had helped them with. They also mentioned that they had trouble really getting any sort of assistance or aid of any kind from WWP, and some floated the idea that they thought their size hurt their ability to efficiently help the individuals who need it, and another joked that he has received dozens of tshirts from them but would much rather have the postage it took to send them to help pay the bills.

This is nothing more than my personal experiences and an anecdote from about a half dozen people, and I'm not trying to prescribe any more value to it than that.

 

[woolybug25]

To clarify, if you're referring to the trailer I posted as one of the two videos and thinking it's something anti-WWP that's not correct. I'm not sure that's what you're doing, but that's how I'm reading your post. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Backing up a bit, the film I was referring to is a fictional short. It was a passion project made by a married couple after they were inspired by some real-life service disabled veterans and their challenges.

There was a Q&A session following the screening of the short, and someone asked what was their biggest challenges in making the film. They said it was that they naively assumed there would be all kinds of organizations like WWP willing to partner with them on this, but that instead no one was interested. They thought the story was important enough to tell that they ended up funding the entire project themselves through their retirement savings and such.

Then much later after the Q&A session I was talking with some service-disabled vets about different organizations and charities and such because I felt like donating $$. Many of them talked first hand about organizations that had helped them, and what they had helped them with. They also mentioned that they had trouble really getting any sort of assistance or aid of any kind from WWP, and some floated the idea that they thought their size hurt their ability to efficiently help the individuals who need it, and another joked that he has received dozens of tshirts from them but would much rather have the postage it took to send them to help pay the bills.

This is nothing more than my personal experiences and an anecdote from about a half dozen people, and I'm not trying to prescribe any more value to it than that.

I mentioned earlier that I couldn't watch any of the videos. I was referring to the commentary you mentioned after the film. Also, I was speaking generally, nothing directed to you. Sorry for the confusion there.

 

[kmoose]

This is where ego's come into play. Assuming all of these charities are legit, operate on the up and up and all share the same goal to help vets then why get bent out of shape if one of the other charities benefits from a similar trademark? The end goal is the same, to help our vets.

I don't think it is ego. If you spent a lot of time, sweat, tears, and cash building up a non-profit, wouldn't you want to protect the brand of that non-profit? It's not about money, necessarily, but it *is* about not allowing some idiot to come along and establish something that people are likely going to confuse with your group, and then end up screwing it up for both of you. It's not ego to protect your hard work and good reputation.

 

[Andy in Sactown]

So, I've been lurking. Reading this thread, full of thoughtful discussion about our brothers and sisters and their support, or lack thereof upon returning home.

Not sure what to make of it.

EDIT: Percentages aren't a metric when you send direct. Find your local deployed unit and send them something warm, beef jerky or something that they can jerky to themselves. I don't need a black tie gala to know what's needed.

EDIT2: Also, send socks.

 

[Woneone]

Wounded Warrior Project execs fired - CBS News

 

[woolybug25]

Wounded Warrior Project execs fired - CBS News

I'm super pissed about this. My family has donated six figure donations to this charity and when we inquired, they assured us that the amount representative of the high revenue number. Meaning, the overhead number was generating and that the net income wouldn't be higher if they didn't spend so much on events, fundraisers, marketing, etc.

Come to find out, they were having Mexican themed employee parties with mariachi bands. These fuckers need to be prosecuted.