Comments on: Marketing Charity

By: jj

jj — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:07:47 +0000

I would like to note the kind words of Nathan s.Orms. Nathan Orms with Ford support, scientists and conservation researchers at the Shompole Group Ranch in the Kenyan South Rift Valley are collaborating with rural pastoralists, government officials and corporate law experts to address legal issues confronting marginalized communities.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:14:16 +0000

Steve VS. Steve
http://www.ubnyc.blogspot.com/

By: Charity 2.0 Blog Network » Two markets, two messages, one charity

Charity 2.0 Blog Network » Two markets, two messages, one charity — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:00:56 +0000

[...] Gareth Potter of The Apple Blog examines the marketing campaign for the iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition and notes that, aside from its unwieldy name, Apple is promoting the MP3 player differently in the U.S. and Japan. [...]

By: thomas

thomas — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:46:43 +0000

That was in response to Jared’s comment not the article, which I think brings up an interesting point.

By: boxedblue.com » Blog Archive » Product (red) Campaign

boxedblue.com » Blog Archive » Product (red) Campaign — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:57:08 +0000

[...] By all means I am a proponent of giving to charities and raising money for good causes. But I have become decidedly hesitant at the motives of the companies behind all these ‘Red’ products. An article over at TheAppleBlog makes a good point in that Apple has strategically reworded some ‘fine’ details about where the proceeds of its Red Nano will go, and how much of its profit will go there(TheApple Blog: Marketing Charity). [...]

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:19:29 +0000

I think it’s only right to feel slightly uneasy about this campaign. Yes, millions of dollars towards AIDS/HIV, TB and Malaria is a great thing. Some would say that the ends justify the means.

However, not only is this campaign erasing the guilt from shopping, as Gisele put it, but it continues to exploit workers in other sectors.

As far as I can tell, the only piece of clothing the Gap is currently selling that is made in an ethical factory in Lesotho, Africa is the INSPI(RED) t-shirt. So the rest of the product (red) clothes (and for that matter, the rest of the clothes in the store) are made where?

Secondly, when Bobby Shriver says, “…have a cell phone? Get a red one!…” I stop and think about the precious metals (see Coltan) in these phones being mined in Africa and its effects on the populations in the DRC and elsewhere. (think civil war).

Raising money for HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria should not come at the expense of others. Period. Be it sweatshop labor in Indonesia, or civil war in Africa.

One possible solution? Instead of replacing your currently working cell phone/ipod/credit card/t-shirt with a red version, how about donating the money we would have spent on the newest trend of the season towards the organization of our choice, rather than to the multinationals and the G8 (global fund). There are plenty of used goods to go around, and plenty of companies that offer ethical alternatives for new purchases.

Let us please consider our options for grassroots fund raising and try to rely less on corporate green-washing campaigns to mediate on our behalf.

p.s. This is not intended as finger pointing (I own products from most of the companies involved) or guilt tripping, but I do wish that we all try to keep each other accountable for the global consequences of our seemingly simple consumer actions. Thanks for reading, and sorry for the long post.

By: Keith Mason

Keith Mason — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:38:39 +0000

I think Jared has it spot on – the marketing is aimed at different regions – and ronn too.

I guess I’m a cynic, but I do feel that this whole Product Red stuff is a way to inflate the profits of the companies that take part, as more consumers buy into the products, and make the consumer feel artificially good about making some kind of difference. But then, I guess it is better than nothing, and at the least is raising awareness.

By: ronn

ronn — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 06:35:26 +0000

I think part of the problem is (PRODUCT) RED campaign is somewhat muddled. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is the parent of (PRODUCT) RED which is a specific, targeted campaign. The color red is well-known to represent HIV/AIDS awareness (think red ribbon), so that’s why (PRODUCT) RED is specifically targeting AIDS in Africa, the place where it’s most prevalent.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:23:57 +0000

This seems simple, in the states, most people, I would suspect have no idea that TB and malaria are epidemic diseases in most of the East, we always are hearing about AIDS in Africa in the states.

Obviously if you live in Japan, or somewhere in that region, Malaria is going to be a big concern of yours. Makes sense to me.

By: 1999ncsu

1999ncsu — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:50:08 +0000

That is interesting. I checked out the (RED) page and specifically the Global Fund, it says…

“The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was established in 2002…”

http://www.joinred.com/globalfund.asp

So it seems the money is going to the same place, but what’s with the different marketing?