Product (RED) on Ebay already...

[Clawgrabber]

the funniest part is that the more the "scalpers" buy these items to sell, the more the Gap will restock their inventory, and the lower the resale price will get.

these arent limited edition items, that is what is important. they will be restocking and even introducing new items and products all throughout the next fiscal quarter.

if anyone goes to a store carrying Red products and can't find what they want because they are sold out, just check back in a week, ask a sales person when the next shipment will be in.

the salesperson even offered to take my name and call me when they got more messenger bags in stock.

THESE ITEMS ARE LIKE ANY OTHER. THEY ARE NOT COLLECTOR'S ITEMS. THEY ARE NOT RARE. THEY ARE EVERYWHERE.

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

I don't see how they are profiting off a charity. It's just a shirt at this point - the charity will get the money. EDUN shirts and non-RED shirts are also available on ebay.

I know that the charity received the money but why should people profit off of this.

 

[drumkeeran]

I went into my local GAP last night. The stock was very low. So I asked the manager if they would get more, and more products as well, since the selection was only about ten of the products. She said that they would definitely be getting restocks and adding products, but that they would come in "piecey".

I bought a "desi(red)" red T (Penelope Cruz) and a red bead/leather bracelet and three pins for my kids. I was not going to buy the "hamme(red)" T for my 11 year old son. Not really PC. But I think the program will work. My kids watched the Oprah show with me and got very excited about the way to help kids in Africa, by buying things we would normally buy anyways.

I'm a big supporter of capitalism, since by buying things we support workers in all sorts of places. We're a global marketing village.

BTW - I hope those filthy pig capitalists selling the stuff on Ebay are sending their checks directly to the African Well Fund. Well, you never know...one can always HOPE. That wouldn't be too bad now would it It would certainly put us judgemental pri*#(
in our place

 

[ntalwar]

I know that the charity received the money but why should people profit off of this.

Corporations are also profiting from it. Apple, Motorola, etc. are making money as well. I don't see a difference.

 

[u2wedge]

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.

post links so we can address this as needed. and what is more likely is that some of this stuff is counterfeit so no one is getting anything except the scam operation making the fake stuff.

 

[Jeannieco]

But isn't it the peoples problems that they are bidding one something on Ebay?

I knoe where you're coming from but still even if GAP sold out everywhere of those shirts? Wouldn't you want the shirt?

I still think as long as Africa gets the money it shouldn't be any of our business what other people want to do with the shirts unless you want to buy the shirt..

That's just brilliant. You want to make a profit off of something that is supposed to be benefitting the sick and poorest people on this planet. That's disturbing. If you turned around and took your profit and gave it to the ONE campaign that's another story! But this IDEA is not yours to profit from. It's like a sacred contract between the DATA leaders and us. Where is your integrity?

 

[tpsreports2424]

Before i start this..I am NOT one of the people selling that stuff on Ebay...I haven't even been to GAP yet..

But the point is that you aren't stealing or shoplifting the item then put it on Ebay, as long as Africa gets the money from the sell what's the matter? It's an item that has already been sold from GAP and the money has already been taken to Africa..Why do you care if someone tries to make a profit? The person isnt even stealing

 

[tpsreports2424]

You want to make a profit off of something that is supposed to be benefitting the sick and poorest people on this planet.

The person isn't stealing!

The shirt has already been sold!

 

[JCOSTER]

People aren't stealing from anywhere. The whole point being is that people bought these shirts to be sold on ebay to make money for themselves, if the person selling the shirts states they will be sending the money to the global fund, then all the more power to them. Its highly unlikely though that the ebayers are selling the items for charity.

 

[Jeannieco]

The person isn't stealing!

The shirt has already been sold!

Yes, I know, but the PRINCIPLE of it lacks integrity. If you take the profit you make by re-selling it and donate it to another charity that's another story. But the fact is you are taking a great IDEA that is not yours and making money off for your own use.

Yes, once you buy something it is your do with as you please, but like I said, it's an integrity thing, and if you don't understand that's really too bad.

carry on..... whatever dude.

 

[Popmartijn]

That's just brilliant. You want to make a profit off of something that is supposed to be benefitting the sick and poorest people on this planet. That's disturbing.

Why? Because it is brilliant: make a profit off something and have it benefit the sick and poorest people on the planet. That is RED for you. Now, some are making a larger profit than others, but it is still benefitting the sick and poorest people on this planet.

But this IDEA is not yours to profit from. It's like a sacred contract between the DATA leaders and us. Where is your integrity?

Erm, sacred contract? Integrity? And why can't someone profit from this idea? You make a profit and you make money go (indirectly) to charity. What's the big deal about it?

 

[Popmartijn]

Yes, I know, but the PRINCIPLE of it lacks integrity. If you take the profit you make by re-selling it and donate it to another charity that's another story. But the fact is you are taking a great IDEA that is not yours and making money off for your own use.

Who owns this idea? Is this person getting royalties from it? Can others use this idea (oh sorry, pardon me: IDEA)?
I think Gap (and the other organisations) don't mind that people buy their product to resell it on the Internet for inflated prices. It's only temporary, it's small scale and the sale is made. They got the money they wanted, so what?

Yes, once you buy something it is your do with as you please, but like I said, it's an integrity thing, and if you don't understand that's really too bad.

What's the integrity in capitalism? This whole thing was thought out because there is so much integrity lacking in the world. This is making charities profit from capitalism. Which hopefully will be an even bigger success than integrity.

 

[Jeannieco]

Why? Because it is brilliant: make a profit off something and have it benefit the sick and poorest people on the planet. That is RED for you. Now, some are making a larger profit than others, but it is still benefitting the sick and poorest people on this planet.



Erm, sacred contract? Integrity? And why can't someone profit from this idea? You make a profit and you make money go (indirectly) to charity. What's the big deal about it?

Because the idea is not yours!!! The concept is not YOURS to make money off of. But like I said if you don't have a problem with that or you don't understand,that's your own judgement. It's a principle thing... a "grey area" if you will. But for me, it's as clear as night and day. ...... sorry you don't see that.

It's like taking a CD of copyrighted music that you purchased and then reselling the music YOU did not make at a profit on Ebay. Ofcourse you can't do that because of copyright laws.
If the RED merchandise was copyrighted perhaps this would not be an issue. Do you see where I am coming from?

 

[Jeannieco]

What's the integrity in capitalism? This whole thing was thought out because there is so much integrity lacking in the world. This is making charities profit from capitalism. Which hopefully will be an even bigger success than integrity.

That makes no sense.

 

[Popmartijn]

It's like taking a CD of copyrighted music that you purchased and then reselling the music YOU did not make at a profit on Ebay. Ofcourse you can't do that because of copyright laws.

Actually, that's completely legal. Look at all the used CDs that are on sale on eBay. Some early editions, limited editions (golddiscs!), deluxe edition etc. sell for much more than they costed in the shops. And that's legal. You bought it and you have the right to resell it.

If the RED merchandise was copyrighted perhaps this would not be an issue. Do you see where I am coming from?

No, because copyright has nothing to do with it. I think that RED merchandise is copyrighted. I hope it is, so they can control the brand. When it is copyrighted then not every company can make a RED product (and not have a portion go to charity). Then you can get the situation that Hummer is going to produce a RED Hummer (or Wal-Mart having RED specials, McDonalds having a RED burger, etc.). And I'm certain they don't want that to happen.

 

[Popmartijn]

That makes no sense.

Then think about it.
Why did they come up with the RED campaign? What's wrong with the system of giving to charity?

 

[JCOSTER]

product red .....I think is copyrighted.

 

[Jeannieco]

Then think about it.
Why did they come up with the RED campaign? What's wrong with the system of giving to charity?

Nothing is wrong with the RED Campaign. It's brilliant. It belongs to BONO and BOBBY SHRIVER . They set up the system so proceeds go to the GLOBAL FUND to aid Africa. They are not profitting from this.
The money you are making DOES NOT go to the GLOBAL FUND. You are profitting from that idea using the money for whatever and to me that's wrong. It's their brain child, not yours. If you can't see that then...... whatever.

 

[tpsreports2424]

Okay the fact that people are trying to make a profit is their business, if Gap, Bono and Bobby want to raise the price they can.

 

[Popmartijn]

Nothing is wrong with the RED Campaign. It's brilliant. It belongs to BONO and BOBBY SHRIVER . They set up the system so proceeds go to the GLOBAL FUND to aid Africa. They are not profitting from this.

And since you quoted it, could you please also answer my question. Why RED? What's wrong with giving to charity?

The money you are making DOES NOT go to the GLOBAL FUND. You are profitting from that idea using the money for whatever and to me that's wrong. It's their brain child, not yours. If you can't see that then...... whatever.

You? Me?

 

[Jeannieco]

And since you quoted it, could you please also answer my question. Why RED? What's wrong with giving to charity?

Why Red? What are you saying??? Sorry I don't understand you....
We are talking about what you do AFTER you purchase the items which SOMEONE else CREATED. The initial purchase is NOT a problem. It's what YOU do afterwards. I would have a problem doing this. You are re-selling someone else idea.
I don't know how many times I have to say this.....

Anybody Help?? JCOSTER??

 

[Clawgrabber]

dude... you are so sorely missing the point.
there is nothing wrong with giving to charity. it is encouraged.

but surprise! not everyone does it or wants to.

By creating a popular and fashionable line of products at available at many high end and large scale corporate retail outlets, they have created products that people WANT TO BUY, all of which when sold will send some percentage of the profit to the Globabl Fund.

A massive amount of money will go to the Global Fund as a result, because we are appealling to American's interest: PRODUCTS

SUnglasses, jackets, shirts, bags, phones, ipods, ETC ETC ETC....

people who will never give to charity will buy these products because they are FASHIONABLE, COOL, etc

that is a huge amount of money going to the fund.
Charity is fine, but it is a limited system. I am so tired of people saying "Well then why not just GIVE money to those less fortunate?"

Well, for many reasons. 1. you still can. 2. not everyone wants to 3. Many Americans dont see Africa as a big enough problem to give to 4. THIS RED THING will account for a HUGE amount of money that will actually do good 5. OPRAH OPRAH OPRAH OPRAH

if she even says a book title on her show, it jumps to number 1 on the charts. SHE WENT ON A RED SHOPPING SPREE FOR AN ENTIRE EPISODE...

these products are going to be hugely popular. I stood at the gap yesterday as customers literally flooded in and watched the salesperson ask each person "are you an oprah watcher" EVERY ONE OF THEM SAID YES...

this product line is now a huge part of the american consumer's mindset, and these products are selling big, and they will only sell more as the products reach the store.

lets be realistic. you and i both know that of that torrent of people flooding into the gap, a large majority has never even thought of giving to charity, let alone the African Global Fund.

THis is a bid Idea, and it is working
Charity is the status quo, and i always encourage new ways of getting aid to these people.

 

[Jeannieco]

dude... you are so sorely missing the point.
there is nothing wrong with giving to charity. it is encouraged.

but surprise! not everyone does it or wants to.

By creating a popular and fashionable line of products at available at many high end and large scale corporate retail outlets, they have created products that people WANT TO BUY, all of which when sold will send some percentage of the profit to the Globabl Fund.

A massive amount of money will go to the Global Fund as a result, because we are appealling to American's interest: PRODUCTS

SUnglasses, jackets, shirts, bags, phones, ipods, ETC ETC ETC....

people who will never give to charity will buy these products because they are FASHIONABLE, COOL, etc

that is a huge amount of money going to the fund.
Charity is fine, but it is a limited system. I am so tired of people saying "Well then why not just GIVE money to those less fortunate?"

Well, for many reasons. 1. you still can. 2. not everyone wants to 3. Many Americans dont see Africa as a big enough problem to give to 4. THIS RED THING will account for a HUGE amount of money that will actually do good 5. OPRAH OPRAH OPRAH OPRAH

if she even says a book title on her show, it jumps to number 1 on the charts. SHE WENT ON A RED SHOPPING SPREE FOR AN ENTIRE EPISODE...

these products are going to be hugely popular. I stood at the gap yesterday as customers literally flooded in and watched the salesperson ask each person "are you an oprah watcher" EVERY ONE OF THEM SAID YES...

this product line is now a huge part of the american consumer's mindset, and these products are selling big, and they will only sell more as the products reach the store.

lets be realistic. you and i both know that of that torrent of people flooding into the gap, a large majority has never even thought of giving to charity, let alone the African Global Fund.

THis is a bid Idea, and it is working
Charity is the status quo, and i always encourage new ways of getting aid to these people.

Thank you for explaining that! Something tells me he still won't get it!

 

[Liesje]

Also, Gap, AmEx, Armani, Apple, whoever will STILL be profiting. RED proves that you can give people what they would already buy while being able to give to charity AND make a profit. It's a win-win-win situation. No one is left out; everyone gets what they want. People get cool stuff, companies get money, and the Global Fund gets donations.

I've no comment on the eBay thing except I'm not sure why anyone would pay for for something they could get from Gap for the regular price? Maybe 25 years from now I'd be interested in paying more for some vintage RED, but right now I could go to a Gap store, or gap.com and get the same thing for less.

 

[Jeannieco]

Also, Gap, AmEx, Armani, Apple, whoever will STILL be profiting. RED proves that you can give people what they would already buy while being able to give to charity AND make a profit. It's a win-win-win situation. No one is left out; everyone gets what they want. People get cool stuff, companies get money, and the Global Fund gets donations.

Exactly. It's a brilliant idea. It's set up by these wonderful people so the general public is the consumer, not the vendor!

 

[ntalwar]

Steve Jobs is also profiting every time a RED iPod is sold, probably moreso than an ebay seller. A portion of the proceeds is donated, not all.

 

[Jeannieco]

Steve Jobs is also profiting every time a RED iPod is sold, probably moreso than an ebay seller. A portion of the proceeds is donated, not all.

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.

 

[ntalwar]

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.

The same argument can be applied to justify ExxonMobil's $10 billion profit. Because they are a huge oil company, they deserve to reap the huge profits.

If ebay can make up for shortages or function as a substitute for people who live far away from malls, it is providing a service. I don't see the logic behind why ebay sellers should be made to donate to charity twice - once when they bought the product at the store, and again when they sold it on ebay.

 

[Jeannieco]

The same argument can be applied to justify ExxonMobil's $10 billion profit. Because they are a huge oil company, they deserve to reap the huge profits.
If ebay can make up for shortages or function as a substitute for people who live far away from malls, it is providing a service.
I don't see the logic behind why ebay sellers should be made to donate to charity twice - once when they bought the product at the store, and again when they sold it on ebay.

<<The same argument can be applied to justify ExxonMobil's $10 billion profit.>>>

No it can't. That is not the point. Capitalism in general is not the issue.
We are talking about RED and those involved in that puzzle as originally instigated.

<<<If ebay can make up for shortages or function as a substitute for people who live far away from malls, it is providing a service.>>>

If people have access to EBAY online then they also have access to GAP.com and can purchase directly from the vendor as orignally intended.

<<< I don't see the logic behind why ebay sellers should be made to donate to charity twice - once when they bought the product at the store, and again when they sold it on ebay. [/B][/QUOTE]>>

Nobody said they had to donate to charity twice. People are selling on EBAY for their own selfish greed, thus breaking the cycle as I describe above previously. If they took the profits after selling on EBAY and gave those profits to the GLOBAL FUND, then GOOD on them. But you and I know that is not happening.

 

[DrTeeth]

This really is a non-issue to me. As long as the vendor on eBay buys his RED items legally, then the charity has gotten their money and the magic sacred circle is complete. Whatever a buyer does with the item after he's purchased it is his own business. If you want someone to blame in this, blame the idiots who buy this on eBay when they could have bought it for halfprice a week later.