Another Interesting IMC Class

Every class, we go over some current events concerning marketing. Today we talked about a bunch of different things, like the new WSIB spots (kinda wack, if you check them out, imo). The discussion that really caught my attention though ('cause seriously, in a three hour class, it takes more than a WSIB ad), was the new (Product) Red campaign that's been started to help raise funds and awareness for AIDS research and treatment in Africa. It's a pretty noble cause... well, at least on the surface. Companies like Apple and Motorola have released new products like a Red iPod and Red RAZR that are geared specifically towards this charity and have promised a portion of each sale to benefit African AIDS pill distribution. So what's the problem?

Well, nothing, inherently. But the discussion headed towards a debate about who were the real winners of the campaign. Yes, sure, the countries in Africa that are in the program will benefit from the money from the sale of these products, but what of the companies themselves? There was some conjecture about whether or not sales would rise, the issue of people buying things they otherwise wouldn't for the sake of charity, charity as a fashion statement, etc. So of course, it got me thinking. My initial reaction was, "If these companies want to help support this very noble cause, why do they have to take a portion of the sales of these specific sales when they can just donate a lump sum? Or even just take a cut of EVERYTHING they sell? Maybe they just want people to buy into the 'gimmick' of shelling out for the newest 'in' thing?" And to a certain degree, I'm sure that's the case. These companies are still looking to make profit, even if they're giving a portion to charity. It's the nature of the beast.

And yes, I'm sure there are good intentions. Most people want to do that 'good thing' and give to charity, but it really has become a fashion statement to be charitable. You'll see a lot of people these days wearing One or Livestrong bracelets, but for what reason? To actually support the cause or to be 'cool'? Again, I'm sure there are those out there whom genuinely wear them to support the causes, but the sad reality is that a lot of people wear it 'cause it's fashionable. So... what's the problem? Well, it's definitely a problem when people go on to something like eBay to buy a Livestrong bracelet for the sake of having one, instead of going to the actual site where the money will go to some use.

The other (potential) problem with it (if you think it is... I do) is if you do it for posterity. Someone in class spoke up saying, "Well of course people are going to want something to show for it. If they're going to give up a significant portion of money to support a charity, they're going to want people to know. They're going to want people to know that they're a good person."

... You need a bracelet or Red iPod to tell people you're a good person? ...???

I guess the long-winded point I'm trying to make here, is what are our intentions, really? To give to those in need? Or to be cool? Or both? I guess that's one of the main differences between the Christian and secular points of view. Hopefully, anyway, when we give to those in need, it's not because we want recognition, but because we just want to give. We do it because God commands us. We do it because we've been unbelievably blessed. I don't know where you stand on it, or if what I said made any sense at all, but again, hopefully you have something to think about. It has for me.