Is Sammy Sosa Turning White?
U.S. House Narrowly Passes Health Care Bill
Around Town
Health Care Bill Heads To U.S. House Floor For Debate, Vote
Alleged Lottery Ticket Con Artists Charged
Remember when there was that big launch last October of (PRODUCT)RED? And Oprah and Bono showed up at the Michigan Avenue Gap and acted like douchebags? Do you remember that?
We do. We also remember seeing a litany of celebrities — Steven Speilberg, Christy Turlington, Mary J. Blige, Penelope Cruz — in advertisements wearing the (PRODUCT)RED clothing. And we thought to ourselves, are we really supposed to be feeling good about buying clothes to benefit AIDS charities that are made on the backs of impoverished workers? Yes, Gap, we are talking about you.
As it turns out, (PRODUCT)RED has been somewhat of a bust. Despite participation from brands like Apple, Motorola and Armani, (PRODUCT)RED has grossed only $18 million (after a $100 million marketing campaign) for Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, (PRODUCT)RED's chosen recipient of funds.
So basically, Gap, Apple, et al, could have just given $100 million to the Global Fund and they would have ended up $82 million richer. Not so fast, says Julie Cordua, VP-marketing at Red. She said that the campaign was incredibly front loaded, so over time, the campaign will make more money. She also added that not all of the partners have closed their 2006 books yet, so the $18 million is just a starting point.
"The Red campaign proposes consumption as the cure to the world's evils," Ben Davis, co-creator of Buy Less Crap told Advertising Age. "Can't we just focus on the real solution — giving money?"
We haven't loved the (PRODUCT)RED campaign, but we do believe there is potential for harnessing consumer spending power for good; we just aren't sure how to do it. What do you think? Is this an effective way to get the entitlement generation to give to charity? A way for for-profit corporations to use their power to push for positive change in the world? Or just another method for Bono to get his face in the newspaper and Gap's logo up on a billboard?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I haven't bought any RED stuff, because it's from The Gap, I already have an iPod and, while I'd like one of those RAZR phones, I'm in the middle of a contract and am content with my $2 phone that I can really only use as a phone. As it's intended.
It makes more sense for me to give directly to the organization/cause I support than to buy more crap I don't need or don't like or can't afford.
Ben Davis, co-creator of Buy Less Crap told Advertising Age. "Can't we just focus on the real solution -- giving money?"
Well, yes, but i think a major attraction of the whole campaign was the fact that the people who would buy any of the 'Red' items got to [not so] silently proclaim to the world, 'look at me! i care! i give! it's not all about me, i care alot about africa and disease, baby, ...[that faith no more knew how to put togetheer a song, didn't they?]'
also, i don't think many people, whatever their motives may be, are able to do what bono and oprah did, and just waltz into the gap or armani or the cell phone store and say, like oprah did, 'i'll take ten of those and um, those, give me 20 of those,' without having to pay an early termination fee to their current cell phone companies or worrying if they had enough in their checking accounts to cover the cost of ten pair of bono-type sunglasses, etc.
and another thing i wondered about, even as i bought one of the stylish 'red' wristbands ($10), was, exactly how much of this is going to the good organizations? i just couldn't see spending about $200 or so on a new ipod if only about $10 [or less, who knows?] went to the groups the stuff was supposedly benefitting.
When I donate to charity, I don't need to broadcast it to the world. Charity isn't about self-gratification. I think that's why this (RED) business isn't making sense for a lot of people. If you need that kind of incentive to donate, you're probably not as charitable as you might think you are. Try donating without buying something for yourself.
One thing the article doesn;t mention is how the "giving" is based on companies making a profit, too. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but the product line is based around trend-based items. So when their VP of marketing says:
"It's not a charity program of them writing a one-time check. It has to make good business sense for the company so the money will continue to flow to the Global Fund over time."
She's neglecting to point out that there will continue to be front-load outlays needed to promote the new items in the RED line. So it isn't as if the current costs are one-time costs. New product launches are going to need to be done consistently. So I can't see this as anything more than throwing bad money after bad.
This is kind of like SUV & Hummer owners sporting "Save the Bay" bumper stickers, as if a $25 donation to a cause cancels out their own impact on the environment. Too many people regard charity as a self-gratifying gesture. Kudos to you for acting otherwise pylbug.
If you're going try to appeal to the kind of person who would donate to a charity wherein there is an exchange of money for goods, shouldn't the product itself be one a person actually wants?
In terms of the Gap products, they kind of blew. So why would I want to walk around, advertising not only that I'm the sort of douche who wants to advertise that I give to charity but also that I'll do so no matter how lame the product? Perhaps I answer my own question there but still.
This might be a shallow statement, but I had a hard time wrapping my brain around why someone would spend that sort of money for a crappy product when they could take that $80 and instead directly channel it into something else. As opposed to a shitty hoodie.
I bought every thing red because Bono told me to. If Bono pays his share of the taxes to help others, I should help too. I am greener now because of Al Gore. Because he does not fly jet all over the place and have a $30,000 electric bill last year. I give more private time to pray at school and not ignored the plight of the suffering that John Edwards tells my to do while he sit in his 102-acre estate 8,200 square feet. I believe in Universal Health care so that I can get the affordable and quality health care like Cook Counties Hospitals and Walter Reed.
have they considered for an instant that the reason that nobody is buying the (RED) stuff is that it's all butt-ugly?
wow, points for the headline. that's funny as hell.
Their heart was in the right place, and I think it may prove to be a groundbreaking campaign in terms of making charitable giving hip and fashionable, but why would you buy a Red iPod with $10 or a similar amount going to the campaign? Most people would prefer to just buy the iPod they want, then give $50 to the charity of their choice! Plus, a lot of people are uncomfortable announcing to the world that they have given money to a charity through the display of the products
I think a better model is Newman's Own--good products that people buy because they like them, with all of the money going to charity. And you don't wear them around your neck!