[badsey]

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index...S&newsID=17444

The Bono-backed (PRODUCT)RED charity has hit back at recent reports suggesting its fund-raising and awareness campaign has failed.

It has been suggested that the charity and its partners have spent in excess of $100 million on marketing only to raise just $8 million for the Global Fund To Fight AIDS in Africa. These suggestions first surfaced in a report on AdAge.

"This can only help us all stay focused on the fact that 5,500 Africans are still dying needlessly of AIDS every day," Shriver says.

I would like to see more iPods and iMacs in (Product) Red. I know for sure a (Product) Red iMac will sell. Do promotions at Apple Stores with Bono (and others) signing (Product) Red iMacs and other (product) red stuff. The other problem is that big stores like Walmart, Circuit City and BestBuy do not sell the (product) Red iPod. Should Apple be forcing these stores to sell the (Product) Red iPods.

[badsey]

the real article
Advertising Age - Costly Red Campaign Reaps Meager $18 Million

New York Daily News - Home - Rush & Molloy: Bono's Red campaign says it's raised lots of green

Bono's Red charity has 'failed' - U2 France

[shifuimam]

My biggest problem with (PRODUCT) Red is that it's making profits off of a horrible terminal disease.

There were people who bought the red nano immediately after buying a different colored nano because it made them look cooler and was a status thing - like those stupid yellow Livestrong bracelets, but on a much worse level. Nothing should capitalize on a deadly worldwide epidemic, and it certainly shouldn't become a status symbol.

How about this : instead of dropping $200 on a red iPod, why don't you donate $200 to AIDS research? Or, how about all those other terminal diseases that never get any face time because they don't have celebrities endorsing them...like pancreatic cancer or epilepsy or something?

It's just pathetic that we need trendy tshirts from the Gap, phones from Motorola, and iPods from Apple to get us to donate money to nonprofit organizations. And don't give me any crap about how kids can't afford to donate that much money - if you can afford a brand-new RAZR or iPod, you can afford to donate to charity. Not only that, but Apple gets the tax benefit when you buy their stupid iPod. You really think they got in on this because Jobs is just such a great guy? He may be nice, but (PRODUCT) Red is more about PR and getting as many tax benefits as possible out of your business.

Not only that, but I can't stand Bono.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

How about this : instead of dropping $200 on a red iPod, why don't you donate $200 to AIDS research? Or, how about all those other terminal diseases that never get any face time because they don't have celebrities endorsing them...like pancreatic cancer or epilepsy or something?

It's just pathetic that we need trendy tshirts from the Gap, phones from Motorola, and iPods from Apple to get us to donate money to nonprofit organizations. And don't give me any crap about how kids can't afford to donate that much money - if you can afford a brand-new RAZR or iPod, you can afford to donate to charity. Not only that, but Apple gets the tax benefit when you buy their stupid iPod. You really think they got in on this because Jobs is just such a great guy? He may be nice, but (PRODUCT) Red is more about PR and getting as many tax benefits as possible out of your business.

Not only that, but I can't stand Bono.

You are right.. (PRODUCT) Red is about PR from a corporate perspective. And it's about making money.... cuz guess what... that's why companies exist.

But I think you've missed the fundamental idea behind (PRODUCT) Red. What about all those people that were about to buy an iPod and decided to get the Red one instead of one of the other ones. This way they get their iPod AND (PRODUCT) Red gets a few bucks in the deal. And of course Apple gets their profit. Thus, everyone wins. I would tend to believe that there are many people out there that are too lazy to bother with donating to charities but when given the opportunity to funnel a few bucks to charity via a product purchase they'll do it. (Damn that's an awkward sentence.)

<rant>When will people quit assuming that businesses exist for philanthropic reasons? Corporations are interested in making money for the shareholders...and nothing more. It's very simple.</rant>

[shifuimam]

Oh I agree with you that corporations are only interested in their shareholders ... it does seem sometimes, though, that a number of Apple fanboys are convinced that Jobs exists for the end-user (hence the "open letter" PR crap a few weeks back).

Regardless, I've just started to have issue with the fact that certain diseases and disorders are considered trendy enough to garner celebrity support, while people die daily from other diseases that aren't glamorous enough to get Bono to travel around the world raising money for them.

But if you did a survey on people's primary reason for buying (PRODUCT) Red merchandise, I really wonder how many of them could honestly answer that it was because of the tiny percentage donated to charity, or that it was for status/trend/appearance reasons.

[badsey]

My biggest problem with (PRODUCT) Red is that it's making profits off of a horrible terminal disease.

Apple makes less profit from the (product) RED iPod Nano: (everybody knows this)
The Apple Store (U.S.) - iPod nano

There were people who bought the red nano immediately after buying a different colored nano because it made them look cooler and was a status thing - like those stupid yellow Livestrong bracelets, but on a much worse level. Nothing should capitalize on a deadly worldwide epidemic, and it certainly shouldn't become a status symbol.
How about this : instead of dropping $200 on a red iPod, why don't you donate $200 to AIDS research? Or, how about all those other terminal diseases that never get any face time because they don't have celebrities endorsing them...like pancreatic cancer or epilepsy or something?
It's just pathetic that we need trendy tshirts from the Gap, phones from Motorola, and iPods from Apple to get us to donate money to nonprofit organizations. And don't give me any crap about how kids can't afford to donate that much money - if you can afford a brand-new RAZR or iPod, you can afford to donate to charity. Not only that, but Apple gets the tax benefit when you buy their stupid iPod. You really think they got in on this because Jobs is just such a great guy? He may be nice, but (PRODUCT) Red is more about PR and getting as many tax benefits as possible out of your business.
Not only that, but I can't stand Bono.

-this is exactly what (product) Red was supposed to do. It got people talking +/- about these issues (before there was nothing!!). Right now the $$ geared at these ReD programs is minimal, but it will grow slowly. Even 15-25M$ is better than nothing. In 10 years it will maybe be 200-500M$.

When iTunes first rolled out everyone laughed at it. No one possibly believed it could work except Apple and the Apple faithful. People that bought iPods and more importantly iTunes music made iTunes successful. It's the same with this Red product: The people will decide with their $$$ if (PrOdUcT) Red is a success. It's not really about corporations in this case. We should be putting more pressure on Apple if anything for more (pRoDuCt) ReD products.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Regardless, I've just started to have issue with the fact that certain diseases and disorders are considered trendy enough to garner celebrity support, while people die daily from other diseases that aren't glamorous enough to get Bono to travel around the world raising money for them.

True... how many celebrities would you get for STOP DIARRHEA

It kills ~6000 people EVERY DAY.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by badsey 

...-this is exactly what (product) Red was supposed to do. It got people talking +/- about these issues (before there was nothing!!). Right now the $$ geared at these ReD programs is minimal, but it will grow slowly. Even 15-25M$ is better than nothing. In 10 years it will maybe be 200-500M$.

I don't believe for a second that people didn't talk about AIDS before Bono swooped in with his campaign. In fact, people have been talking about AIDS for more than a decade now.

Contrary to popular belief, the world does not need Bono to better itself.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Regardless, I've just started to have issue with the fact that certain diseases and disorders are considered trendy enough to garner celebrity support, while people die daily from other diseases that aren't glamorous enough to get Bono to travel around the world raising money for them.

Well, trendy or not, AIDS is projected to only get worse and become one of the leading causes of premature death worldwide.

And who cares if a celebrity latches onto a cause? Isn't the cause that much better off now that it's getting more attention/money?

It pains me to see how skeptical the world has become. The minute someone tries to do good, they are immediately accused of doing it for all the wrong reasons.

[earthlings]

How is Apple making any profit on the Red ipods if they are the same price as the regular colored ipods (4gb and 8 gb)?

[badsey]

How is Apple making any profit on the Red ipods if they are the same price as the regular colored ipods (4gb and 8 gb)?

Wear your music (and heart) on your sleeve When you choose the iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition, you get an iPod nano in a bright red aluminum enclosure that tells the world you’ve chosen to join (PRODUCT) RED. And Apple contributes $10 of your purchase to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. It’s that simple.

You buy a ReD iPod and Apple donates $10. =Apple loses some profit on the ReD iPods in comparison to the other iPods, but they still make a profit, -just not as much.

[earthlings]

Originally Posted by badsey 

You buy a ReD iPod and Apple donates $10. =Apple loses some profit on the ReD iPods in comparison to the other iPods, but they still make a profit, -just not as much.

I understand now.

[mduell]

It's good to see the PRODUCT RED campaign being exposed as the joke that it is.

[icruise]

From what I understand, most of the costs were involved in getting the charity off the ground, and much of the "advertising costs" were not paid by (PRODUCT) Red itself, but by the companies selling the products (basically, they were spending the money they might have spent on advertising anyway and doing it for (PRODUCT) Red products instead, to seem like good companies that gave to charity). So all this "they spent more than the raised" business is pretty misleading.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

My biggest problem with (PRODUCT) Red is that it's making profits off of a horrible terminal disease.

Uh, what? It's true that the companies are getting some good press out of it, so if you think all donations to charity should be anonymous, then I guess you'd have a problem with that. And yeah, it would be better to donate $200 to AIDS research instead of buying an iPod, but that's really beside the point. The whole point of this idea is that people, who were going to be buying iPods, cell phones, sneakers, etc anyway, would choose the red version to give a little bit to charity and also help raise awareness about AIDS. It's giving people a painless way to contribute. And this is a bad thing?

If they never make more money than they spend on advertising, then yeah, it would be a failure, but I think it's too early to make that call. I'm also not sure why some people seem to hate Bono. I'm not really a fan, but I think he's genuinely trying to make a difference, which is more than you can say about most pop stars.

[earthlings]

Who all here owns something from this Product Red anyways?

[imitchellg5]

I got a shirt.

[papadopolis]

i do i own alot..... it helps..... any thing is better than nothing i mean if i am going to buy a shirt or shoes i might as well buy some that is going to help someone somewhere..... Right.... i own a shirt, a pair of converses, a Pin... something else i cant remember.... but i dont own it because i think its "cool" i own it because it helps a fund that helps someone.... i dont give a **** of what people think of me if they dont like me then o well im not just going to go out a buy a shirt cause everyone else at school owns it im going to buy something because it dose good and thats cool..... so just par say i need new shoes.... i love converse...... hmm product red i could buy these that give something to do good in the world instead of buying nike that have sweet shops in 3rd world areas

[stwain2003]

lern two sphell papadopolis

[papadopolis]

this coming from the guy who miss spelled spell......

sorry my english is bad though.......... (i am german)

[vasic]

Companies selling (PRODUCT) Red are spending their own marketing dollars. In other words, Apple is using the same money they use for their iMacs, iTunes, iPods and everything else. Because of the celebrity involvment, this gets a bit more mileage on the dollar spent than regular advertising. Whoever wrote that the campaign is failing, having spent $100 million on marketing and raking in less than 10% of that, is very malicious. No money was spent to market the campaign. The campaign was marketed through the products and appearances by people like Bono (who don't charge fees for these apearances).

Simply said, this campagin made millions of dollars with negligible investment. These dollars went directly into the Global Fund. Global Fund is spending this money directly for figting AIDS.

Companies producing (PRODUCT) Red stuff are reducing their profits by about (at least) 10% on each Red item: in Apple's case, where we know that markup is really huge, profit on the Nano is around $100; they are donating $10 to the campaign. In Apple's case, the red nano represents more than 2% of total revenue. Now, if you are willing to give up 2% of your one month's sallary every year for charity, you will be matching what the companies like Apple are doing through this campaign.

[ogenstein]

Originally Posted by earthlings 

Who all here owns something from this Product Red anyways?

I have a Nano.

I didn't buy it though. It was a prize in a trivia contest. My company bought a pile of them and gave them out.

It's nice and I'm pleased with it. If something else that's good came out of it -- great.

[mrgaskell]

shifuimam & mduell:

You're forgetting the population of buyers who were buying a t-shirt, cell phone or iPod Nano (in my case) anyway and are seeing the benefit of buying the same device in a different color if it sends a check for $10 to help AIDS then I'm all for it!

[red rocket]

I wouldn't buy a (PRODUCT) Red iPod, just because of the stupid name. What were they thinking?

[ERG]

stupid discussions/posts..
If you're really interested on the matter, go to Africa and to some missionarism.. Otherwise do what you've always did and stop bothering who choose to give some of his/her funds to someone else.. Elesewise no church/telethon/glass washing charities shouldn't ever exixsts for you..

[badsey]

Originally Posted by vasic 

Companies producing (PRODUCT) Red stuff are reducing their profits by about (at least) 10% on each Red item: in Apple's case, where we know that markup is really huge, profit on the Nano is around $100; they are donating $10 to the campaign. In Apple's case, the red nano represents more than 2% of total revenue. Now, if you are willing to give up 2% of your one month's salary every year for charity, you will be matching what the companies like Apple are doing through this campaign.

Revenue = sales
Income = $$$

The Skinny on Apple's New nanos

iSuppli took apart the 4-GB version of the nano and estimated that the materials inside cost $72.24. That's a drop of more than $17 compared with what Apple paid for the guts of a 2-GB version of the first iPod nano device. The new 4-GB players come in four colors and sell for $199.

-but that is for materials alone. You still need to assemble the product. Design/Testing/refurbishing/the box etc. Hiring people to make the product. Those fancy commercials. Apple is lucky because they sell a ton of iPods, companies like Creative Labs are struggling to make money on their MP3 players. Apple also has huge buying power right now = they get great deals = it may not be possible for other companies to even make a Nano clone at Apple's prices (Apple knows this and prices according to the competition's ability to price their products) =If Apple made just another MP3 player clone most likely they would not be able to fund the $10 (product) ReD campaign.

UPDATE 2-Creative Q2 net jumps on Apple payment; cuts jobs
10:27 p.m. 01/30/2007 Provided by
* Q2 net US$92.1 mln (includes $82 mln payment from Apple)
* Q2 revenues US$424.4 mln
* Outlook: more restructuring costs to impact Q3; expects to
be profitable before special charges

2.3% net from sales after paying for everything. Imagine if you were selling a product and you only made 2.3% on it. = Hard to find the extra $10 to pay (Product) Red in this case. Other electronic companies look at Apple paying the $10 as being crazy. Right now Apple is in a rosy position, but many times Apple did not a profit.

Apple probably initially did (product) ReD as a favor to Bono. Those U2 iPods were rather neat and helped iTunes grow + the whole U2 library could be bought as a collective. The U2 commercial. U2 scratched Apple's back and Jobs made sure U2/Bono were taken care of. If Jobs called Bono I'm sure he would pick up the call and I'm sure the opposite is the also case. It wouldn't surprise me after this (PRODUCT) RED controversy if Apple does promote (PRODUCT) ReD more (I am expecting a Product (RED) Apple commercial in the future with maybe even Steve Jobs)

[papadopolis]

Originally Posted by ERG 

stupid discussions/posts..
If you're really interested on the matter, go to Africa and to some missionarism.. Otherwise do what you've always did and stop bothering who choose to give some of his/her funds to someone else.. Elesewise no church/telethon/glass washing charities shouldn't ever exixsts for you..

not every one can just say i want to goto Africa and go..... any fund to help anything is a good one...... but my fav. fund for africa is invisible children

[brassplayersrock²]

i personally believe that the prices for product red related items are to high. i walked into a gap the other day and the price for a product red shirt was $80ish dollars. It looked nice and fit well, but the price for it was just to high. this might be another reason why this promotion isn't going well.

-a

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock 

i walked into a gap the other day and the price for a product red shirt was $80ish dollars.

Christ. Are you fricking serious? $80 for a cheap cotton tshirt?

According to Gap.com, they'd donating half the profits. You can't tell me that even at $40, they're not just making a quick buck from those stupid things.

Even at $30, which is what most stuff is via the Gap store in the United States, Gap's still making a $15 profit. One of the hoodies is a ridiculous $150. You think the $75 profit off that is just a convenient side note to Gap's desire to participate in AIDS relief? Yeah right. And I can guarantee you those made-in-sound-America shirts didn't cost Gap more than a few dollars to manufacture.

This PRODUCT(red) thing is a pathetic sham. Spend $150 donating to a charity - any charity, for crying out loud - instead of wasting it on clothing of mediocre quality that, at the end of the day, is nothing but a financial fashion statement.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Christ. Are you fricking serious? $80 for a cheap cotton tshirt?

Where did he say it was a cheap cotton T-shirt? Looking at gap.com, you'll see that the (PRODUCT) Red T-shirts are $28, which is still expensive, but not THAT bad. He must have been referring to the "officer shirt" which is $88.

[shifuimam]

<snip>

I'm sick of arguing this. I personally don't feel the need to buy overpriced Gap swag to make myself feel like a better person. If you do, whatever.

[PB2K]

the problem is that people think their money is effectively spent on charity, but their marketing campaigns are done by expensive agencies, research is conducted by expensive doctors and specialists, all with western money for western organisations, instead of the money going directly to cheap medicines to the third world.
maybe they should buy the rights to cheaply manufacture existing aids medicines instead on extra expensive research ?

[palane]

Originally Posted by papadopolis 

this coming from the guy who miss spelled spell......

sorry my english is bad though.......... (i am german)

I've a feeling your sarcasm detector

That much having been said, criticizing spelling is one of the easiest ( and laziest) ad hominem attacks out there on the forums.

BB

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by earthlings 

Who all here owns something from this Product Red anyways?

I did order the 4GB RED iPod nano online even though I already had a 5.5G iPod. It was like Nov/Dec of '06, so it fit nicely with the whole Xmas thing too. Second, a t-shirt from GAP. The local GAP store couldn't even meet the demand on the {PRODUCT) Red items at that time.

The campaign was on Flickr and MySpace as well.

[badsey]

Originally Posted by PB2K 

the problem is that people think their money is effectively spent on charity, but their marketing campaigns are done by expensive agencies, research is conducted by expensive doctors and specialists, all with western money for western organisations, instead of the money going directly to cheap medicines to the third world.
maybe they should buy the rights to cheaply manufacture existing aids medicines instead on extra expensive research ?

HIV/AIDS medications for the 3rd World are usually coming out of India at a very low cost.

Legal wrangle puts India's generic drugs at risk - health - 29 January 2007 - New Scientist
http://www.msf.org/petition_india/international.html

In 2000, antiretroviral (ARV) treatment cost was estimated at $10,000 per patient annually. But the availability of generic drugs produced mainly in India, allowed costs to plummet to about $70 per patient per year, Mwangi adds.

India has long been an important source of affordable generic medicines as it did not grant pharmaceutical patents until 2005, when it was forced to comply with World Trade Organization rules on intellectual property (see India surveys aftermath of new patent law).

"If Novartis gets through with its case our lives are at risk," Monique Wanjala, a woman who has been living with HIV for 13 years, told a news conference in Nairobi. "We want this case dropped," she said. "If we die because affordable generic drugs aren't available, where will they sell the drug? If profits are going to be put before peoples' lives then we have a serious problem."

Novartis argues that the principle of intellectual property protection must be safeguarded if innovation is to flourish.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Where did he say it was a cheap cotton T-shirt? Looking at Gap.com: CS Home, you'll see that the (PRODUCT) Red T-shirts are $28, which is still expensive, but not THAT bad. He must have been referring to the "officer shirt" which is $88.

yep. great shirt, but the price for a semi broke college student is a little nuts. Heh, hence why I like trying on semi-expensive to expensive clothes on so that I know what to look forward to when i get some monies

alex