Comments on: Why (Product)Red is a Scam

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:14:28 +0000

I was looking this up, you're the #1 hit, so congrats, because you're 100% right. To the people above (like Devon,) please learn economics and think before you speak. To those arguing against, what is happening, yeah money's being raised, but it's all about profit and ego. The only reason one would go RED is to show off, whether they don't think they are or not. Why not quietly donate, instead of purchasing a product that is RED. (btw, it's red for a reason, because it's noticeable.) I'd rather buy a $10 t-shirt and throw $10 into a jar towards the charity, and not be known, than spend $20 on a RED tshirt that's only going to give 2 dollars to the organization.
If these corporations truly cared about people and their welfare, they would stop using sweatshop labor (look up the GAP in connection with Saipan/the Mariana Islands) Your "Made in the USA" clothing might not be made in USA conditions.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 02:29:11 +0000

It seems on this thread that no one is addressing the points made by those in favour of the campaign. It purely comes down to the difference between intentions and outcomes.

You can talk as much as you want about the option for people to go and donate to the charities directly so that the company is not present and the charity receives more money. One thing you may have forgotten is that a lot of people purely do not do this. It's not as if we suddenly only now have the option to donate directly to charity. They have always been around and since they first started the majority of people simply do not donate to them.

The whole idea behind the product red campaign is that people have finally noticed how self-centred the first world is. Although many of us like to think we are good people for whatever reason, a lot of us do not walk to a charity office through our own accord and give money to them.

Whether or not this is the most efficient way to get needed money to whatever cause is irrelevent FOR NOW. The fact is at least some people are trying to capitalise on our selfishness. Who gives two shits that gap puts the price of its red products up and labels them as premium. I'd bet that the same people who would pay extra for them a EXACTLY the type of people the red campaign is aiming at. Someone who is too focused on themself to donate directly to charity, but will see an advertisment for the red product, feel bad and purchase it. If people think it's taking advantage of the consumer that's because it is; and it's about time too. You can't possibly sit here and have a cry about the extra profits that gap makes when if those profits weren't made and these products weren't sold the only difference in the world would be that a different manufacturer who isnt supporting the cause would be receiving those profits instead. It's very very naiive to say that that money would do more if donated directly because that money would not be donated directly. It's as simple as that.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:57:59 +0000

Product Red is a scam and HIV is a scam. Someone please tell Kay Warren that the Africans need clean water and nutrient dense food. You can email me at jstokely2@yahoo.com.
"HIV=AIDS Fact or Fraud" is a good documentary on the subject. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8142733917997460212&q=fact+or+fraud&total=488&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1&hl=en

Thank you.
Joe

By: Werty

Werty — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:21:54 +0000

Hey Crystal, thanks for writing…

I think Apple is a different story since they do not artificially inflate the price of the ipod like the gap does on their shit. So for an ipod there is no added cost to the end user, just the choice of wanting to help or not and that is kind of cool.

The gap on the other hand jacks up the price of "red" and makes it a "premium" product, even though it is the same shit product as everything else you get there… with a red tag sewn in.

By: Crystal

Crystal — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:13:18 +0000

So ive been reading on what you guys are saying, how to donate money directly to the fund itself, and how buying a "(red)" pair of boxers costs more than regular, just so they get more out of it. But isnt one product member actually making some difference, im not saying a world of difference but a little. Apple, the ipod nanos and shuffles. either way all nanos were/are 200 dollars even the product red one is, but if you get that one specifically 10 dollars of it goes to product red, yes i agree more should go, but what are you losing in buying a red one, either way its 200 reguardless if u get a red one or a pink one or a blue one. But i did ask, how do i directly send money to the charity itself?

By: socialcapitalist

socialcapitalist — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:15:54 +0000

Corporations who at least try to make an effort at aiding social causes are more respectable than those that don't in my opinion. Let's stop dissing their efforts, even if they are lame and commercially motivated. Listen, the GAP (and Starbucks and whoever else you want to shit on) could continue generating their enormous sales without doing a thing for people in need. GAP has my vote because at least they are helping people from DYING. think about it…you buy a shirt (maybe over-priced, fine, but you'd probably buy something else from the gap if you are already there) – and at least they are saving lives. Yes for SURE it is a PR play, but when PR plays save lives, I for one dont care that it is for PR.

By: Devon

Devon — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:41:53 +0000

Racist Bastards

By: Devon

Devon — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:39:13 +0000

I think ur a dumbass. This is a way for companies to make money as well as provide the care need to the thousands of Africans who are dying each day. Do ur reasearch jerk off

By: Aditi

Aditi — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:57:29 +0000

So GAP is supposed to be doing this "for a cause"…sure it is, but the cause is they themselves..business bandwagons!

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:36:30 +0000

Guys I think you are really missing the point here: who cares about what GAP or Amex say in their marketing campaign, the important thing is that (Product)red is a good idea and they are collecting money , 34m $ so far.
If GAP or Amex are able to make money out of it is not the problem, they are just an instrument to collect money for charity, but they are NOT charitable no-profit companies and they are not trying to say "we are good!".

I totally disagree with your analysis. The numbers may be correct but there is no scam here and it works fine for everybody. (Product) red has always been presented as a win-win operation : companies make profit and the fund for Africa gets a percentage.

People buy more because they feel that they are also doing the right thing, without that most of them probably would not send any money to Africa, they would just buy the cheap T-shirt and go home!
The Red Amex is even better. Instead of using their normal Credit card and get air-miles or stupid reward points people prefer to use the Amex Red and contribute to the Africa cause without any effort.
What is wrong in all this? The user pay the same, Amex is happy because they use their cards, Africa Fund gets 1%.
Again …so far they made 34million $ not bad!