Email campaign to Apple give MORE !

[Irvine511]

i dunno, i don't think it would kill Apple to give 100% of the profit on the Red iPods only.



for all the corporate welfare and tax "incentives" these companies get, we ask so little from them in return.

 

[U2Man]

trouble is that when Apple issues a product like the RED iPod, the first thing they are competing with isn't other brands, but their own product line - the ordinary iPods. and it's hard for Apple to predict how many people will choose to buy RED iPods instead of ordinary iPods. If they chose to donate 100% of the profits on the RED iPods to the RED campaign, they would risk a lower surplus and declining stock values at the end of the year - because 1) more people would buy the RED iPods instead of the ordinary iPods, 2) they wouldn't make any profits on the RED iPod. that's the last thing any company in a free market economy would want.

 

[Irvine511]

trouble is that when Apple issues a product like the RED iPod, the first thing they are competing with isn't other brands, but their own product line - the ordinary iPods. and it's hard for Apple to predict how many people will choose to buy RED iPods instead of ordinary iPods. If they chose to donate 100% of the profits on the RED iPods to the RED campaign, they would risk a lower surplus and declining stock values at the end of the year. that's the last thing any company in a free market would want.

Apple has a wide, wide variety of products, not to mention a wide, wide vareity of iPods.

i'm just not as sympathetic to their bottom line, which i think would only be minimally impacted, as many are.

also, if more people have iPods, guess what? more people are going to find a way to buy more Mac products, as the iPod, as much as i love it, is filled with many stupid "ha-ha" features that virtually force you to buy other mac products -- why the F do i have to "reconfigure" my iPod if i use a Mac at work but a PC at home?

the real bottom line is that the more people who have Mac products in their hands, regardless of the actual profits from said particular product, is going to mean more overall profit for Mac.

 

[U2Man]

Apple has a wide, wide variety of products, not to mention a wide, wide vareity of iPods.

How is this relevant? Apple, like any other company, wants to make a profit on any single product line, they have. If a product line isn't profitable, the stockholders will demand the production of it stopped.

i'm just not as sympathetic to their bottom line, which i think would only be minimally impacted, as many are.

There are people employed at Apple who will get their arses burned if what they 'think' turns out to wrong. That's why they might be more careful.

also, if more people have iPods, guess what? more people are going to find a way to buy more Mac products, as the iPod, as much as i love it, is filled with many stupid "ha-ha" features that virtually force you to buy other mac products -- why the F do i have to "reconfigure" my iPod if i use a Mac at work but a PC at home?

the real bottom line is that the more people who have Mac products in their hands, regardless of the actual profits from said particular product, is going to mean more overall profit for Mac.

I am quite sure that Apple is aware of this. After all, they could see Microsoft overtake almost the entire software market by the use of this philosophy. And you've noticed yourself. So what does this mean? Are the people in Apple's marketing division fools...or are they aware of the fact that there are other things to considerate?

 

[Irvine511]

i'm just not as sympathetic and understanding of the corporate bottom line, is all. these companies rape and pillage and get huge handouts from the government, and then when we ask them to be anything less than profit churning machines, people rush to their defense, often irrationally in my view, and we make excuses for their shoddy behavior in a way that we wouldn't do for any other entity.

i understand why Apple behaves the way it does, just like any other corporation, and all your points are fair. but i don't know why we're not only tolerant of such behavior, but we go to such great lengths to defend and justify it and even find it commendable.

 

[ntalwar]

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

Oh - he should endorse it by all means.
Just realize that a product endorsement by the world's biggest rock star (plus Oprah) is probably worth $10-$15 million per year. E.g. some athletes make that much from comapines like Nike.

Apple should donate at least that amount back. Perhaps they will - it remains to be seen.
Instead of going for the most "hip" companies, which the RED campaign seems to be doing, they should consider generosity as a larger factor.

 

[ntalwar]

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

Well if it is, then the messages are a bit misleading. Donating a portion of excess profit is like someone offering you ten thousand dollars for free, if you donate three thousand of it to charity. After 9/11 some firms donated as much as $10 million to the victims' families fund - no strings attached. That's real charity.

 

[Se7en]

why the F do i have to "reconfigure" my iPod if i use a Mac at work but a PC at home?

it's just like any other firewire/usb hard drive. if the drive has been formatted on a mac first, a windows computer will not recognize it. if you format it on a pc, you should be able to use it on both computers with no problems.

more importantly, does anyone else see the irony in trying to cure a symptom with the illness?

 

[Liesje]

Oh - he should endorse it by all means.
Just realize that a product endorsement by the world's biggest rock star (plus Oprah) is probably worth $10-$15 million per year. E.g. some athletes make that much from comapines like Nike.

Apple should donate at least that amount back. Perhaps they will - it remains to be seen.
Instead of going for the most "hip" companies, which the RED campaign seems to be doing, they should consider generosity as a larger factor.

I see your point, but I've always felt that no one deserves tens of millions a year for endorsements. They should endorse things because they really DO support them, like Bono has always done FOR FREE. I don't think free endorsements are the problem with endorsements. When hundreds of millions are starving every day NO photo op should be worth $10 million. I support the way that (RED) is being endorsed; it's something I always hoped to see. If anybody owes anyone anything as far as endorsements are concerned, it's the people pocketing the millions that should be giving it all to charity.

 

[U2Man]

Well if it is, then the messages are a bit misleading. Donating a portion of excess profit is like someone offering you ten thousand dollars for free, if you donate three thousand of it to charity. After 9/11 some firms donated as much as $10 million to the victims' families fund - no strings attached. That's real charity.

what bono & co. behind the RED campaign have realized is that the amount of "real charity" in this world is far from enough to solve this problem, and if bono thought that, he would (rightfully) be accused of being extremely naive. instead they try to use the mechanisms of the free market to help africa. and the idea is to give the companies some incentives to donate. and yes, it's about improving their image and ultimately their bottom line. and so what? why does it matter that the RED companies are improving their bottom line at the same time? isn't the most important thing that money is donated to the cause? money that wouldn't have been donated otherwise.

 

[ntalwar]

and yes, it's about improving their image and ultimately their bottom line. and so what? why does it matter that the RED companies are improving their bottom line at the same time? isn't the most important thing that money is donated to the cause? money that wouldn't have been donated otherwise.

Yes, but the companies should be selected based on how much they can potentially donate and not according to how hip, cool, or sexy their products are. There are probably several comapies out there that can donate more than Apple. A goal of the campaign should also be to maximize the amount of money raised. Companies that are donating only a token amount should be excluded.

 

[U2Man]

Yes, but the companies should be selected based on how much they can potentially donate and not according to how hip, cool, or sexy their products are. There are probably several comapies out there that can donate more than Apple. A goal of the campaign should also be to maximize the amount of money raised. Companies that are donating only a token amount should be excluded.

well, not according to the people that are behind the RED campaign. what is it really that you want to protest?

excluding apple from this campaign will not make the amount of money raised any bigger.

i'm still not sure that you have understood the idea of the RED campaign. the RED logo itself is supposed to be considered hip, cool and sexy.

 

[ntalwar]

well, not according to the people that are behind the RED campaign. what is it really that you want to protest?

excluding apple from this campaign will not make the amount of money raised any bigger.

Do you work for Apple or something? It seems as if you care more about benefiting the multi-billion dollar Apple corporation than the Global Fund.

 

[U2Man]

Do you work for Apple or something? It seems as if you care more about benefiting the multi-billion dollar Apple corporation than the Global Fund.

so because you get the idea behind the RED campaign and understand it's limitations, you MUST work for Apple? I see.

To answer your question: no. and believe me, i don't care how much money apple makes. YOU seem to care a lot, though.

 

[ntalwar]

YOU seem to care a lot, though.

Potential consumers(like me) of RED products should care about how much is going to the charity, and how much is going to the company. When I donate to a charity, I look at the overhead rates of the charity, for example, and avoid those with high overhead. I want to know not only that I am "helping", but how much I am helping.

 

[anitram]

Potential consumers(like me) of RED products should care about how much is going to the charity, and how much is going to the company. When I donate to a charity, I look at the overhead rates of the charity, for example, and avoid those with high overhead. I want to know not only that I am "helping", but how much I am helping.

You have a recourse - don't buy RED products if you think the overheads are too high.

 

[U2Man]

Potential consumers(like me) of RED products should care about how much is going to the charity, and how much is going to the company. When I donate to a charity, I look at the overhead rates of the charity, for example, and avoid those with high overhead. I want to know not only that I am "helping", but how much I am helping.

...and you cannot claim that apple is hiding this information from you here. if they did, this thread probably wouldn't exist. as anitram said, and as I have been saying before in this thread: if you think apple is being stingy and that their strategy is too palpable and rotten, then just don't buy their iPods. it's your decision, just like it's apple's decision how much they want to donate to the red campaign.

 

[ntalwar]

...and you cannot claim that apple is hiding this information from you here. if they did, this thread probably wouldn't exist. as anitram said, and as I have been saying before in this thread: if you think apple is being stingy and that their strategy is too palpable and rotten, then just don't buy their iPods. it's your decision, just like it's apple's decision how much they want to donate to the red campaign.

Fine - I can make a decision whether or not to buy the ipod, but I can also discuss why I am not buying one or anything else related to the topic. This is after all, a discussion board.

 

[U2Man]

i don't think anyone told you otherwise.