So far Apple, Gap and Motorola have spent an estimated 100 million dollars on advertising for their RED campaign, to benefit the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tubercelosis and Malaria.
So far it has generated 18 million dollars in aid.
What do you all think?
Source - Time Magazine, March 19, 2007
15 comments:
It makes me think that they place more importance on the public seeing their name being attached to a good cause, than actually doing something about it.
So true, so true. Why not just give up the $100 mil? Am I just stating the obvious here?
Agree. I think these companies can get plenty of publicity for donating, without sending the message that they can only contribute if you buy their product.
I agree, why not just donate the money in the first place?
i am wondering about the details.
are these products MADE in Africa as to stimulate their economy more directly?
is the projected aid to africa going to exceed (hopefully greatly) the projected advertising expenses?
Maybe they thought they'd make 300 million dollars in aid, so the 100 wouldn't seem like so much.
and did all the celebrities who are advertising the RED products (I'm thinking GAP here) forfeit or donate their fee?
and finally....why do WE have to acquire more stuff to help those in need.
I'm so glad that you blogged about this. I find it very interesting.
I think there are two ways of thinking about it: 1) it's better than nothing (the $18 mil) or 2) sure, why not just donate $100 mil.
BUT, if they had just donated $100 million, it would have MAYBE been in the news for a whole 2 days. Their marketing scheme has kept it alive much longer. Thus, they may feel it's worth it to spend the money on advertising to keep their name all over the place.
I would bet that most celebrities donated their time (unless they used Tori Spelling, who had that garage sale and kept the profits - so lame).
I too think they planned to raise much more $.
And we surely don't need any more "stuff" in this nation.
Not sure why, but it does fascinate me. Perhaps because the twins don't have these conversations with me?
I think it is absolutely ingenious, and not just because I am heartless. Here's why:
1. The question was never 'I am an organization with $118MM and am thinking about giving $18MM to charity and $100MM to bloodsucking corporations.'
2. Corporations have ad budgets. Gap will try to convince you to buy their made-in-Indonesia swill one way or another. Apparently, it takes approximately $100MM to convince consumers their stuff doesn't suck. This happens no matter what you do.
3. You don't give all of your food budget to charity and neither should corporations give huge amounts of operating capital away. After all, your pension fund invests in the stock market, and you will be quite upset when you go to retire and there is no money because the fund's investments (companies like Gap) blew all of their money on Africa.
4. (RED) is concerned about Africa and is quite savvy about the business world. They know corporations will do anything to make a sale. They make (RED) and license it out. Licenses are donated to the foundation.
To recap, in a world without (RED):
Poor naked Africans: $0
Advertising Companies: $100MM
In a world with (RED):
Poor naked Africans: $18MM
Advertising Companies: $100MM
The economics get more complicated if you count the marginal substitution effect--that is, Little Sally in Bumblefart, ID was going to donate $20 directly to Africa, but was duped by Gap into spending $20 on some vomit colored khakis. My (unsurprising) opinion is that Sally is an idiot, and doesn't care about Africa unless she is told to care about Africa. She will never give anything to Africa unless you appeal to her greed and vanity.
i'm with karl for the most part. always have been a follower.
i think that the great thing about red or other things like that is that they get more people thinking about causes. unfortunately not much else does. i certainly haven't gone out and donated to many causes on my own.
out of all of the people that bought into the red merchandise, maybe one or two changed their habits and dedicated themselves to a good cause?
a bit pollyanna i know, but in addition to being a follower i've always looked for the positive.
the bright side of life.
I agree with Bruce--in my experience, most people won't consider those causes unless contributing is made easy for them. I've thought a lot about this lately--mostly because of the sudden influx of activism on BYU campus.
I kind of make fun of the indie kids that come out of nowhere to denounce BYU and promote these causes and press other people to donate money to a cause that they know nothing about, or to skew the facts about issues (blood diamonds are a favorite topic of discussion 'round these parts). Last week they held a Hunger Banquet... basically, you pay six bucks, go to a dinner where you either get a huge meal, a medium-sized meal, or beans and rice, so that you can get a feel for how people are living all around the world. That's nice, but how many of these people are going to pursue those issues after Saturday night is over? And how are they affected by participating in a one-time activity that is hyped up for about 2 weeks before it happens and then forgotten about until next year? Call me a pessimist, but I'd rather see my time and money go to something directly... you know, fast offerings or volunteering at the women's shelter.
BUT... like I said, as much as I make fun of the kids who are too hip for their own good, maybe it does raise awareness for the other kids who want to be seen doing good. I don't know.
As for the Gap and whatev... yeah, it's a big business. That's how they roll. Good job for getting $18 million, I guess.
It's all about marketing!
I just feel funny walking around with a t-shirt that says RED all over it.
Maybe they should have just asked for a $1 donation like they do at the market.
I appreciated the insightful discussions here.
it may not be over yet. a quick anecdote from today.
many of you know that i, and now we, are using biodiesel. we feel pretty strongly about it. (i even believe that the war has something to do with oil. i know, ludicrous.)
i have a sticker on my car, and get comments, waves and the like from time to time. today, a guy followed me for a few blocks into a parking lot and asked me about biodiesel. he has a fleet of trucks and has wanted to start using bio to be more 'responsible.'
we had a great discussion, and i think he will probably take the plunge.
my point?
i have a sticker partially to be noticed for what i do. i don't do my alms in secret, but to be noticed of men, and i have my reward.
having the sticker also promotes a worthy (in my mind) cause, and i have had numerous experiences like the one i had today since i got the sticker.
we're pretty quick to say that advertising is bad, yet we advertise all sorts of things that we think are good (religion?).
i think the old 'red' campaign and others like it are pretty complex. does bono get recognized by men? does he also care about poverty?
i bought the RED pin on the 23rd of december at 10:58 pm at the University Mall. It made me feel good to contribute a measly dollar on Christmas Eve eve. I was actually going to pin it on to something, but I lost it before I even got home. Should have just given the dollar . . .
Post a Comment