Max believes that what Gap is doing with Product (RED) is not charity. They are keeping too much of the profit they are taking in from the t-shirts. I agree with him on this notion, I wouldn't call it much of a partnership. Max asks the question; why wouldn't Bono and Shriver accept 100% of the profits from the campaign to go directly to the cause? Or even anything above 50%? When I read this I found it surprising that Gap would offer to give that much, and even more surprising that Product (RED) would turn them down. This is what first lead me to believe that the 100% offer may have been a hoax. Gap had the media the put it out there that their offer was denied to make them seem better than they actually were. I also believe that this whole partnership is just mostly an attempt at a way to improve Gap's image as a company. Gap really wants to escape from their reputation as repeated labor law violators, and a partnership with a good cause like Product (RED) presented a good opportunity for that. Gap wants people to see that the money they spend is going to a good cause and forget about the company's troubled past. They are taking ethics completely out of the situation.
How can a company feel good about making unethical decisions such as this one? Wouldn't they fear that it would catch up to them at some point, with dire consequences?
No comments:
Post a Comment