Who Benefits From Running Quitober?

Thanks Jacob for the feedback.

This is a problem that I am well aware of but am managing to overcome it by slowly educating
all concerned. I do hope to make some money out of this venture someday especially if I can manage to get it to go global.
As I mentioned I would prefer Quit to run it but I think that they are being very short sighted.

I am very cynical about this organization after dealing with them. Quit is run by the Cancer Council and because I took a stand
in not making this campaign a fund raiser they stated that they were not interested in supporting it. The bottom line is that
the Cancer Council is a charity interested in making money first, I believe.

On a side not to Quit’s positive ad campaign, I too thought this was a good change using their tag line
“never give up giving up” but if you check out the
Pfizer ads for their drug Champix (not mentioned in the ad) their tagline is “Don’t give up giving up”
Check out this article I wrote recently.
http://quitober.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/is-quit-victoria-and-the-cancer-council-in-bed-with-pfizer/
This is a very controversial drug and you only have to type Champix and suicide into Google & you will get oodles of articles reporting these concerns. Nicotine Replacement Therapy is not handled much better and I do not recommend either or deal with any pharmaceutical companies because of possible conflict of interests in getting the message out.

Ultimately Shane you wouldn’t begrudge a doctor making money from his craft and really, in this new economy of the internet & services surely if the employers are getting value, the smokers are getting value & I make some money(eventually) and am transparent about it, then that is what everyone wants, no?

I think a bigger concern is huge organizations spending millions of charitable & government money on keeping themselves employed and using old, outdated and expensive methods to get their message across.

And as usual, any feedback much appreciated.

Regards,

Des Sherlock
social entrepreneur

Who Benefits From Running Quitober?

Hi Jacob,

The people that benefit from Quitober are the actual smokers that participate.
There is no money raised by anybody only $31AU membership is required to participate,
which is paid by either the smoker or their employer direct.
Smokers that have paid the $31 get their membership refunded by their employer if they
successfully quit during Quitober.
The $31 membership pays for the:

· Positively Quit Manual by Cassius Cheong RRP $15us

· Aeror Airflow Amplifier RRP $20

· Newsletter

· Incentive Prizes worth $1500

· Quitober Pack etc.

· Marketing etc

Check out www.driventoquit.ca this is run by their cancer society not to raise money but to
benefit the smokes that participate.

This event is not being run at a profit i.e. I have put 2 years work into getting it going
with no help from any government, Cancer Council, etc. although I am not a NFP organization.

Initially I was hoping that Quit Victoria would take up the idea but unfortunately they
do not see any benefit in running such an event at present preferring to stick with their
expensive TV adverts and using negative emotions (scary pictures and music) to get their message across.

Are Quit Victoria and the Cancer Council in Bed with Pfizer?

Read more: Quit-smoking drug Champix instigates suicidal tendencies Health – Health & Fitness – Life & Style – http://bit.ly/aJNhhf

“Fiona Sharkie of Quit said the report would not change Quit’s advice to smokers: to discuss with their doctor whether the drug (Champix) was appropriate for them.”

This sounds a bit suspect to me considering Pfizer’s latest tagline is “Don’t give up giving up” and Quit Victoria’s latest tagline is “Never give up giving up”

Pfizer is the manufacturer of Champix and I would like to know if they are funding Quit Victoria or Cancer Victoria directly. I can tell you this that Pfizer is funding APACT 2010 the Tobacco Health Conference.

I don’t think it is right for governments, NGO’s or Cancer Charities taking funding from tobacco or pharmaceutical companies, as there are too many possibilities for a conflict of interest.