Red and Gap article response 2/5/13

I do believe a partnership with Red can improve Gap's image. Like stated in the article, Gap has been taking criticism about their factories since 2004 and partnering now with Red can take some of that heat off.  Because of this partnership, I do believe it is a sign that Gap is making a commitment to corporate social responsibility.  I believe getting all these big name brands involved with Red and their marketing pitches is genius and will really help get this product going in the right direction. I say that because let's take Gap for example; Gap has put their brand name on the product Red's t-shirts. Fans, followers, or loyal customers of Gap might buy a product Red t-shirt just because it says Gap on it, not really caring for the product Red but it will bring in income for both Red and Gap, including other brand names that do the same.

My favorite brand for clothing would probably be Nike and when I see that Nike logo on certain clothes, it makes it more appealing to me even if the shirt was made for another marketing reason like a product or charity like Red. The types of technology that have contributed to the media coverage, marketing efforts, and public discussion of the Red campaign are the different technology businesses like Apple who have come out with products that incorporated the product Red into them. Also, the website Red has set up along with how they're on Myspace launching pages to get the word out.  The celebrities like Oprah and Bono have started a media frenzy when they were seen wearing these product Red shirts and their followers and fans jumped on board. For example, Oprah's INSPI (RED) t-shirt went on to become the best-selling item in Gap’s 35-year history.  Even the bloggers and media who are opposed of this and think it's wrong have brought media attention to this product and makes me think of that expression, "there's no such thing as bad press/publicity."

I do however believe the criticism about how much money spent on marketing the campaign and how much money actually goes to the charity itself is justified. A year after the product Red's launch, only one-fourth of the money went to the charity. One hundred million being spent on marketing and only twenty five million going to the charity. I don't think that's right because the brand names and marketing pitches make a lot of money to begin with and should get a profit for putting their name out there, but shouldn't get that much more, especially since this whole thing is about the charity and selling the product Red.

Do you think the companies involved with this charity view it as an opportunity to make some more money for themselves, or to actually help out this charity?