What is Digg?220 Comments
- julianwan, on 02/07/2008, -18/+83Product (RED)'s mantra: MADE BY CHILD SLAVES TO HELP CHILD SLAVES
- LordMonboddo, on 02/07/2008, -9/+64Much like the 'Go Pink!' breast cancer campaign - begun by the same company that manufactures breast cancer treatment drugs, as well as the chemical in fertilizer that causes breast cancer. Don't believe me? Look it up. (Granted, Bono was more altruistically motivated...)
- elfuego, on 02/07/2008, -3/+55Well hang on, how much would these companies be spending on advertising that isn't for (RED)? As in, if Motorola's spending 100 million on advertising regardless, but because this is the advertising they spend on, that results in $18 being raised for AIDS research? That's not a bad thing.
Now, if they spent 100 mil over and above their regular budgets only to raise that much, yes, it's pathetic. But it couldn't hurt to take a little perspective. - hassanchop13, on 02/07/2008, -2/+52the title is seriously misleading. 100 million dollars spent on advertising products that they would advertise anyway, i still dont really see how this is a bad thing. they are going to market their products one way or another, throwing a few million for charity while doing it can only help
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -3/+43Product (RED) is all about Bono compensating for the fact that he only weighs 8 curics.
- kyp3000, on 02/07/2008, -1/+37That's $100 million spent by Gap, Motorola, Dell, et. al. from their advertising budget, money they had already earmarked to spend on ads. It would be ridiculous for (Red) to spend $100 million to raise $18 million, but that's not the case. Did anyone else read that (Red) is... "the 15th-largest donor — more than Russia has given so far, and more than China, Saudi Arabia and Switzerland have pledged."
That's more indicative of (Red)'s track record. - FeargusMcDuff, on 02/07/2008, -3/+33You're hurting your movement more than you're helping it.
- shapattack, on 02/07/2008, -4/+31I don't see it as a problem, either. It's companies that are paying for the advertising and paying into the AIDS cause. If it's cynical that they get good PR from the deal, or see it as a way to buy good PR, I don't care. But more importantly, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's cynical just because they get something out of it.
- jkizzle, on 02/07/2008, -1/+25What has been terribly underrepresented is that the companies pay for the advertising using (RED) which they licesnse from the non-profit. They are advertising their products, as they normally would, with a good cause twist. Thus, (RED) has spent NOTHING on advertising, and RAISED many MILLIONS of DOLLARS, by receiving a slice of profits that are already being advertised and bought on a daily basis.
- MacEnvy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+23100 million double cheeseburgers?
- plbland, on 02/07/2008, -1/+22Typical headline grabber. This is EXACTLY the point of (Red), it's all about consumerism, and how (Red) can use it for the benifit of charity.
Here's the short and true story: Companies use (Red) to look good, and make the consumer feel happy, so they advertise it, and profit from this. (Red) pays nothing in advertising, but takes revenues from licencing and sales of (Red) Products.
It's a clever way to introduce - partially - ethical products into the market, and $18 Million to charity is only a good thing in my opinion. - Harboggles, on 02/07/2008, -10/+29I can think of 100 million better ways to spend that 100 million.
- andy3109, on 02/07/2008, -0/+19There is nothing wrong with this. They didn't pay it...companies did. So the company got their name out, and RED's name all in their advertising revenue budget. 100 million may be 18 million for RED, but it's 100 million that the companies would have spent on advertising anyways for one form of advertising or another.
- LR2_, on 02/07/2008, -0/+18It really annoyed me when a 'Go Pink!' trailer showed up on my campus last semester for a few days. The whole point was to raise awareness, but the trailer looked like it was worth a ton. It looked like an episode of Pimp My Ride. They had flat tvs everywhere, it looked really excessive. I wondered why this money is going to trailers instead of women who need it. Did they really need 10 flat screens to raise awareness about something everyone already knows about? I don't know, maybe i'm wrong about this kind of thing.
- Herv3, on 02/07/2008, -1/+16I'm for Ron Paul and I agree with you. Interjecting him into every single thread gets annoying and makes him look a little worse.
- centerblack, on 02/07/2008, -4/+18This information would be a lot more useful with a chart of advertising dollars spent, and $$ raised for aids with respect to time.
They launched in January '06, so they're still pretty young- I would expect early advertising expenditures to be really high. If they can manage to become a household name, then they won't have to spend much cash advertising. - jkizzle, on 02/07/2008, -5/+18there is no movement. did you watch the news tuesday night? RP FTL!
- briguymaine, on 02/07/2008, -0/+12I think the idea is that companies like Apple, Dell, etc. create (RED) products and pay for the advertising. When consumers buy the (RED) product a percentage goes to the foundation. So the charity isn't paying for the advertisement, of course I didn't RTFA so I could be way off here...
- BigBallistix, on 02/07/2008, -2/+12The James Hardy Foundation is also dedicated to helping asbestos victims, after finding out the product they manufactured was lethal. Don't be so quick to judge. Supply and demand is a part of society.
- EtherGnat, on 02/07/2008, -0/+10It's not ridiculous. Red hasn't paid anything for advertising and has collected $18-25 million. The companies that HAVE paid for the advertising would have spent that money on advertising regardless. Partnering with Red allows them to generate money for charity and generates good PR, without costing them a dime. It's win-win.
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9I totally agree. Wasting money is a problem a lot of charities and non-profit organizations are guilty of. Think about those mega-churches in the midwest that resemble shopping malls more than places of worship.
- norman619, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9The end result is what's important.
- LLamaStar, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9Why is there a complaint? They are getting $18million more than what they ever would have. The companies who made the products would have spent the same amount of money on advertising without the RED logo and would have kept all the profits to themselves.
beggars can't be choosers. - xaxxon, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9I think you're on the right track. These companies didn't say "Should we spend this $100M on advertising or give it to an AIDS foundation." They likely took existing advertising budget (that wasn't going to affect anything AIDS related) and earmarked it for a new campaign involving RED.
It needs to be quite clear that this is not money that RED ever had. They didn't squander $100M. They never had it and they were likely never going to. They should be happy that they've had $100M spent on raising awareness of their program AND happy that they've gotten $18M to spend themselves. - Deived, on 02/08/2008, -1/+8I'm a Ron Paul supporter... but there was really no reason to mention him. Horrible plug.
- onishenko, on 02/07/2008, -0/+7Exactly. The heading is misleading and inaccurate. Read the article, then bury it as inaccurate.
- mdude85, on 02/07/2008, -0/+7I don't see anything wrong with this at all. Eventually these companies are going to spend $100 million collectively on advertising in some fashion or another. It's noble that they give even a small fraction of this money to AIDS research, when, before (Red), they spent $100 million and gave nothing. I don't know why consumers act like it's a bad thing when companies advertise their products, especially when the consumer is the only reason this advertising money is being spent.
Besides, the people who buy these (Red) products, especially the shirts labeled ...(Red) are really to blame, because all money spent on the $18 (Red) t-shirt could have been given to AIDS research directly by the consumer. - a3r0, on 02/07/2008, -2/+8Yea, it sure worked out well for him. Oh, wait...
- ThinkFr33ly, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6What's too ***** obvious is how stupid you are.
$100 million was spent on advertising PRODUCTS which were then purchased by people, and a certain percentage of that purchase price was donated. This resulted in $18 million in donations. It ALSO resulted in profits for the companies doing the advertising.
If those companies had simply donated $100 million... they would not have made a dime. And the entire point of the RED campaign is to encourage "altruistic capitalism"... in other words, making money but also doing good.
I can't believe I had to spell that out. - archimago42, on 02/07/2008, -1/+7Funny, I seem to remember America proving that no one gives a ***** what Ron Paul agrees with.
- EmileVictor, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6The James Hardy company had to be fought by mesothelioma victims to set up that foundation. Don't be so quick to judge.
- cozb, on 02/07/2008, -1/+718 million is better than 0 (from you), no?
- bradbaxter, on 02/07/2008, -1/+7I don't get the problem, as long as the numbers follow this hypothetical example:
1) Company spends $100 million on advertising Red product.
2) Company sells $200 million in product.
3) Sales produce $20 million for charity.
4) Company profits $80 million. - rajun50, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6Fail.
- gerbco, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5At least he didn't turn it into a plastic marketing blitz to sell a couple of more laptops.
- beauc, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5these are ads that were going to run anyway. Gaps spends a lot on ads. So does Dell, etc. These just tag the Red products.
- KaivenTor, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5It's also 100 Million collectivly spent by companies in advertising. According to the model, this make some sense as the companies are still getting a share out of it. The numbers are disputable because the people that know what they are aren't saying. Besdies that, this is still doing some good in the world as well as helping to stimulate our own economy. So if the numbers seem a little off at first, the question is how many people have been helped? Looks like they're doing a pretty good job so far. This is a symbiotic business deal, not a full blown charity, so these numbers actually make sense.
- NathanielJ, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5Your apostrophe fell from "diggers" into "get's", how odd.
Our other favorite pastime; pointing out bad grammar. - NathanielJ, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5RTFA.
- archimago42, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6What is it like not being able to tell entirely separate issues apart?
- vibrokatana, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5The drug companies will pollute us even more.
- lostarchitect, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4you can has bitchslap.
- jkizzle, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4with out advertising, they dont sell, without sales, they close, leaving people out of work, the economy slipping, and no funds raised. Or, they could couple in a charity, and help. Take your pick.
- sgtpppr, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4Because that's not sensational and exaggerated and wouldn't make for good 'news'.
- bspender, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Rhetoric directly from the Red Manifesto (http://www.joinred.com/manifesto/)
“If you buy a (RED) product or sign up for a (RED) service, at no cost to you, a (RED) company will give some of its profits to buy and distribute anti-retroviral medicine to our brothers and sisters dying of AIDS in Africa.”
And: “You buy (RED) stuff. We get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. . . 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. And it’s easy. All you have to do is upgrade your choice.”
Don't get me wrong. I am all for companies doing what they can to make a profit, and I completely support working for a good cause. However, it sends a severely conflicting message when the (RED) campaign uses extreme human suffering as a tool to guilt consumers into buying more – especially when the companies behind this are arguably benefiting the most (i.e. as the 1st quote says... "a (RED) company will give some of its profits").
*Small disclaimer here: Apple's RED products are the same price as other comparable products. But go into a GAP and tell me that their RED products aren't jacked up in price... - 80hd, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3starvation :(
- whitenerdy92, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3a portal to hell opens up and the demons of the earth conquer us all
- staffa, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3RED spends zero dollars on advertising, that 100 million was spent by the companies to advertise their products, something they would do regardless, the title of this is absurdly misleading.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 213 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is