A New Zealand-based cycling clothing firm has withdrawn kit it planned to sell in tribute of Mike Hall, who was killed last Friday while taking part in the Indian Pacific Wheel Race, after it emerged it had not sought permission from his family.
> Tributes paid to Mike Hall
The company, Toot Kit, published pictures of the kit on Instagram and Facebook as well as on its website yesterday evening. The images have since been deleted, and the products taken off its website.
The business had invited pre-orders for the $150 Mike Hall ‘Legend’ Memorial Jersey.
But there was an anger on social media when it emerged that Hall’s family had not been contacted about it, confirmed by his partner Anna in a post to the Facebook page of the Transcontinental Race which he founded in 2013.
She wrote: “There are some companies popping up selling Mike Hall memorial kit ... his family have not been approached about this and unless it's being sold to raise money for charity I think you might agree it's in pretty poor taste.”
Some of the page’s 5,000-plus followers accused Toot Kit of showing a lack of respect and that by hiding the product page on its website, rather than deleting it immediately, the company had handled the situation very poorly.
It’s unclear what the original product description on Toot Kit's website said, although the final version before it was deleted did say that any profits would be donated to the Just Giving fund set up by James Hayden to raise money to support Hall’s partner and family.
Asked by one member of the Transcontinental Race group on Facebook, Neil Davey, to confirm it had permission from Hall’s family, Toot Kit founder and designer Belinda Duffy said simply: “We aren’t doing the jerseys too stressful!”
In a post on Facebook, subsequently deleted, Toot Kit said: “Apologise for any hurt our memorial kit has caused. We were trying to help his family fund the future. Everything has been taken down from our website and we won’t help in the future. Thanks for your support.”
In an update on the Just Giving page this morning, Hayden said: “Thanks for all the support,” but added: “Please consider an idea before implementing.
“Some tribute kit and alike has appeared online, while a nice idea, it's a bit soon and without permission from family members is a bit ill thought. Thank you.”
Donations passed the £75,000 mark earlier today.
> One thousand cyclists ride in Sydney in memory of Mike Hall
Add new comment
14 comments
"Apologise for any hurt our memorial kit has caused"
Regret being caught out.
"We were trying to help his family fund the future"
They have since tried to hide their profiteering but couldn't even commit to that.
"Everything has been taken down from our website and we won’t help in the future"
You may as well phone go daddy and cancel the website for next year. You never helped, you haven't helped and you're not even showing good will.
"Thanks for your support”
Er you have none!
“We aren’t doing the jerseys too stressful!”
I feel for you, I really do!
So you're calling these people liars, because it says they said the profits will go to the family. So giving up their time for free and organising it all just so they could show some support/to help out a family is a business opportunity you say, righty-ho.
No one is saying they weren't going to give the money to the family, but doing it all without the family's knowledge or approval is just odd (and disrespectful - though you obviously disagree on that).
It is a business opportunity. It is cheap, worldwide advertising. Hasn't gone well.
There is a huge difference between "all profits going to charity" and "giving up their time for free" [sic].
By which I mean:
I make a product
The materials cost £5
The directly labour is £5
The indirect labour is £1
The share of the overheads is £1
I sell it for £15.
What is the profit? Well selling price minus cost is £3, so that is the profit but if you didn't make that product, would you still incur the cost of the labour and overheads?
So it could be argued that you shouldn't include any cost that you would incur even if you didn't make the product but that's up to you.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that while giving all profits away, you are still gaining as your staff and overheads are being paid for which you would have to have picked up if they weren't making the product.
I'm not saying that that was the case here, just that giving away all the profit doesn't mean that you can't gain from it.
there was massive over-reaction to someone trying to do good, then more faux offence here, again because someone tried helping out, that's not insensitive from those trying to do good. or are you saying that the organised ride and just giving page are insensitive too, what about other situations/help that has being offered for oher people, are they all insensitive, if not, why not?
Not really. Mike's partner has been clear that they hadn't been contacted by the company. Its not a massive over-reaction, more its just a business opportunity which was in clearly poor taste. At no point did anything state in the promotional material for the items that it was "trying to do good", instead it appeared to profit from somebody's misfortune. The TCR supporters counterd this and the items were withdrawn.
The organised ride was carried out in (as far as I am aware) conjunction with the family and wasn't profit making. The JustGiving page organised by James (Skinny) a former TCR rider and friend of Mike's and was in conjunction with the family. Which bit of this do you not understand?
You can't tell the difference between a non-profit-making tribute, or a collection set up by a close friend on behalf of the family, and a company spotting a commercial opportunity (and not contacting or doing so on behalf of anyone close to Mike, only saying profits would be donated after a backlash)?
Yes you can, and are being deliberately obtuse, which is the angle Toot Kit also took, and the reason for their sulk. It doesn't take Occam's razor to spot a firm on the take here.
Watch out guys, he said snowflake. And tried to be highbrow about it
The main difference between using JustGiving and making a jersey to sell via your business is that your business is getting advertising and cross-selling on the back of a man who recently died and without permission of the estate.
They showed their insensitivity going into this, and again pulling out. They really are clueless whoever this lot are.
flounce mode, behave!
Someone thinks it would be a nice idea to make a tribute item of clothing with the profits going toward the family to help them out financially, (hardly the first situation for this type of thing) they receive loads of unwarranted hassle/abuse with a pretty firm 'fuck off' from all angles despite only wanting to help out/not make any money.
Making it clear where they stand is what they've done, just as the person doing the just giving page and others on social media have made their position clear also. Taking offence at the "we won’t help in the future" bit is oh so Plectrophenax Nivalis
I've got a bridge to sell you.
Here's what also might have happened: a company decided to profit off Mike's death. They got slated on social media and bottled it, deciding to donate to the justgiving fund at that point. They still hadn't contacted the family or anyone connected with the justgiving fund so continued to be slated.
Then they took it all down with a sulk, because they'd been called out on what they were really up to.
I'm sure your less cynical version is closer to the truth, but I'm curious as to why such a philanthropic act wouldn't have been out in the open via contact with an appropriate person from the off...
Not really. Somebody saw a business opportunity, off somebody's death. And sought to capitalise on that financially, which is quite sick. They had no contact with the family. As before the JustGiving page is by James (Skinny) a former TCR rider and friend of Mike.
Receiving "unwarranted hassle/abuse" for trying to profit off somebody's death is pretty poor. Its not "unwarranted" its what normal sane people do. That you are trying to defend this is strange.
The taking offence at "we won't help in the future", who gives a fuck? They weren't helping anyway, just trying to profit on somebody's death. Its actually quite sad once you take a step back.
#bemoremike
Oh great, now the idiot children who call people snowflakes have a new, exciting way of doing it that makes them feel super clever. That's made my day.
Wow. Withdrawing in full flounce mode. Stay classy, eh.
Woah, nice Streisand, Tool Kit. Off you Fuck.