Comments on: Product (RED): Inspi(RED) or Ti(RED)?

By: Stephaine Moscardelli

Stephaine Moscardelli — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:17:18 +0000

I was looking for this perspective in my research, and I’m glad that i found your blog. I hope you don’t mind that I refer for this URL in my own blogging?

By: sandrar

sandrar — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:37:14 +0000

Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. Cheers! Sandra. R.

By: Best Practices for Embedded Philanthropy « The Philanthropic Family

Best Practices for Embedded Philanthropy « The Philanthropic Family — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:58:53 +0000

[...] You’ve probably participated in embedded philanthropy. A few examples of embedded philanthropy from elsewhere in this blog: A mutual fund that donates a portion of their proceeds to charity; TOMs shoes that give a pair to a child for every pair you buy; and of course the grandaddy of them all, Product (RED). [...]

By: GiveList and lists, lists, lists « The Philanthropic Family

GiveList and lists, lists, lists « The Philanthropic Family — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:22:44 +0000

[...] as an effective way to raise awareness about problems and the people working to address them (see earlier post and comments on Product(RED)), I’m more inclined to favor products that were produced by or reflect the experiences [...]

By: Savvy Charity Using Online Approach to Lure Families « The Philanthropic Family

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:27:32 +0000

[...] of Philanthropy may not be exactly age-appropriate. And many of us have mixed feelings about buying products with some cause-marketing tie-in, wanting to support causes we care about but not wanting to send the message that consumerism is [...]

By: Indulgences Sold Here–Just 1% of Your Profits! « The Philanthropic Family

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:53:00 +0000

[...] viewpoint expressed in this BusinessWeek article is the embodiment of the downside I described in my post last week on Product(RED). Companies should be applauded for their donations to worthy causes, but they should not be allowed [...]

By: Selfish Giving » links for 2008-07-04

Selfish Giving » links for 2008-07-04 — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:33:41 +0000

[...] Product (RED): Inspi(RED) or Ti(RED)? Money quote: “Is donating a portion of purchases to raising awareness about important causes or just allowing shallow consumers who idolize Bono to create the appearance of caring without any real commitment?” Don’t inauthentic and shallow people deserve SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “links for 2008-07-04″, url: “http://selfishgiving.com/cause-marketing-links/links-for-2008-07-04″ }); Posted in Cause Marketing Links | Comments (0) Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. [...]

By: Sharon Schneider

Sharon Schneider — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:46:00 +0000

Thanks for your comments, Dan and Kevin.

Sustainability is such a big buzzword these days and there’s certainly something to be said for reducing dependence on donations and increasing “earned” revenue of this kind.

Kevin, your comment makes me think of Product (RED) as the marijuana of charity: it’s a gateway to bigger things. Ha!

By: links for 2008-07-03 | Tactical Philanthropy

links for 2008-07-03 | Tactical Philanthropy — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:30:27 +0000

[...] Product (RED): Inspi(RED) or Ti(RED)? « The Philanthropic Family Sharon Schneider on whether it matters if philanthropic dollars are “tainted” or not. What do you think? Is philanthropy only good if it is pure? Or is the only problem with “tainted” money that there “taint enough of it”? (tags: philanthropy) [...]

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:31:29 +0000

I personally think that a promotion like Product (RED) is a positive overall. Those that are already engaged with various nonprofit causes will probably not go out and buy extra stuff just to give a portion to charity; they are already giving of themselves in time and/or money.

On the other hand, Product (RED) may open the eyes of people new to philanthropy of real needs in society. Some portion of these people could become more engaged in philanthropic causes.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if Product (RED) would give more $ to charity if it cancelled Product (RED) and simply gave its marketing budget to charity. But, over the long term, creating new philanthropists who are engaged with some cause(s) is a much more important result of these mass market campaigns.

I wonder if there are any studies on this kind of thing? And I guess the question really comes down to what is more important – the actual $ amount donated to causes or awareness/engagement? The answer to that question may be the key to this whole discussion.