Email campaign to Apple give MORE !

[u2trinity]

Should U2 fans email Apple to increase the amount they
give to the Red Campaign ?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

No.

 

[The Disciple]

NO. B glad they're participating, period.

 

[J_NP]

Start 1st with Am Express

I mean

1- Apple bein on it is great
2- The Fact that are the ipods on it , it's just brilliant
3- 10 from 199 , it's like 5% off

Since Am Express is only 1% , if manage with Am Exp , then maybe ...

 

[Liesje]

1- Apple bein on it is great
2- The Fact that are the ipods on it , it's just brilliant
3- 10 from 199 , it's like 5% off

Apple doesn't pocket anywhere NEAR $199 per nano. The cost of the product has to cover the cost of materials, labor, distribution, packaging, and marketing. Profit is not the same as retail cost.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Nice thread.

 

[Axver]

Yeah, how dare Apple give some money to charity. They should give more! And more! And more! And forever more!

Why don't you use your time more productively and try to convince companies presently doing stuff-all to actually give some of their profit, rather than bothering a company that's taking steps in the right direction?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't think anyone or any company should give anything to charity. It goes against the laws of nature - the weak die.

 

[Bonochick]

At least Apple is doing SOMETHING. Instead of people being unhappy with the amount being contributed, just be pleased that they have decided to step up in some way.

I guess Apple just can't win, eh?

 

[ntalwar]

NO. B glad they're participating, period.

I don't think an email is needed. However, participating in the RED campaign is actually a privilege, not pure charity as some believe. The profit margin on iPods is quite robust, as their financial reports indicate - much more than $10. The campaign will probably produce a net increase in Apple's sales and profits due to the free publicity. So it's not the same as when individuals donate to charity, which results in a net negative cash flow. I'm sure many more companies would like to participate in this campaign.

 

[U2Man]

I'm sorry, but how much Apple donates to the RED campaign is Apple's decision and only Apple's decision. If you think they're being stingy then donate the 300$ you were about to spend on an iPod to the RED campaign instead, or blame Bono for allowing companys to use the RED logo, even though they don't donate more per product they sell.

 

[ntalwar]

I'm sorry, but how much Apple donates to the RED campaign is Apple's decision and only Apple's decision.

Actually it's most likely a negotiated amount between the company and the campaign. The RED campaign has a certain credibility to maintain, and too small an amount (e.g. $1) per product sold could threaten the reputation of the entire campaign, and even ruin it.

 

[U2Man]

it seems like even 10 times that amount has the same effect.

 

[ntalwar]

I guess it's seen as relative - The Gap is donating 50% of sales and Apple is donating 5% of sales.

 

[U2Man]

The Gap is only donating 50% from their sales of RED products.

There's no way Apple could donate 50% of the sales from iPods, not even if they wanted to.

Also, it is quite funny how easily Gap has improved their image now, apparently. Has anyone read Naomi Klein's No Logo? Her description of the way The Gap has made their money isn't nice at all, I tell you. Slave factories all over South East Asia, children down to the age of eight working there, the workers are not allowed to leave the factory, payment that they cannot even pay their food with...

Have you guys considered that The Gap is doing this because they have an image problem that Apple doesn't have?

 

[U2Man]

also, since this is a much wider discussion that has nothing to do with technical issues, i think this thread should be moved back, or maybe to FYM.

 

[ntalwar]

The Gap is only donating 50% from their sales of RED products.

There's no way Apple could donate 50% of the sales from iPods, not even if they wanted to.

Also, it is quite funny how easily Gap has improved their image now, apparently. Has anyone read Naomi Klein's No Logo? Her description of the way The Gap has made their money isn't nice at all, I tell you. Slave factories all over South East Asia, children down to the age of eight working there, the workers are not allowed to leave the factory, payment that they cannot even pay their food with...

Have you guys considered that The Gap is doing this because they have an image problem that Apple doesn't have?

Yes - Apple is donating 5% of sales from the one RED iPod nano only. And obviously the shirt has a higher profit margin than an iPod. However, iPod accessories have a very high margin.

Apple does in fact have its own labor controversy with iPods - just search the net for "ipod labor"

 

[U2Man]

all major multinational companies have had controversies and image problems, whether that's abusing their workers, polluting or cooperating with brutal regimes. However, I do think that among the general public, the textile industry has a bigger image problem than Apple.

But of course, Apple is doing this to improve their image and sell more products too. That's the idea of the Red campaign, so you cannot blame any of these companies. If you think their agenda is way too palpable, you can choose not to buy their products. Any other kind of attempt at intervening in their decision process is silly, imo.

 

[ntalwar]

That's the idea of the Red campaign, so you cannot blame any of these companies. If you think their agenda is way too palpable, you can choose not to buy their products. Any other kind of attempt at intervening in their decision process is silly, imo.

Although I won't be participating in a campaign, I support the rights of others to do so. That's how change occurs frequently - by letting one's opinion be known. I see nothing wrong with telling one's opinion to politicians, corporations, etc.

 

[U2Man]

well, yes. if you want to protest a company's abusing of workers, polluting, or cooperating with dictators. in this case, protesting publicly or privately would even be the right thing to do. but we were talking about their decision about how much to donate to a charity organization. and that is indeed their own decision.

 

[Bonochick]

also, since this is a much wider discussion that has nothing to do with technical issues, i think this thread should be moved back, or maybe to FYM.

Well, it really has nothing to do with U2, so I don't want to put it back in EYKIW...but I like the FYM suggestion.

 

[verte76]

I'm just glad that Apple is participating.

 

[ntalwar]

I'm just glad that Apple is participating.

They should - it adds to their bottom line.

 

[Liesje]

They should - it adds to their bottom line.

Right. Personally, I am fine with them contributing "only" $10 per iPod. The POINT of (RED) was to establish a model that proves you CAN be profitable while still being charitable and practicing fair trade. There are already gazillions of companies that do things like sell products made by poor craftsmen and women in Africa and Asia and then donate most of the profits back into charities and relief programs. Our church has had a store like this for over a decade now. (RED) is different because making profit is one of the goals.

Personally, I'd like to see them eventually move away from the novelty items and into consumable goods markets. It may not seem like it on a U2 forum, but MOST people were not going to already buy expensive clothes from the Gap, $200 sun glasses, or yet another iPod. How about the stuff we really do buy for use on a daily basis?

 

[redhotswami]

Also, it is quite funny how easily Gap has improved their image now, apparently. Has anyone read Naomi Klein's No Logo? Her description of the way The Gap has made their money isn't nice at all, I tell you. Slave factories all over South East Asia, children down to the age of eight working there, the workers are not allowed to leave the factory, payment that they cannot even pay their food with...

Okay good I'm glad someone else remember this. I was really thrown when I found out GAP was participating, (LOVE No Logo, btw). I remember the boycotts and protests quite well. I haven't shopped there in ages.

But I guess I can't criticize them for wanting to change their ways.

 

[Liesje]

Okay good I'm glad someone else remember this. I was really thrown when I found out GAP was participating, (LOVE No Logo, btw). I remember the boycotts and protests quite well. I haven't shopped there in ages.

But I guess I can't criticize them for wanting to change their ways.

Yeah, I was originally very surprised as well. I remember calling them hypocrites. A friend told me they've been cleaning up their act for the past few years, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ntalwar]

Right. Personally, I am fine with them contributing "only" $10 per iPod. The POINT of (RED) was to establish a model that proves you CAN be profitable while still being charitable and practicing fair trade.

But RED didn't necessarily pioneer that approach. 3M has had the campaign with pink notes for breast cancer research for example. Although they donate a portion of sales, it has increased the bottom line for 3M quite a bit. $10 is better than nothing, but the issue I have with it is that they receive more than that amount back in free advertising, a free Bono endorsement (any company would pay millions for that), and increased iPod/accessory sales, while trying to establish a caring, charitable image. Some have asked why consumers don't just donate to the charity. The same should be asked of the corportations - why they need to tie their contributions to associations with hip celebrities and product sales.

 

[U2Man]

But RED didn't necessarily pioneer that approach. 3M has had the campaign with pink notes for breast cancer research for example. Although they donate a portion of sales, it has increased the bottom line for 3M quite a bit. $10 is better than nothing, but the issue I have with it is that they receive more than that amount back in free advertising, a free Bono endorsement (any company would pay millions for that), and increased iPod/accessory sales, while trying to establish a caring, charitable image. Some have asked why consumers don't just donate to the charity. The same should be asked of the corportations - why they need to tie their contributions to associations with hip celebrities and product sales.

Apple doesn't email us asking us to donate anything.

 

[U2Man]

They should - it adds to their bottom line.

but that's the whole idea of the RED campaign!

 

[Liesje]

But RED didn't necessarily pioneer that approach. 3M has had the campaign with pink notes for breast cancer research for example. Although they donate a portion of sales, it has increased the bottom line for 3M quite a bit. $10 is better than nothing, but the issue I have with it is that they receive more than that amount back in free advertising, a free Bono endorsement (any company would pay millions for that), and increased iPod/accessory sales, while trying to establish a caring, charitable image. Some have asked why consumers don't just donate to the charity. The same should be asked of the corportations - why they need to tie their contributions to associations with hip celebrities and product sales.

But how would they get around that? The campaign was Bono's idea, but you'd rather he not endorse it?