Oh. So you think all this breast cancer awareness stuff that you're saturated with will continue to be very effective?

Oh OK, you are not talking about the money that is donated by the NFL or anything, because...of something.

The NFL didn't donate the money because they saw a bunch of NFL players wearing pink shoes. That should be obvious.

Do you understand the difference between speed and acceleration?

Sure. This is the pvn "oops I said some dumb stuff, let's just ask irrelevant questions and hope no one notices" part of the show.

Let's review.

You said:

But then:

So basically, you're SURE there's going to be diminishing returns going forward, just not in any way that's measurable, because plenty of people will continue to pay $75 to have a pink garbage can and the NFL will continue to have guys wear pink, and that will lead to breast cancer getting an unequal share of funding, but you're still sure there's going to be diminishing returns? This will be measurable how? Tell me what to expect to see that you're supposition is correct. If it's not less money getting donated to breast cancer research relative to other cancers, then what?

Or was this just you boldly making predictions you knew couldn't be proven?

Right, they donated the money because it was breast cancer awareness month, which is ALSO why they endorsed the pink equipment.

How is this irrelevant? The overt puprose of pink garbage cans et al is to increase awareness. The fact that awareness stays at some superhigh level doesn't itself say anything about the rate of change of that awareness level. Your insistence on freely substituting awareness and funding levels (which obviously are correlated) isn't really helpful either.

OK, now you're getting somewhere. The effect of the pink shoes was therefore _______________________.

Fill in the blank for us.

****ing immense, obviously.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is. You admit that breast cancer gets huge amounts of funding. I assumed that when you said diminishing returns, you were talking about the returns of research etc. from the funding itself, but I'm not reading too closely. But now I'm reading you to say that the awareness campaign itself has little effect? I'd generally guess that the fact that we're swamped with breast cancer awareness stuff for a month straight has a pretty sizable effect on fundraising itself as well as increases in women taking preventative measures.

What are you even basing this on? If you had something demonstrating that awareness in July was similar to October or even November, you might have a point. But your whole premise here is that awareness is high anyway, which you haven't really done anything to defend.

Bud Light saturates my TV with commercials, and I've been aware of it for some time. However, they still consider those dollars money well spent.

Good point. However, note that in this case, when you buy Bud Light, you know you're actually getting Bud Light. And Bud Light, Inc. knows what they're selling and how much of it.

Pink garbage cans, on the other hand, are not something Breast Cancer Research, Inc actually spends money on. They are something some other party sells.

The point here is subtle, but it's clearly possible for pink garbage cans to be a huge success without actually significantly advancing the OVERT goal of increasing awareness. There are, of course, other goals they may advance.

No, that's not my whole premise, and I'm not sure why I would need to defend that anyway, it seems to be undisputed.

If you think breast cancer awareness campaigns should be more forthcoming about how much money that comes in goes to research vs. further awareness campaigns, fine, I won't disagree with that at all.

But of course awareness is high, there is a whole month of high-level awareness campaigning.