Product (RED) on Ebay already...

[Val]

This sucks. There's always a shit or two in the bunch.
No one should buy a RED product off of Ebay.
It's just wrong.

 

[JCOSTER]

Example: I purchased my red products on Friday. I have and Inspi(RED) T shirt. The global fund got its portion.

I say to myself this item is pretty "popular" I think I will sell on ebay for say $100.

Let me rephrase the question:

What kind of person am I that I took a shirt used for charity and resold it and used the money for myself?

I personally would not be able to live with myself knowing there are needy people in the world to make a profit off of someones elses charity case.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

Example: I purchased my red products on Friday. I have and Inspi(RED) T shirt. The global fund got its portion.

I say to myself this item is pretty "popular" I think I will sell on ebay for say $100.

Let me rephrase the question:

What kind of person am I that I took a shirt used for charity and resold it and used the money for myself?

I personally would not be able to live with myself knowing there are needy people in the world to make a profit off of someones elses charity case.

Very well said JCOSTER!! I totally agree 100%

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

Profit as originally intended is not the issue.
He is the vendor, not the consumer. He created the IPOD. That's why this thing is genius.
The VENDOR wants people to come to their stores and buy RED because more than likely they will buy other stuff too. If someone buys a t-shrit second hand on ebay those profits do not go to the GLOBAL FUND and they don't generate traffic in the stores or on their websites, thereby hurting the vendor piece of this puzzle.
Purchasing and selling on EBAY HURTS the whole system in the BIG PICTURE.
RED is set up as a brilliant cycle of captitalism in which all involved as ORIGINALLY conceived benefit.
Breaking this cycle as originally intended defeats the purpose.

OMG!! THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! Again well said and what I meant to say!!

 

[randhail]

Example: I purchased my red products on Friday. I have and Inspi(RED) T shirt. The global fund got its portion.

I say to myself this item is pretty "popular" I think I will sell on ebay for say $100.

Let me rephrase the question:

What kind of person am I that I took a shirt used for charity and resold it and used the money for myself?

I personally would not be able to live with myself knowing there are needy people in the world to make a profit off of someones elses charity case.

Why wouldn't you be "able to live with yourself?" The charity does not get ripped off. You buy the shirt and the money goes to the charity, whatever happens afterwards is your own business. If someone produces their own copied shirts and passes off as the real thing, then you could argue that people are scumbags.

What if someone bought the shirt and then threw it out or used it as a dishrag? Is this better than reselling it? I don't understand the moral obligation to not sell it for more than you paid. It's a hot item and if people are willing to pay more for it, then so be it.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

Why wouldn't you be "able to live with yourself?" The charity does not get ripped off. You buy the shirt and the money goes to the charity, whatever happens afterwards is your own business. If someone produces their own copied shirts and passes off as the real thing, then you could argue that people are scumbags.

What if someone bought the shirt and then threw it out or used it as a dishrag? Is this better than reselling it? I don't understand the moral obligation to not sell it for more than you paid. It's a hot item and if people are willing to pay more for it, then so be it.

 

[xaviMF22]

Why wouldn't you be "able to live with yourself?" The charity does not get ripped off. You buy the shirt and the money goes to the charity, whatever happens afterwards is your own business. If someone produces their own copied shirts and passes off as the real thing, then you could argue that people are scumbags.

What if someone bought the shirt and then threw it out or used it as a dishrag? Is this better than reselling it? I don't understand the moral obligation to not sell it for more than you paid. It's a hot item and if people are willing to pay more for it, then so be it.

 

[Jeannieco]

Why wouldn't you be "able to live with yourself?" The charity does not get ripped off. You buy the shirt and the money goes to the charity, whatever happens afterwards is your own business. If someone produces their own copied shirts and passes off as the real thing, then you could argue that people are scumbags.

What if someone bought the shirt and then threw it out or used it as a dishrag? Is this better than reselling it? I don't understand the moral obligation to not sell it for more than you paid. It's a hot item and if people are willing to pay more for it, then so be it.

BECAUSE, that person you SOLD the shirt to on EBAY could have taken that money they gave you and spent it at the GAP so a portion of the profit would go in to THE GLOBAL FUND.
Why is that so hard to understand? You are taking a potential customer (DONATION) out of the cycle so you can profit personally. That's just wrong.

 

[Jeannieco]

OMG!! THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! Again well said and what I meant to say!!

thanks for saying that! some people just don't get it. I don't know how they sleep at night and it's obvious you can't reason with them...but it's fun to try.

 

[randhail]

BECAUSE, that person you SOLD the shirt to on EBAY could have taken that money they gave you and spent it at the GAP so a portion of the profit would go in to THE GLOBAL FUND.
Why is that so hard to understand? You are taking a potential customer (DONATION) out of the cycle so you can profit personally. That's just wrong.

If that's your argument, don't get on the case of the person selling the shirt on ebay, get on the case of the person buying the shirt on ebay.

 

[Jeannieco]

If that's your argument, don't get on the case of the person selling the shirt on ebay, get on the case of the person buying the shirt on ebay.

They are both wrong!!! What came first the chicken or the egg???
and around and around they go.....

 

[namkcuR]

If Person X purchased a (RED) t-shirt retail, and the profits go to charity, and then Person X puts the shirt on EBay, he hasn't done anything morally wrong, imo. Now, Person Y, on the other hand, who goes on EBay and sees the t-shirt that Person X put there, and buys it, when Person Y could've bought the shirt retail instead and given it to charity, THAT person - PERSON Y - might be doing something somewhat immoral, but what PERSON Y does is NOT PERSON X's fault! Person X has bought the shirt retail, given money to charity, and now Person X is just trying to see if he can take advantage of the less moralistic Person Y's of the world. If a Person Y bites, Person X gets some extra dough, if not, oh well, but either way, PERSON X is not responsible for PERSON Y's actions.

 

[ntalwar]

BECAUSE, that person you SOLD the shirt to on EBAY could have taken that money they gave you and spent it at the GAP so a portion of the profit would go in to THE GLOBAL FUND.
Why is that so hard to understand? You are taking a potential customer (DONATION) out of the cycle so you can profit personally. That's just wrong.

Again, you're looking for a double donation by an ebay seller. So if the shirt changes hands 10 times, 10 donations should be made to the fund?

I think the real outrage here should be that Apple is donating only $10 for each red ipod nano to the fund. $10 on a $200 iPod is an insult and should have been rejected by the campaign.

 

[Jeannieco]

Again, you're looking for a double donation by an ebay seller. So if the shirt changes hands 10 times, 10 donations should be made to the fund?

Ok, this horse has been beaten and died way back by the saloon.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

thanks for saying that! some people just don't get it. I don't know how they sleep at night and it's obvious you can't reason with them...but it's fun to try.

You are welcome! I guess you are right.. people just don't get it and I don't know how else to explain it...

so the beating of the dead horse continues.......

 

[Jeannieco]

You are welcome! I guess you are right.. people just don't get it and I don't know how else to explain it...

so the beating of the dead horse continues.......

That is hilarious! So cute!!

 

[ntalwar]

You are welcome! I guess you are right.. people just don't get it and I don't know how else to explain it...

Yeah, I guess those of us who are good at arithmetic and finance don't "get it".

 

[Chizip]

I think the real outrage here should be that Apple is donating only $10 for each red ipod nano to the fund. $10 on a $200 iPod is an insult and should have been rejected by the campaign.

That is a little ridiuclous. Companies that take adavantage of the program, by being able to introduce a hot (RED) product, and only donating minimal profits are much more outrageous than the ebay sellers.

 

[JCOSTER]

That is a little ridiuclous. Companies that take adavantage of the program, by being able to introduce a hot (RED) product, and only giving donating profits are much more outrageous than the ebay sellers.

In Bonos eyes, $10 from the purchase of an ipod, is still a mosquito net for someone in Africa or 20 pills for someone who is ill.

 

[ntalwar]

In Bonos eyes, $10 from the purchase of an ipod, is still a mosquito net for someone in Africa or 20 pills for someone who is ill.

Still, Apple seems a bit stingy compared to some of the other companies involved. They are probably coming out way ahead financially with this.

 

[Lila64]

That is a little ridiuclous. Companies that take adavantage of the program, by being able to introduce a hot (RED) product, and only donating minimal profits are much more outrageous than the ebay sellers.

I might have to agree with you there, especially on higher ticket items such as the iPod. Do we know what portion of the proceeds Armani and Converse are donating? I think the Motorola guy on Oprah said that $17 will be donated to the cause based on the phone that sells for $79.95 (with the 2 year contract).

And I do see your point JCOSTER about the fact that $10 is still going to Africa... but it's only 5% of the retail cost

 

[Canadiens1131]

Do you believe some people?? I am soooo appalled. Maybe the product red people should have come up with a t shirt with
Ebaye(RED) on it.

So now these people go into the store buy a t for $28. Half goes to Global thats $14. They sell it on ebay for say $70. The ebayer makes out with $ 42 for every shirt they sell.

And the Global Fund has $14.00, how do people live with themselves?

Totally dihonoring and disgusting.

Damn you, free market economy!
Perhaps you'd prefer waiting in line
several hours to buy chicken for dinner.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

thanks for saying that! some people just don't get it. I don't know how they sleep at night and it's obvious you can't reason with them...but it's fun to try.

Yes I don't "get" how some t-shirt made in some sweatshop somewhere (in South East Asia probably) for less than a buck but retails for US$28.00, is hunky dory because half of the PROFIT (whatever that comes to) goes to charity but someone who re-sells said t-shirt on eBay is the scum of the earth. Or $10 from the cost of every iPod (again made in some South East Asian factory for a pittance).

Just donate to Oxfam.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

 

[Canadiens1131]

 

[u2trinity]

Where was it stated that only $10.00 of the sale of the ipod
goes to the Red campaign ?

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

Yes I don't "get" how some t-shirt made in some sweatshop somewhere (in South East Asia probably) for less than a buck but retails for US$28.00, is hunky dory because half of the PROFIT (whatever that comes to) goes to charity but someone who re-sells said t-shirt on eBay is the scum of the earth. Or $10 from the cost of every iPod (again made in some South East Asian factory for a pittance).

Just donate to Oxfam.

ok... i will only say this.. THE TSHIRTS ARE MADE IN LESOTHO, AFRICA (not a sweatshop by the way.. maybe you need to go read up on this before you come in here stirring things up and making statements like that)!! The country we are trying to save from poverty! Which with this clothing company/factory (EDUN line as well) we are providing jobs and healthcare!... Oh, and this money is going to medications to keep these people alive. Oh, but I guess that isn't important right? Who cares..right?

I foresee flaming in your future...

 

[indra]

ok... i will only say this.. THE TSHIRTS ARE MADE IN LESOTHO, AFRICA (not a sweatshop by the way.. maybe you need to go read up on this before you come in here stirring things up and making statements like that)!! The country we are trying to save from poverty! Which with this clothing company/factory (EDUN line as well) we are providing jobs and healthcare!... Oh, and this money is going to medications to keep these people alive. Oh, but I guess that isn't important right? Who cares..right?

I foresee flaming in your future...

from the Red (from the Gap stuff) site:

With 50% of the profits from sales of items going to the Global Fund to help eliminate AIDS in Africa, Gap (PRODUCT) RED is a new, limited edition collection of clothing and accessories for men and women. The collection, which is rooted in Gap’s iconic product categories such as t-shirts, hoodies, jeans, tote bags and more, features items – each badged with subtle yet distinct details inspired by (RED). The full Gap (PRODUCT) RED collection launched October 13 and is available exclusively in select Gap adult stores in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France and Japan and online in the United States at gap.com/RED. In stores, the Gap (PRODUCT) RED collection is displayed in a distinct shop-in-shop boutique. One vintage-style T-shirt from the collection is being manufactured in Lesotho, a country in Africa, from 100% African cotton. The T-shirt is made for both women and men and will be available in red, as well as a range of other classic colors.

One tshirt style. And I think people also need to be aware that according to the site 50% of the profit not the selling price, goes to the charity.

Originally posted by u2trinity
Where was it stated that only $10.00 of the sale of the ipod
goes to the Red campaign ?

click here

Right on the Red site for the ipod nano it states:

That's because Apple contributes $10 from your purchase price to the Global Fund, to help fight HIV/AIDS in Africa.

To me if you need the product (but honestly who needs any of this stuff?), then yeah, it's great that a bit of the selling price is going to charity. But if you want to give to charity, just give the whole amount you would have spent on the shirt (or other item) you don't need anyway.

Just think how much more good the $28 (or more) could do than the few bucks (if that) will eventually get there from your purchase. Leave the RED stuff for the people who won't donate otherwise.

 

[Liesje]

And I do see your point JCOSTER about the fact that $10 is still going to Africa... but it's only 5% of the retail cost

But what is the profit from each iPod nano? Retail cost is far different. Say Apple only makes $15 profit on each iPod, then the $10 looks pretty nice!

 

[ntalwar]

But what is the profit from each iPod nano? Retail cost is far different. Say Apple only makes $15 profit on each iPod, then the $10 looks pretty nice!

From 2005 (My guess is the component prices have dropped even further since a year ago.): http://ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/researcher-estimates-ipod-nano-profit-margin-at-50/

"Market research firm iSuppli has disassembled a 2GB iPod nano and estimates the $199 device’s components to cost Apple $90.18 to build and $8 to assemble, leaving a profit margin of about 50% before marketing and distribution costs.
"