Stay on top of the news, sign up for our free newsletters
Costly Red Campaign Reaps Meager $18 Million
Bono & Co. Spend up to $100 Million on Marketing, Incur Watchdogs' Wrath
The collective marketing outlay by Gap, Apple and Motorola for the Red campaign has been enormous, with some estimates as high as $100 million.
Try again: The tally raised worldwide is $18 million.
The disproportionate ratio between the marketing outlay and the money raised is drawing concern among nonprofit watchdogs, cause-marketing experts and even executives in the ad business. It threatens to spur a backlash, not just against the Red campaign -- which ambitiously set out to change the cause-marketing model by allowing partners to profit from charity -- but also for the brands involved.
Enormous outlay
By any measure, the buzz has been extraordinary and the collective marketing outlay by Gap, Apple and Motorola has been enormous, with some estimates as high as $100 million. Gap alone spent $7.8 million of its $58 million outlay on Red during last year's fourth quarter, according to Nielsen Media Research's Nielsen Adviews.
But contributions don't seem to be living up to the hype. Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the recipient of money raised by Red, told The Boston Globe in December, "We may be over the $100 million mark by the end of Christmas."
Rajesh Anandan, the Global Fund's head of private-sector partnerships, said Mr. Feachem was misquoted, and defended the efforts by Red to increase the Global Fund's private-sector donations, which totaled just $5 million from 2002 to 2005. (The U.S. Congress just approved a $724 million pledge to the Global Fund, on top of $1.9 billion already given and $650 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.)
'Hugely frontloaded'
"Red has done as much as we could have hoped for in the short time it has been up and running," he said, adding: "The launch cost of this kind of campaign is going to be hugely frontloaded. It's a very costly exercise."
Julie Cordua, VP-marketing at Red and a former Motorola marketing exec and director-buzz marketing at Helio, said the outlay by the program's partners must be understood within the context of the campaign's goal: sustainability. "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 added that since many of Red's partners haven't closed their books yet on 2006, more funds likely will be added to the $18 million.
But is the rise of philanthropic fashionistas decked out in Red T-shirts and iPods really the best way to save a child dying of AIDS in Africa?
Parody mocks Bono
The campaign's inherent appeal to conspicuous consumption has spurred a parody by a group of San Francisco designers and artists, who take issue with Bono's rallying cry. "Shopping is not a solution. Buy less. Give more," is the message at buylesscrap.org, which encourages people to give directly to the Global Fund.
"The Red campaign proposes consumption as the cure to the world's evils," said Ben Davis, creative director at Word Pictures Ideas, co-creator of the site. "Can't we just focus on the real solution -- giving money?"
Trent Stamp, president of Charity Navigator, which rates the spending practices of 5,000 nonprofits, said he's concerned about the campaign's impact on the next generation. "The Red campaign can be a good start or it can be a colossal waste of money, and it all depends on whether this edgy, innovative campaign inspires young people to be better citizens or just gives them an excuse to feel good about themselves while they buy an overpriced item they don't really need."
Fears of nonprofits
Mark Rosenman, a longtime activist in the nonprofit sector and a public-service professor at the Union Institute & University in Cincinnati, said the disparity between the marketing outlay and the money raised by Red is illustrative of some of the biggest fears of nonprofits in the U.S.
"There is a broadening concern that business is taking on the patina of philanthropy and crowding out philanthropic activity and even substituting for it," he said. "It benefits the for-profit partners much more than the charitable causes."
RSS Feed
Stay on top of the news and stay ahead of the game—sign up for e-mail newsletters now!
RSS (What is RSS?)
In exchange the company gets a "Point Seven %" logo to go on all of their products/advertising. Consumers, after they see the logo on products and ads, can go to the directory, look up advertisers by name, category or by "Point Seven" ID. They can read when and where the Brand's donation was allocated. The Brand can also post commercials and other infor about their company.
We believe this idea was better for ONE because it allows any brand, no matter how big or how small to participate. And it lets Consumers know which Brands are making an effort to contribute....from the mom and pop hardware store to Starbucks....it drives greater participation at smaller amounts. Whereas the Red campaign can only involves larger Brands.
It could have been done slowly too....over time, with incremental marketing spending depending on the growth rate.
If anybody likes this idea for one of their clients or institutions, please let me know. It just kills me that this Red program isn't working.
-tbaio@egencie.com
But let's take a step back and actually look at the results from a business perspective. If you visit the Gap's web page on the Red project (http://www.gapinc.com/red), you will learn that the Gap has pledged to donate 1/2 of the PROFITS from Red products sold to the charity. Let's assume that all the players made the same pledge. This would mean that the $100 Million in spending resulted in $36 Million in PROFIT. This means that the advertisers made back their $100 Million PLUS an extra $36 Million.
That's a +36% return on investment (ignoring the other costs of production, overhead, etc... for now - not financially sound, but humor me). Even after the charitable donation, it's still an 18% return on investment - and let's not forget that $18 Million got donated to a worthy charity. When you look at it this way, it doesn't seem so bad, does it? Especially in Year 1 of the campaign. If I told a Brand Manager at a Consumer Products company that they could make $36 Million in profit in the first year of a product launch, they would jump all over the opportunity.
Project Red was created as an opportunity for organizations to do good while still being profitable. It would seem that this is exactly what is happening. So what's the problem????
By the way, since when did people start using Ad Spend as an investment with an ROI. If that is the criteria for measuring marketing success, then i suspect quite a few of the top FMCG and fortune 500 companies will be in the 'Red"
The bottom line is, some people and countries are consumers, so why not offer them the opportunity to do some good when they fill their shopping cart?
uninspi(red).
The way in which you including the "Parody mocks Bono" section of the article was plain insulting. As a long-term solution, Philanthropy has not proven to work. The problem of AIDS in Africa is way beyond the hearts and checkbooks of westerners. Sustainable solutions must be found that ultimately can grow Africa's presence in the global economy, providing much needed jobs, and increasing the government's ability to care for it's people.
You cannot judge the success of this campaign based solely on the per product gross revenues, nor really can you judge it solely on the proceeds that have gone to the Global Fund. You must also look at the groundbreaking power this idea contains. With the Red campaign, Bono and his cohorts have suggested that a sustainable solution may be found in the one thing that we as American's have done better than any other country on the planet, capitalism. His work with Red and DATA is waking corporate America up to the realization that we all can take our talents and business savvy and bring solutions to the table. Solutions that will not only be sustainable for Africa, but could also grow our own business interests.
The hardcore truth is, if it is going to be a sustainable solution, ultimately all parties will have to profit. Whether that profit comes directly in the form of monetary increases or indirectly in increased goodwill amongst a brands consumer base, this fact should be a breath of fresh air. Ad Age should not in any way negatively frame Bono for his efforts, but rather should applaud them with a standing ovation for this new song he has written entitled "Capitalism with a Conscience".
The public needs to see the clear link between all the participating companies otherwise it looks disjointed. I also think they need to take a look at the breast cancer ads and their approach and why it works from yogert to Kitchen AIDE mixers. Excluding the obvious: cancer is more accepting and pink is a pretty women's color. They always seem to say or show a sad image/voice with an empowering message.
The red campaigns have really seem too chic almost, not real to what is reflective of AIDS. Not bed bound people, this is not Sally Struthers, but real people fighting the fight (non profit workers, families and those infected) A sence of impowerment because of the help of RED.
Not only that, the campaign didn't have the frame work established that the color red is AIDS. Yes there is the AIDS Ribbon and it is red, but Red the color of AIDS. It was forced for a automatic association and realistically it takes time to estabish that.
As to the quality of the products... yeah, iPods and American Express are just junk (sarcasm!)... not mainstream enough? Well, perhaps the Gap isn't designed to attract people over 30. (I'm in my 50's.)
If anyone doesn't remember what the Red campaign stands for, thet would have to be living in a fog.
Interesting to see how many unscrupulous companies have been trying to jump on the Red bandwagon with unauthorized products!
This is a long term project and now that the heavy lifting has been accomplished and the start up costs paid, it'll be interesting to see how much money is raised. In my opinion Bono & partners have laid a pretty solid foundation on which to build.
phil, WI
www.betterred.com
Why can't they get creative and come up with successful, for profit schemes to raise money for these causes, instead of hand-outs?
Bono has gotten too much bad press lately for dodging his fair of taxes in Ireland, yet he's exhorting me to purchase luxury items (things I do not need) out of some sense of altruism. Maybe if people with some credibility were used in the ads, like real people from the U.N. or a real life aid worker in Africa. Supermodels and rock stars ain't cutting it. Especially those whose careers have peaked perhaps 10-15-20 years ago. How do they connect with the current Gap shopper, who is more in tune with Britney or Paris? Has anyone realized that the myspace generation thinks Bono is an old man? Put John Mayer or someone in their demographic in the ads. The whole thing is ill-conceived, and I'll bet that the only beneficiary of the money trail are New York ad agencies, not sick and starving Africans.
First, AdAge neglected to spell out what exactly RED is vs. what it isn't. It's a brand, licensed out on an individual basis to companies that make products themselves which people already buy. It has never misrepresented itself as a charity, or an empty campaign, retaining an identity as 'a commercial initiative designed to create awareness and a sustainable flow of money from the private sector into the Global Fund to fight the AIDS pandemic in Africa' .
Second, the list of companies is bigger than the GAP and Motorola, and therefore the fee, licensing, marketing, and philanthropic arrangements are each handled differently via RED (the organization) before money reaches the Global Fund. The article from the outside accuses the companies of doing something wrong before discussing what they do, and doesn't quote anyone who suggests what they acutally could be doing-- assuming there's clear indication that something wrong is being done. Guilt by innuendo, anyone?
Third, each corporate partner had to agree to a set of clearly articulated accountability, performance, and social responsibility principles-- including manufacturing products using material from Africa. I've not seen reported at all. Are these unimportant to AdAge and critics?
Fourth, AdAge highlighting one self-appointed critic without questioning the logic, motives, or backing of their cause, yet even a cursory investigation turns up no information or facts to support their charges. What happened to accountability and transparency, and basic background research?
Fifth, If BuyLessCrap were truly concerned about this as much as their bleating suggests, they would ask for greater scrutiny of the nonprofit actually receiving donations-- i.e. the Global Fund-- not a marketing campaign that's increased donations to it. Here's I'm confused because BuyLessCrap actually supports the Global Fund, an international public-private-nonprofit sector collaboration, not a grassroots effort, that's spent $4.4 billion in 128 countries on "halting and reversing" the disease but not addressing "poverty disparity", though the latter has been proven to be more likely to impact health, economic development and other issues. Yet no comment from the nut gallery about consumption here, huh?
Sixth, corporations won't pretend to do philanthropy anymore than individuals will, because philanthropy takes different forms. What about volunteerism, contribution of goods and services instead of money, and other forms? Are we to say one matters more than the other? And are we now saying that nonprofits are the only ones that can do it, and only in certain ways? It's this kind of idiotic thinking that's left us with a society chock full of investments in groups that are in the hole with little show in the way of progress, agitators who offer no real alternatives, and problems that continue to persist.
Buy Less Crap, indeed, no matter what its origins, and Invest In Facts.
Luis Portiansky, NYC
This article should have had all the facts. Shouldn't we focus on how this is a model that we as marketers could use our talents not just for the bottom-line but also for the greater good? I envy those that have these partners as clients and are helping them achieve a balance of profitability and being a driving force for good.
The so called "Global Fund" was initially created as a lean and quick moving instrument with a focus on action and achievement. What it turned out to have become by now (after 5 years) is just a fat cat burning money with champagne and limousine services and an overly bloated "secretariat" (see for that also Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/05/disease_fighting_funds_expenses_hit/ ).
The place has now more than 400% the people than envisioned when expecting twice the work. And nepotism and apparatchiks have taken it over and made it worse than most UN organizations (Note: It is not an UN organization but the "Global Fund" initially has been created to overcome these and other issues immanent with that group of organizations) . At the same time it has not fulfilled the core of its principles and is quickly becoming solely an overhead if nothing changes.
So from all what has already been said by other commentators and my personal knowledge of that place if you want to bring your money to better use reg. the pandemics "targeted" by the RED campaign in the moment provide funding to another place that actually does not just create an overhead until substantial change would be implemented with the "Global Fund".
Sad to see how a great idea is being destroyed by a bunch of people that put their self-importance over the interest of the organization within the humanitarian sector...
There are many reasons for the failure of the Project(RED) campaign. (1) Inferior-quality products selling at a premium over Gap's price point was the key issue in the clothing retailer's soft sales. (2) Over-focus on celebrity spokespersons and models instead of the charity's beneficiaries was also a large part of the problem. After all, could anyone say what Project(RED) was actually about? Be honest: the answer is "No". But they could tell you it had something to do with Bono and Oprah, and maybe Gwyneth, too. Let's not even get started on the idiocy of American Express' "I am an African" campaign (as we seem to be focusing in this forum on GAP) staring Giselle Bundchen and the aforementioned Ms. Paltrow (my cynicism about that campaign transcends rationality).
Motorola and Apple comprised the remaining Members of the Project(RED) quadrille. Motorola joined as means of reinvigorating its sagging RAZR sales. Motorola was also losing out to Nokia in the introduction of new cell phone products, something that young consumers require lest the get bored with its brand. Apple, IMO, recognized early on that its Project(RED) contribution, the limited edition red Nano, was underperforming and put their participation on the back-burner. Smart move.
Around the time of the campaign's extravagant launch, I read an interview with one of the founders of Project(RED). He stated that creating a conduit for charity funding wasn't his real goal. Rather, (*and I paraphrase*), he wanted "to engender a new business model whereby people were motivated to spend money by the association of an item with a charitable cause" (no matter how tangential the connection might be).
Project(RED)'s manifesto (available on their website) bears this out:
"RED is not a charity. It is a business model. You buy RED stuff. We get the money. Buy the pills and distribute them. They take the pills, stay alive and continue to take care of their families and contribute socially and economically in their communities.
If they don't get the pills, they die. We don't want them to die. We want to give them the pills. And we can. And you can. It's easy.
(The kicker line:) All you have to do is upgrade your choice."
While the founders of Project(RED) may think consumers weren't tuned into the blatant cynicism of such a statement, it would appear that in this, too, they underestimated their consumer.
High minded as RED may have seen itself, I think consumers saw through the "raising awareness" ploy. After all, 'awareness raising' seems to be all about a consumer experience, whether it is buying a pair of jeans or walking the Avon 3-Day Walk Against Breast Cancer. People are finding out that very little of the money they spend (or raise, as in the case of Avon) is actually seeing it's way to the charity (it's "called overhead" and it's the key issue in examining the effectiveness of any charity), and they are getting hip to the fact that this may be just a high-minded appeal to conspicuous consumption.
www.langtry.blogspot.com
They may be giving $10 of the $200 you spend on an iPod or wristwatch to fight AIDS, but if you give the same $200 directly to a well organized social ministry or relief organization it's a pretty safe bet that a greater percentage of your $200 will go to the actual relief work and finding solutions. And you can't put a price on showing up at a women's shelter and offering your time or spending time online to learn about the causes and solutions for hunger, poverty, or AIDS.
Give up two days of shopping each year and use those two days to organize the young people of your congregation or community to raise money and awareness for a particular social issue in the world or in your local community—or both.
Forget about being a "good looking samaritan." It's really about being open to changing one's way of life, and to being changed.
America's middle class are finding enough issues in their back yards and buying RED does not do a thing for internal issues we are facing today or external underlying conditions that plague Africa, Mexico, etc. etc.
On a positive note the U.S. continues to pour out millions to global issues and there are many organizations that are working passionately to save lives and make a better future, but we need to focus on making other nations become more responsible and accountable for their neglect and corruption.
i wanted to get 3 of them but not for that price, sorry.
m.
Perhaps the customer next to me was more polite than I was because she simply said, "no thanks." What I wanted to know (I wasn't even pitched a pin) is where does the other 50% go?
People aren't stupid...they can instantly sense something isn't quite right during a sales pitch. In this case, how come it is not more transparent where the other 50% goes? The question is if this is a sales problem or a marketing problem.
Either way, it appears that Red is in deep trouble.
JMR
Focus Fields, LLC
There is no way I would buy a T-shirt, even for a noble cause... that could have been used as a dust rag after wearing once!!
Donating directly to the cause always has a much better impact!!
Corporations aren't going to give profits to these causes without return. The campaign is trying to figure out a way to put our gross consumerism to work. Maybe there are some kinks now, but at least someone is thinking about this shit.
We are lazy. We would rather click a button on our computers than go out and put in our time and labor to help.
Let's focus on the real bad guys and not bash Bono and the people at (Red) for trying to do something great - something revolutionary.
$18million is more than they got before this things started - especially from any of the companies that are on board. And certainly from any of the people who would rather have an iPod than help Africa.
I say "way to go for trying." And then I pose the question...how much has YOUR brand given? How much have YOU given this year. For some (most?) people that $10 for their Nano is the most they have given in a year. If we have to throw shiny popular objects in people's faces to get them to give back, well, let's do it.
Giving back is a good thing. And if our capitalist society isn't enlightened enough to put in the real time and work to do it, then this is one positive step to figuring it out. It hasn't even been a year...give this thing time to change evolve and work itself out.
Say what you want, but Bono has done more for this cause than any of us sitting here lazy and chatting about it on Ad Age...soaking up our huge paychecks which we get be luring people to buy more.
Nice try- But next time take a real world approach and make quality products at an affordable price.
I find all of the comments to be enlightening. Each one points out fundamental aspects of our profession, each being valid. The question it seems that needs to be answered is which aspects are the most important? There are good arguments for all sides, and that is just in this opinion area! I'm proud to be part of such a quality discussion.
On another note, I find it highly interesting that no one has said anything about the "Pink" campaign for Breast Cancer (or Yellow for Lance Armstrong & Testicular Cancer). Marketers have sold "Pink" products with the claim that part of the proceeds will go to help the fight against breast cancer, rarely does it say the amount given. Others don't even say they'll give money to the cause, probably just hoping consumers think they will be! The Red Campaign did come after Wear Pink for Breast Cancer, which is still ongoing. Interesting...
- WQ - MN
(RED) supports a cause very abstract to most First World consumers- advancing the fight against AIDS in Africa.
This cause is more detached from its audience than say Breast Cancer. This is due to the nature of the typical contributor. In the case of Breast Cancer, most donations are made by people directly or closely effected by the disease
In the case of (RED), they are asking the audience to dontate to a cause somewhat detached from thier lives.
Instead of a typical direct-giving model, which is more effective with a more "personal" audience, the model to treat the African Aids crisis enhances itself by taking on a more detached marketing strategy.
Not only is the core pool of supporters broadened, but the visibility of the cause takes on a whole new realm of accessibility to an otherwise detached audience/consumer.
Those who may not have felt connected to the crisis can now use the brand in a way that makes sense of thier invovlemnet in both giving and the African AIDS Crisis.
While I agree that direct giving seems much more morally valid, I also believe certain (pre-existing) channels can be used as tools to connect and activate an otherwise overloaded, isolated culture of the individual.
The article mentions that private non-government donations were just over $1M a year for the last few years before RED. $18M in a few months sounds pretty good compared to that rate.
-- New York NY
Some of the products are expensive, but that is part of the marketing. How many of you are wearing your pink ribbons or yellow armbands still? Those campaigns raised money by creating quick buzz and a fad. They are not ongoing revenue streams. To maintain cool factor, the products are somewhat high-end. They need to be aspirational to maintain a sense of cool. If everyone wore the (RED) GAP t-shirt, nobody would want it.
Before you criticize the (RED) efforts, make a list of the money, effort, and intellectual thinking you have donated this year.
Santa Monica, CA
1. Did Motorola, Apple, AmEx, & Gap use 100% African owned businesses to produce the Red products?
2. Did The World Fund, Motorola, Apple, AmEx, & Gap use 100% African owned business to at least produce the intellectual component of the Red ad campaign?
Of course the answer is NO! But this begs the follow up question, why not hold these entities accountable if they are really in it to "save lives" and not trade in profit off of others suffering? If the answer was yes to both those questions, a lion's share of the $118 million would have at least flowed into Africa in one form or another to help slay the twin scourges of AIDS and poverty which are inexorably linked in Africa. If you are in a business and you invest $100 million and recover $18 million for the expenditure in this amount of time, the business would be shuttered if it were not "for charity". Especially since the products are of substandard quality for the cost charged and getting a bad reputation for it. How many of you reading this can afford to run a business like this? There has to be a better model to help these people as well as hold the celebrities and World Fund's big wigs' feet to the collective fire to do better for these people.
And I agree-- the ads were confusing, if lovely.
This week, Ad Age reported that the Red charity advertising campaign—endorsed by some of Hollywood's hottest celebrities, and one of the most prominent cause-related marketing campaigns to catch the public eye—has raised only $18 million since its launch a year ago. However, the marketing costs were significantly more, with some estimates as high as $100 million. Does this mean the campaign was a flop? No, not necessarily...
According to Professor Strahilevitz:
Cause-related marketing is not just about the short-term sales benefits and immediate fund raising. My research shows that CRM can also help marketers to gain long-term brand loyalty as well as improved employee morale. Similarly, the cause being promoted can gain more than the money raised—they also gain publicity that can lead to more donations unrelated to the campaign. Consumers can also gain by feeling better about their purchase choices. My own research suggests consumers often feel guilty for buying luxury or self-indulgence products they don't need, and that cause-related marketing campaigns can enable consumers to feel good about purchasing things they might otherwise feel guilty about. So when you want to evaluate the success of a CRM campaign, you need to go beyond short-term dollars and cents.
Product Red: The jury is still out
Product Red improved the brand image of partnering companies such as Apple, Motorola and the Gap, because consumers saw that these firms were involved. It helped consumers feel they were making a difference by the product choices they made. And the publicity around the campaign demonstrated that many celebrities, including Bono, Spielberg and Oprah, cared enough to donate their time to a good cause. Efforts like this are part of what has made charitable giving and fundraising become downright fashionable. Overall, the campaign was excellent for awareness of the global AIDS problem. Since the campaign began, the number of individual donations directlyto the global fund (unrelated to Red product sales) is in fact up from the prior year. So, although, so far, the campaign raised less for the Global Fund than they spent on marketing, the long-term benefits to the cause, the consumers, the marketers, their employees, and even the celebrities that got involved suggest that the campaign was far from a flop. So before anyone at Ad Age (or anywhere else) suggests this campaign has been a failure, I think they need to look deeper, and remember that few brilliant marketing efforts are just about short-term revenues.
Of course, it is possible that the campaign could have been executed more effectively. For example, some consumers complained that they wanted to pick the cause-related version, but they simply did not like the color red. Still, the free publicity was good for everyone! So while I might not give the execution an A+, I definitely have to give them at least an A- overall for a great effort that raised money, improved brand equity and raised our awareness of an extremely important cause. That does not sound like a failure to me.
About Michal Strahilevitz
Michal Strahilevitz is an Associate Professor of marketing at Golden Gate University in San Francisco. She has published her research on cause-related marketing in the Journal of Consumer Research, the Journal of Consumer Psychology and the Journal of Non Profit and Public Sector Marketing. She is also on the editorial board of the Journal of Non-profit and Public Sector Marketing.
Unless I've missed something, it's not as if AIDS or poverty has gone away or been solved... have they?
Charities, the UN, governments and foundations are all playing their part but there is still more to do. And it's not as if we can stop consumerism overnight - so let's harness it where we can.
Let's embrace (or at least give it a chance to work) this new and potentially sustainable model of getting money from corporates (who to date don't give significantly) to help end such unnecessary human suffering. Don't we need all the efforts possible? They're all valid and needed if you ask me.
The quality of some of the thinner items is only lacking because everything is EITHER made in Africa OR made using African materials. So the shirt's made in Indonesia. It's made with crappy African cotton that's not nearly the quality of what we grow commercially. The poor Indonesians are trying their best to sew you a shirt, and the shirt's ripping before it's finished! So it's a good shirt but the stitching comes out -- probably because it was made by AFRICAN people in AFRICA that are NOT in a sweatshop that constantly governs QUALITY CONTROL for the CONSUMER. (Gap)RED is creating jobs for these people, it's not the Gap's fault Africans don't work as hard as the Indonesians.
People need to do research before they start criticizing. The (Gap)RED donation to (Product)RED not only totals the most, but percentage-wise is more than any other company's donation: 50% of the net profit from each item. Gap's profits on regular-priced items, as we know, are quite high. Add an extra $7.50 to the price of the tshirt and that net profit goes up by an even $7.50. Converse only donates 5% of their (Converse)RED profits. And those little $1.00 red pins that say "(GAP)" on them? 100% of what you spend on that pin goes to the Global Fund. If the cashier gets 100 people to buy one of those pins [which are pretty cool, by the way] then the Global Fund makes $100, no strings attached. And yes, (Product)RED does go on sale. The net profits are decreased, but the contribution is still there. So if $30 is too much to spend, wait until it goes down to $9.97; Gap's still probably making at least $2 on the shirt, so you're donating $1. That's like buying a pin, except you get a shirt to wear instead. Not a bad deal.
(Gap)RED has spent much less money than other companies involved in (Product)RED, and confined the majority of their advertising to the store windows. (Motorola)RED and (AmericanExpress)RED have both advertised on giant billboards and have painted the sides of countless buildings across North America.
All in all, leave the Gap alone. If you don't like the quality, shop (EmperioArmani)RED instead, where nothing is made in Africa and your donation is practically meaningless to the company. Just be prepared to pay Armani prices.
Douglas
http://www.promotionproducts.com.au/
That's only about 109,589 doses of HIV medication per day, for one full year. 109,589 lives changed for the first year sounds like a success to me. If every company participated, every African child with HIV would have a brighter future. Not just 110,000. Despite the critics, this is a valiant effort from corporate enterprise that is otherwise obligated to do nothing. When the critics have themselves handed over $18 Million, then they have the right to complain about the efforts. Until then, they hypocrits.
Best,
Gaston
http://www.Ultimate-Resell-Rights.com
In any case - 18 million is not a shabby take, unless of course it took 19 million to raise it.
Single Golf Clubs