Response to Max's post on Product (RED)

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?

Product (RED)

Can a partnership with Product (RED) improve Gap's image? My first thought was of course it would, but after considering the labor laws that Gap has a record of violating I can see it having a negative effect.  Most people are happy buying products from companies that will send portions of their profits to charity. However, those same people may feel different when they hear that the product they are buying is made in a sweatshop. I know that I would not be okay with buying from a company that uses factories which violate labor laws. Gap would have to fix their image before they can think about improving it. They would have to let potential customers know that they a through ignoring labor laws in order to regain support. Gap has been fighting this criticism by releasing Social Responsibility Reports on factories in over fifty countries, but nearly half of them failed inspection as recently as 2005. This is not something that will encourage me to purchase their products, or should it encourage anyone else too. They may just be trying to make people forget about their labor issues by partnering with Product (RED) in an attempt to better their name. I could see that as a good possibility. They may not be able to meet their quota without violating labor laws, therefore they are using the charity to take attention away from their issues. Also, if people see that they are trying to make a committment to social responsibility then they may be more inclined to reconsider their decision not to buy Gap products.

Would a company really risk using a charity like Product (RED) to cover up for it's poor image? Couldn't it be catastrophic for the business, like ruining it's reputation for good?