Comments on: Red Campaign, and Smugness in General

By: wrought iron furniture

wrought iron furniture — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:08:47 +0000

I agree, people shouldn’t give to charity to get laid or feel superior to those around them. They should do it because it’s the right thing to do.

By: jonathan

jonathan — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:44:20 +0000

I think promoting good causes is simply good, even with commercial products. Even though I have doubts about Red campaign’s effectiveness and results, I still think it is a good thing.

If consumers can direct a small portion to nonprofits for the stuff they already want to buy, why not?

That’s why we created FreePledge.com. We currently have 165 affiliated retailers like Office Depot, Target, Expedia etc. Users can pick a nonprofit and every purchase generate a donation, at the same price.

We have seen users bought books for $20 a piece and donated $1; or someone bought a digital camera lens for $5000 and donated $150. If its no cost to consumers, why not?

By: Sam Clark

Sam Clark — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:51:58 +0000

I agree that we should buy less stuff and send more to fight poverty, malnutrition, and AIDs but I believe that if those that give it all can exploit the Stuff Gods to squeeze a little giving out of an otherwise selfish lifestyle then I say a big high five to the exploiters of the ‘Stuff Gods’.

By: Waiting For Sunday / Sunday Seven: Interesting links from the past week

Waiting For Sunday / Sunday Seven: Interesting links from the past week — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:15:30 +0000

[...] Red Campaign and smugness in general. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch gets humorously cynical about (Red). [...]

By: Patricia

Patricia — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:15:07 +0000

I think smugness in general is kind of silly in any capacity, so if people are acting so in some way because they’re buying Red products, I agree that it’s silly. But I don’t think you should let a few bad apples spoil the bunch (or whatever that saying is) – if it’s working to help the cause, it can’t be all bad, and lots of people have the shirts and don’t think it makes them cool (like me, as I only wear it to run or at the gym). Plus people who act smug over buying Red are probably smug over all kinds of nonsensical things – at least this way, it’s benefitting someone else.

Far worse are smug consumers who are completely ignorant about the world around them (which of course there are plenty of). At least this is a start.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:40:34 +0000

My family gave me a red iPod for Christmas. It was a nice thought, especially at that time of year. I dig the looks of the red anodized case, but I’m not hung up on the “look-at-me” factor … it’s not like the thing is strapped to my forehead. Most often, it’s tucked in a pocket, out of view.

By: Rick Curran

Rick Curran — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:14:28 +0000

I read somewhere else that over $100,000 has been spent promoting the Red campaign by all the parties involved too. That’s not a very good ROI, the money would have been better donated directly too!

By: Raja

Raja — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:21:30 +0000

The problem I have with such senseless advertising campaigns is that they leverage global epidemics for profit. While it may raise a marginal amount of money in the name of charity, I believe the longer lasting effect is just desensitization to issues that matter. It’s not a panacea, it’s profit. At my startup Fivelimes.com, we are creating a community around conscious consumerism and sustainability – where people can share there concerns free of greenwashing and such.

-r

By: Richard Hemmer

Richard Hemmer — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:48:03 +0000

While I usually am as adamant against that sort of hyped marketing charity, I think that it’s a good way to leverage consumerism for a good cause.

And Mike, just as you wrote above, if someone’s buying an iPod anyway, why not one where a certain amount will go to charity? In the end, the beneficiaries likely won’t care whether they received their money because someone wanted to get laid or not.

By: David Stone

David Stone — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:53:38 +0000

At the other side of this, would you consider it to be incorrect for a NPO to use the (red) campaign to it’s advantage, bringing in more money to do their thing?

I’d be quite happy to abuse someone’s vanity who believes they’re going to ‘get laid or feel superior’ for anothers gain (in a charitable context), if that means they are giving something when before they weren’t. No?