What big feel-good marketing tren has passed its sell-by date? Hint: (BLANK), white and blue.)
(RED was the flavor of the month for February and now we're half-way into March.
It's a nice idea -- have some big companies help build a brand that's supposed to benefit a good cause. Can't fault the cause (RED) is aiming at: Fighting AIDS in Africa is a great thing to do. So far the returns aren't looking good, though. At best estimates $100 million has been spent to provide $25 million in funding to (RED)'s charitable foundation. That's a negative ROI. As many people have pointed out, why not just give the money you spent on marketing straight to the foundation?
The well-spun answer is this is one of those "teaching a man to fish" type things which has all sorts of collateral benefits like raising awareness. OK, that's good. But why sell product with it then? Why not have companies like Gap, Sprint and Apple just do marketing around this without actually selling something?
(RED)'s brand promise it will use the excesses of consumerism to improve the lot of those for whom those excesses are a wild dream. So far that means buy a t-shirt (or whatever). That brand promise is self-contradictory and that's why consumers aren't buying. Shopping to help the poor is like having sex for virginity. If you really wanted to achieve your goal you wouldn't be taking the action in the first place. Why not develop a brand to educate folks that the less stuff they consume the more they have to give back to others?
Like, oh, BuyLessCrap.org?
I'm agree with your analysis, but how about your sources ?
Posted by: viagra online | February 16, 2010 at 12:33 PM