Would a company really risk using a charity like Product (RED) to cover up for it's poor image? Couldn't it be catastrophic for the business, like ruining it's reputation for good?
I definitely think that a company could risk using their support of a charity to cover up for it's poor image. No matter what, it could always be argued by the company that they weren't doing so; there is no concrete way to prove that a company is utilizing a charity to look good. Unless concrete proof of this were to surface, such as a record of a conversation between a high level employee and an outside source explicitly saying so, this technique wouldn't cause much backlash.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Product (RED)
Open-Ended Questions
1. Personally, I think that Gap's partnership with Product (RED) will improve its image, yet I have to agree with the critics. Gap's involvement with Product (RED) is definitely an attempt to spit-shine the company's image while continuing to do business as usual. If Gap had really wanted to do something positive, they would have spread around their donations, perhaps to other funds, or to The Global Fund itself, rather than use Product (RED) to gain publicity and a warm feeling from customers to boost sales in the long term.
2. The (RED) campaign has utilized various types of technology that has contributed to the media coverage, marketing efforts, and public discussion of the campaign. Some examples of this are getting high-profile celebrities to support the cause and partnering with companies such as Gap. By having Gap (RED) clothing, Gap gets good press and (RED) gets marketed to the public. Celebrities such as Bono and Oprah also market (RED) to the public, yet on a larger scale. "According to the Product (RED) Web site, 'Each company that becomes (RED) places its logo in the embrace and is then elevated to the power of red.'"
3. I definitely believe that the criticism of the (RED) campaign is justified. By spending 100 million of their proceeds on marketing, people would be better off directly donating to The Global Fund itself. The campaign could without a doubt lose supporters as a result of this news.
Would you donate to the (RED) cause by purchasing (RED) products? Why or why not?
1. Personally, I think that Gap's partnership with Product (RED) will improve its image, yet I have to agree with the critics. Gap's involvement with Product (RED) is definitely an attempt to spit-shine the company's image while continuing to do business as usual. If Gap had really wanted to do something positive, they would have spread around their donations, perhaps to other funds, or to The Global Fund itself, rather than use Product (RED) to gain publicity and a warm feeling from customers to boost sales in the long term.
2. The (RED) campaign has utilized various types of technology that has contributed to the media coverage, marketing efforts, and public discussion of the campaign. Some examples of this are getting high-profile celebrities to support the cause and partnering with companies such as Gap. By having Gap (RED) clothing, Gap gets good press and (RED) gets marketed to the public. Celebrities such as Bono and Oprah also market (RED) to the public, yet on a larger scale. "According to the Product (RED) Web site, 'Each company that becomes (RED) places its logo in the embrace and is then elevated to the power of red.'"
3. I definitely believe that the criticism of the (RED) campaign is justified. By spending 100 million of their proceeds on marketing, people would be better off directly donating to The Global Fund itself. The campaign could without a doubt lose supporters as a result of this news.
Would you donate to the (RED) cause by purchasing (RED) products? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)